Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:52, 12 February 2009

Brazil B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:RFChist

Numbers

According to the Misplaced Pages Brazil has:

• 35 million Portuguese
• 25 million Italians
• 12 million Germans
• 15 million Spaniards
• 4 million Slavs
• 11 million Arabs
• 1 million Lithuanians
• 295 thousand Jews

and other Caucasoid ethnicities.

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)

That's because many "pardo-brazilians" are in fact whites, because many are blond, with blue eyes and white skin, but many of those "pardo-brazilians" have some non-white parent, and now many of the white brazilians are not racists, for that they're proud of their non-white genes (mainly african) and declared themselves "pardos" (mixed-race). For that, ignoring those "stupid" or "good" brazilians, the white population of Brazil is around 70 % or 134 million people. I have known many white brazilians that think like that: they say that they're non-whites, although you see them and you say that they're whites in United States, in Brazil, in Australia, in Europe.....

Many of those "black brazilians" are in fact really "pardo-brazilians", because many of them have european ancestry even.

A much more reasonable hypothesis: many Brazilians have two "Portuguese" grandparents, one "Italian" grandparent, and one "German" grandparent... or other weird combination like that. So they are often simultaneously "Portuguese" and "Italian" and "German"... or "Polish" or "Spanish" or "Arab". And so you would get each person being counted twice, or three or four times. Or even six or seven, if we count grand-grandparents.

On the other hand, Brazil has about 190,000,000 Brazilians. There may be a small number of Portuguese or Germans, etc, but I doubt the majority of the population is made up of foreigners.

Donadio (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, because that would happen in USA too, but when the census count the "irish americans" for example, it doesn't count the americans of irish and scottish ancestry in the category of "irish americans". The categories that exist are "irish americans", scottish americans" and "scottish-irish americans".

Why you doubt the majority of the population is made up of "foreigners"?

It's ok, for you and many other Brazil is an underdeveloped country with poverty, favelas and populated by blacks, amerindians and mixed-race people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.18.40 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But, that is the kernel of the problem here. The US Census does count people by "ancestry". The Brazilian Census does not count people by ancestry. So, all these numbers are mere claims. That's the reason that these numbers are all inflated. Donadio (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, the official data about how many national and foreigners there are in Brazil.

• 169 189 026 Brazil-born Brazilians
• 173 763 foreign-born Brazilians
• 510 067 foreigners

So, I seem justified in my doubts. 99.59% of the Brazilian population is made up of non-foreigners. Donadio (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages should reflect usage and not prescribe it. Brazilians use the name "white" to describe the peoples in question here. See the article at Portuguese Misplaced Pages, 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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donadio (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 January 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

Misplaced Pages 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.Donadio (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Demography by Cities

This section consists in a list of "most white" and "least white" towns. The problem is, all these towns are very small, all of them under 50,000 inhabitants, most under 20,000, and many under 10,000. So, this is not a section on "demography by cities" (which would contrast the demography of the main cities, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília, Salvador, Porto Alegre, etc.), but a section of demographical (irrelevant) trivia. It should be either removed, or replaced by an actual discussion of Brazilian main cities' demography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donadio (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 January 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).Donadio (talk) 18:00, 15 January 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?Donadio (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Immigrants, colonists, and slaves

I have made changes in order to clearly distinguish "immigration" from other populational movements.

Immigrant is someone who goes to a different country, in order to live there, under the laws and customs of that country. Portuguese people who came to Brazil during the colonial period were not immigrants, they were colonists. They came to Brazil as owners of the land, to impose Portuguese law and customs to the land. It is a completely different thing from the Italian or German (or even Portuguese) immigrants that came to Brazil from the XIX century on.

The same would be true of Dutch and French colonists in the XVI and XVII centuries. They were not immigrants. France and the Netherlands militarily conquered parts of Brazil, and made them into French and Dutch colonies. Completely different from peaceful German or Polish immigrants.

And Africans who came to Brazil during the colonial period did not come here as immigrants either. They were forcibly brought as slaves. This should never be whitewashed by counting them among "immigrants".Donadio (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop removing informations from this article. Also, stop using your personal opinions here. This is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. We only use relieable sources here. If you think colonial Portuguese settlers and African slaves were not "immigrants", this is your personal opinion.

Moreover, you claimed Brazil had its Independece in 1922 (?). Please, read before posting. Again, to remove informations and include unsources informations in Misplaced Pages are not allowed and are vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Slaves and colonists are not immigrants. This is not personal opinion, the words have different meanings.

The information removed is irrelevant; since when the demography of Brazilian cities is the demography of a dozen small towns?

1922 was a typo, of course. Correct it.Donadio (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hegemony

The article stated, incorrectly, that the "hegemony" of Portuguese among Brazilian Whites "ended".

This is, erm, ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent. Even most "Italian Brazilians" (as Misplaced Pages wrongly calls these people) are usually of Portuguese descent (for instance, the user "Donadio" is "Italian Brazilian"... which means that he has 1 Italian - if we count Calabrian as Italian, which is a different can of worms - grandparent, and 3 "pelo-duro" - ie, colonial Portuguese - grandparents).

Miscigenation is the rule, not the exception. And this means, "Italian Brazilians", "German Brazilians", etc, are being assimilated into the much bigger "Brazilian Brazilian" society.Donadio (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support your claims? No sources, no posts. Please, stop flooding this talk page with this. Opinoso (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to do, to pick the Lista Telefônica and count Portuguese surnames vc Italian or German surnames?

In Brazil, it is impossible to separate people from Portuguese descent from People of Italian or German - or African, for what is worth - descent. A typical Brazilian is a mixture of those.

And no, you can't conclude that there are more "Italians" than "Portuguese" in Brazil from the fact that more Italians than Portuguese came to Brazil. The Portuguese came three centuries before, and they reproduced a lot before the Italians arrived.

Stop you edit war, please.Donadio (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't take a look at the Lista Telefônica, but I checked the UFSC (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina) vestibular list. For instance, of those who passed to Civil Engineering course, 20 have Portuguese surnames, 13 Italian surnames, 7 German surnames, 6 Portuguese and Italian surnames, 3 Portuguese and German surnames, 3 Italian and German surnames, 2 Polish surnames, 1 Portuguese and Japanese surnames, 1 Italian and Arabic surnames. This means, 30 people with at least partial Portuguese ancestry, and 26 with no Portuguese ancestry identifiable through their surnames.

And this is Santa Catarina, where German and Italian immigration are notoriously very important.Donadio (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a Portuguese surname does not mean this person has Portuguese ancestry. Africans and Amerindians received Portuguese surnames when they were assimilated. Also, other immigrants to Brazil had their original surnames changed to a more Portuguese surname. I have Italian ancestors who had their Italian surname changed to a Portuguese surname when they first arrived to Brazil. I also have a black ancestor who had a typical Portuguese last name. Then, your argument is failed. Please, stop with this Portuguese obsession. Opinoso (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, Opinoso. The African and Amerindians were given Portuguese last names when they converted to Catholicism (in case of the Amerindians) or received their slave master's last name (in case of the Africans). You also have male Portuguese settlers intermarrying with the females of those two groups passing which the male's Portuguese last name is passed down.

It's like saying most Americans are of British descent because most last names in the phone book is of either English, Scottish, or Welsh origin. Majority of African-Americans have British last names, but don't have British ancestry. In fact most White Americans are of German descent, then follow by the Irish, the British are third. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you two seriously arguing that a significant number of blacks were approved to University in Santa Catarina?189.27.6.23 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, having only Italian surnames does not mean that someone does not have Portuguese (or German, or Japanese) ancestors, since surnames are only transmitted on the patrilineal side... it can be only used as statistic evidence: the fact that over 50% of Civil Engineering freshmen in UFSC have Portuguese surnames only points to at least 50% of White people in Santa Catarina having at least one Portuguese ancestor. Donadio (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. First of all: a list with names of students of a university is not a reliable source to claim anything. Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources made by serious people, not personal sources made by Misplaced Pages users. Second: if you get a list with name of students from the town of Pomerode (90% of people with German descent), you will find only German surnames there. Then, will you claim that 90% of white Brazilians are of German descent because in Pomerode they all have German surnames??

And if you get a list from a school from Salvador, Bahia, all the students will have Portuguese surnames. Then will you assume they are Portuguese?? No, because most people in Salvador are blacks.

To the racist IP who thinks black people cannot be approved to an University in Santa Catarina, I think he should find a racist forum to post this comment. He should be blocked from Misplaced Pages for that pathetic comment.

I think User:Donadio did not read carefully what we and Lehoiberri wrote: Africans and Amerindians received Portuguese surnames in Brazil. Most black Brazilians (if not all) have Portuguese surnames. Silva, Santos, do Nascimento, Pereira are typical Portuguese last names, and a large number of black Brazilian have these surnames. Nobody can assume black Brazilian soccer player Pelé (real name: Edson Arantes do Nascimento) is of Portuguese descent, because his last names are Portuguese. Nobody can assume former black governor of Rio de Janeiro Benedita da Silva is Portuguese too.

And many (probably most) of those colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil did mix with Africans and Amerindians. Most of their descendants do not make up the White population of Brazil, but the black or pardo ones. It's only a matter of History and demography. The regions largely settled by colonial Portuguese are now the ones with the largest numbers of blacks and pardos. You assume most white Brazilians are descended from colonial Portuguese settlers, but you're wrong. Most of them are non-whites, mainly in the called pardo group. And the Brazilian government counts pardos as being blacks. Then, most colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil have descendants who are now counted as black by the Brazilian government. On the other hand, the regions that received the immigrants who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries concentrate the white population. Then, your argument that white Brazilians are mainly of colonial Portuguese stock is also failed.

This article is about White Brazilians. Nobody can assume these people from the University of Santa Catarina with Portuguese surnames have any Portuguese ancestry. Moreover, nobody can assume they are Whites. The fact that Santa Catarina is mostly white, does not mean these students from the University are whites. Again, this is not the place for personal opinions. Only reliable sources are accepted. Opinoso (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think it is racist to doubt that many blacks were approved to the UFSC? But this very article states that the population of Santa Catarina is 87% white, so, even if there were absolutely equal opportunities for blacks and whites, we shouldn't expect UFSC students to be more than 13% non-white.

You don't seem to understand how statistics work. A random list of Pomerode citizens will have more than 90% percent of German surnames. That's because more than 90% of Pomerode citizens have German surnames, and this in turn is because more than 90% of Pomerode citizens are of German descent. However, it says nothing about people that are not from Pomerode. And Pomerode is a town of what, about 5,000 inhabitants? A random list of citizens of Florianópolis will reflect the population of Florianópolis; if it has about 50% of Portuguese surnames, then this probably means that about 50% of Florianópolis inhabitants have Portuguese surnames. And that probably means that about 37% of Florianópolis' inhabitants are whites of Portuguese descent - taking into consideration the 13% of non-whites that we should expect. Now, Florianópolis is city of some 300,000 inhabitants, so it carries much more weight than Pomerode.

You can of course object that a list of college freshmen isn't randomic. And you would be right, it isn't. It is certainly skewed against the poorer layers of the population, who don't get to go to school. This would probably, in the context of Southern Brazil, mean that it is skewed against non-whites, and perhaps, skewed in favour of people of German descent. These skews, however, would make me think that the percent of whites of Portuguese descent among Florianópolis' citizens is higher, not lower, than that on the college freshmen list.189.27.6.23 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you talk a lot about sources, but none of the sources in the article seem to state that "the hegemony of the white Portuguese ethnicity had its end only in 1824", or even to corroborate such idea. Can you please point exactly to what source has lead you to believe this?189.27.6.23 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Donadio and this IP number the same person? Please, wake up. Until the early 19th century, the only group of Europeans who definitely settled Brazil were the Portuguese. Other Europeans who tried to establish themselves here (French, Dutch, etc) were expelled after some years. The first non-Portuguese organized group who settled Brazil and remained here forever were, actually, the Swiss immigrants of Nova Friburgo (1818). But, from 1824, Germans started to settle many areas of Southern Brazil, to the point they made up the main European group in that region. Then, the Portuguese lost their hegemony in this area of Brazil:

Hegemony: 1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. 2. leadership; predominance.

With the arrival of the Italians (1875), both Portuguese and Germans lost their hegemony in Southern Brazil and in the state of São Paulo (the most populate state of Brazil), since the Italian ancestry is the most common there. Other groups, such as Spaniards and Poles also contributed to this. Then, the Portuguese are not the main White group of many areas in Brazil since 1824, with the arrival of Germans and mainly after the 1880s, with the growth of Spanish, Italian and Polish immigration.

The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general. But they are not the hegemony since a long time ago. It's like claiming the English are still the hegemony of the White population of the United States. But, as Lehoiberri said, Germans are the main European ancestry in the USA, followerd by Irish and English in third place. Of course, in Brazil the Portuguese are still in first place, but they are not alone since 1818 when the first Swiss people settled in the mountains of Rio de Janeiro. Opinoso (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Donadio, if you keep removing informations from this article and posting the "fact tag" in informations that already have a source, I will contact an administrator once again. Also, you are posting with this IP numbers (189.27.6.23, 189.27.19.95), witch are your sockpopets, which is also not allowed here (to use sockpopets is also a vandalism). Please, stop it. Opinoso (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general."

Which, in short, means, the Portuguese are still hegemonic among white Brazilians - which has been my point since the begining. If you want to say that they are no longer hegemonic in certain regions, then say that. And give sources for the demography of such regions.

And congratulations for finally having recognised that your information on "German Brazilians" was grossly inflated. Now how about deflating the number of "Arab Brazilians", too?

Oh, and about your bureaucratic concerns. First, when anyone else provides unsourced information, you simply delete it, and make obnoxious remarks in the talk page. I am simply asking for the sources of your unsourced information. This is not vandalism.

Your "source" for the number of Italian Brazilians does not have a word about the subject. And even if it had, it is merely a commercial association; it has no authority on demographic issues.

And I don't use sockpuppets. Those IPs are my computer IPs and appear when I forget to log in or disconect for accident and don't notice it.

Stop behaving as if you were the owner of this article.Donadio (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and since you now agree that "The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general", I am restoring this information to the article. "Most White Brazilians", not "Many Brazilians".Donadio (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since, even after being blocked, you keep removing sourced informations, changing informations without discussion and causing troubles in this article, I am obligated to contact an administrator once again. Opinoso (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What sourced information, and what original research?Donadio (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

STOP trying to destroy this article. Stop manipulating the numbers. Misplaced Pages does not allow users to write their own conclusions in this article. Why are you assuming the number of 25 million Italian Brazilians is exagerated? And where did you get the number 15 million from?

Why are you trying to diminish the Italian, German and Arab-descend population of Brazil, and trying to inflate the Portuguese? Stop with this Portuguese obsession. If you have all this obsession with Portugal, there are many articles about this country in Misplaced Pages. You should write about Portuguese subjects, not about Brazilian. Git it up. I won't leave you destroy this article with your obsession. Opinoso (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to destroy anything. I am not manipulating numbers. The official data about immigration to Brazil are the IBGE data. If you think they are wrong, find a source that makes that claim, and post it alongside with the IBGE numbers.

Misplaced Pages does not allow original research. This is completely different from taking evident conclusions from the available data.

The 25,000,000 Italian descendents is exaggerated because not enough Italians arrived to Brazil to reproduce into 25,000,000 people. They were Italians, not rabbits. The same goes for the 18,000,000 people of German descent. The same goes for the 10,000,000 people of Arab descent. Those numbers are inflated; they do not match the known data about immigration to Brazil.

I am not trying to diminish anything. I'm trying to establish reliable numbers, instead of fantasies. And thanks, but I am not interested in Portugal or Portuguese culture, nor do I know enough about the subject to write about it.

Stop behaving as if you were the owner of this article.

And, oh. Stop calling people racists for no good reason. It already got you blocked twice. Donadio (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To "take evident conclusions" is the same to do original resources. And, yes, you are obsessed with Portugal. By the way, when did I call you racist? Moreover, do you have all that free time to be checking for what reasons I have been blocked before? You should learn about Italian or German immigration to Brazil, not waste time checking my account.

The Italian embassy in Brasilia claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. An embassy is the greatest representation of the Italian nation in Brazil. Are you really claiming the Italian Embassy is lying??

The site of the Italian Embassy in Brasilia says: "Italian presence in Brazil has a long tradition and goes back many years ago. Today the patricians living in the country are more than 300,000 and include, above all, more than 25 million Brazilians of Italian origin"

The ItalPlanet.com website, a notable site to Italian immigrants in the world, also reports 25 million: "Today approximately 25 million people of Italian descent live in Brazil. They are leading business tycoons and politicians. 1875-2005: 130 years of Italian history in Brazil".. Edoardo Pollastri, president of the Italian-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, is the one also reporting 25 million.

There are no sources on the Internet claiming this numbers is exaggerate. And you are posting an IBGE site as a "source", to claim there are only 15 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. The IBGE cite does not even talk about Italians in Brazil. You are taking your own conclusions, wich is not allowed, which is vandalism.

The Embassy of Lebanon is Brazil claims there are 7 million people of Lebanese descent here: "Population of migrants: 14 million (of which about 7 million are in Brazil)".

Do you have a reliable source to claim that the Italian and lebanese governments are lying and "exaggerating" about the number of people with origins in their countries? Because if there's no source, I will have to assume that you are only trying to destroy this article.

I don't know why you are doing that, you probably have personal problems with Italy and Italians, but you should assume good-faith when posting here in Misplaced Pages. I don't know from which part of Brazil you are. But you should travel more to other areas of Brazil where the immigrants had great impact. Anyway, I won't let you destroy this article with wrong information. Give it up. Opinoso (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to report your personal attacks.Donadio (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time, only write here using reliable sources, not personal opinions. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, and we don't let anyone include fake informations. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"We"? Since when you are Misplaced Pages?Donadio (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do these embassies conduct actual research on demographic data?

Their business is to represent their countries abroad, they are not scientific or demographic institutes. So the question remains; where did the embassies found their figures?Donadio (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you need to understand how sources work. ItalNet, the Câmara Ítalo-Brasileira de Comércio, and the Italian Embassy aren't three different sources. The article in ItalNet was written by the chairman of the CIBC, and the source of the information in the CIBC page is the Embassy. So there is only one source there, and it is the Embassy. And while I am not claiming they are lying, I am claiming that they are not, in themselves, a reliable source on the subject, and that they do not provide, in their site, any reliable source for the information. The same goes, with more reason, for the Lebanese Embassy.

Now, there is one reliable source about Brazilian demography that I know. It is the IBGE. Unhappily, the IBGE does not conduct research on the "ethnicity" of Brazilians. Probably because it thinks, like most Brazilians, that it is a non-issue. It does, however, keep track of the number of immigrants to Brazil. And the number of Italian immigrants to Brazil, according to them, is of about 1,500,000. Now look, the number of Italian immigrants to the United states was of about 5 million people. However, as of the year 2000, according to the US Census, there were only 15,600,000 people of Italian descent in the United States. So, can you explain how 5 million Italian immigrants to the United States would result in 15,600,000 Italian Americans, but 1.5 million Italian immigrants to Brazil would result in 25,000,000 Brazilians of Italian descent?

The only other source I could find on the ancestry of Brazilians is the Censo Étnico-Racial da USP. It gives a figure of 30.5% of people of Italian descent among USP college students. This figure is much lower than the figures usually associated with the 25 million myth (for instance, ), which come with figures up to 6 million oriundi just in São Paulo city (almost 60% of the population).

I know, you will again talk about "original research". This another concept you seem to be confusing. It may be original research to state that "there are 15 million Brazilians of Italian descent". But it is not original research to state "according to the IBGE, there were 1.5 million Italian immigrants to Brazil, and unless the IBGE is wrong, or the Italian immigrants reproduced at a much higher rate than the rest of the Brazilian population, the figure of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent seems completely exaggerated, and the IBGE data would seem to point to a maximum of 15 million such people". This is not original research; it merely follows from the data. Donadio (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, found what I was looking for. This paper, which is serious research about the issue, estimates a maximum ("irrealistic") of 25% of Brazilians of "immigrant descent" for 1980, with a most probable figure between 14.80% and 18.58%. While this does not discriminate the different national origins of immigrants, it would mean, projected into 2000, an absolute, and irrealistic, maximum at 42.5 million, and a realistic number of about 31.57 million people of all immigrant origins. Considering that Italians were 30% of all immigrants, this would mean a maximum of about 13 million and a realistic number of 10 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. Now, these numbers would probably be a little understated, since the fertility rate of Italian female immigrants to Brazil was a little bit higher than that of immigrants of other origins (though not than that of Brazilian women in general). In any case, I hope this puts to a definitive rest the tale of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent. Donadio (talk) 18:43, 29 January 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.Donadio (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article

Well, I think the issues are the following:

1. It is necessary to correct the religion line in the factbox about White Brazilians.

It stands like this:

Predominantly Catholic . Protestant . Jewish minority

The Brazilian population is predominantly Catholic. According to the IBGE, there are 124,980,132 Catholics among a population of 169,872,856 inhabitants. This is 73.57% of the Brazilian population, or a clear predominance. And while the IBGE does not break its data according to religion and race, there is no reason to believe there is a significant difference between the proportion of Catholics among Whites and non-Whites.

The biggest religious minority among Brazilians is Protestantism. According to the IBGE, there are 26,184,941 Protestants in Brazil. This is 16.59% of the Brazilian population. And while traditional Protestantism (especially Luteranism) is certainly more important among Whites than among non-Whites, the opposite is true of Pentecostal Protestantism, which is more popular among non-Whites (in the mean, I think, the proportion of Protestants in general among whites does not deviate too much from the Brazilian average). To notice, there are about 7,000,000 traditional Protestants in Brazil, compared to some 17,000,000 Pentecostal Protestants.

Now, 16.59% is clearly not “predominant”; it is a significant minority, but it cannot be compared to the Catholic predominance, which is more than four times bigger.

More importantly, there are, always according to the IBGE, 86,825 Jews in Brazil. This is 0.05% of the population. Grantedly, those Jews are all White, so their proportion among the White Brazilian population is more important – about 0.11%...

So we have,

• ~74% Catholics
• ~17% Protestants
• 0.11% Jews, totalling

~91% of White Brazilians.

Who are the missing 9%?

First, 12,492,403 Non-Religious people, or 7.49% of Brazilians. Certainly a minority, but a much bigger one than Brazilian Jews. There is no reason to believe that their share of Brazilian Whites is smaller than that of the population at large.

Second, 2,262,401 Kardecists (or Spiritists), making 1.33% of the population (and probably a bit more of White Brazilians). Certainly, a much bigger minority than Brazilian Jews.

Third,

1,104,886 Jeovah Witnesses; 500,582 Brazilian Catholics; 199,645 Mormons; 38,060 Orthodox; 235,532 Other Christians; totalling

2,078,705 people who consider themselves Christian, but not either Protestant or Roman Catholic.

This would be 1.22% of the Brazilian population. Moreover, due to the presence of Jeovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Orthodoxes, I would say that this religious segment would be somewhat more important among Whites than among non-Whites. But even without this, it is clear that there are many more White “Other Christians” than Jews in Brazil.

Non-religious, Kardecists, and “Other Christians” should certainly be included in the factbox if Jews are; and, if they aren't, neither should Jews.

I propose one of the following alternatives:

• a) Predominantly Catholic.
• b) Predominantly Catholic, with Protestant and Non-Religious minorities.
• c) Predominantly Catholic, with Protestant and Non-Religious significant minorities, smaller Kardecist and Other Christian minorities.
• d) Predominantly Catholic , Protestant and Non-Religious significant minorities, smaller Kardecist and Other Christian minorities; many small religious minorities, including Jews and adepts of Afro-Brazilian religions.

I would be happier with the later, that seems to me more inclusive, but any of them seem reasonable.

2. The article states,

“The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, and German descent.”

The correct is,

“The majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, with significant minorities of Italian, German, and Spanish descent.”

As Opinoso himself recognised, the majority of White Brazilians is of Portuguese descent. As for the Spanish, while I am not willing to fight about this, it should be noticed that most Spaniards who came to Brazil were from Galizia, a region of Spain where a Portuguese dialect, Galician, is spoken. So they would have usually been perceived by the Brazilian populace as Portuguese, not Spanish; moreover, another significant group of “Spanish” immigrants would be Basque, and I wonder whether they should be included in the category of “Spanish Immigrants”. For instance, former dictator Emílio Garrastazu Médici, often given as an example of “Italian Brazilian”, is also of Basque descent. I doubt anyone would consider him “Spanish Brazilian”.

3. The article talks about both the Portuguese settlers of colonial Brazil and the African slaves they brought to Brazil as “immigrants”.

But, first, they were not immigrants; the former came here to occupy the land and make it a Portuguese possession; the later were brought here against their will. Both situations are completely different from the European immigrants who arrived from the late XIX century on, to peacefully settle under the laws and uses of independent Brazil. Second, Brazilians certainly make a big difference between Portuguese immigrants and their descent (“Galegos”, “Portugas”, “Lusos”, “Tugas”, “Lusitanos”), who are often victims of prejudice, and the usual target of Brazilian “Polish Jokes”, and people descended from the colonial settlers (“Pelos-duros”). To erase such difference is to mislead the reader about racial relations in Brazil.

4. The concept of “hegemony” has to go. As previously stated, and as agreed by Opinoso, the majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese descent, so it makes no sence to talk about the “end” of Portuguese “hegemony” in White Brazilian ethnicity. To correct this, it should be stated that the majority of White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. The word “hegemony” shouldn't be used. It implies some kind of competition among the various ethnicities on which of them has the most people. And this is something that does not exist.

5. The French and the Dutch conquered territory in Brazil in order to establish their presence here: see Dutch Brazil, France Équinoxiale and France Antarctique. This should be stated clearly, with no subterfuges. There is no reason not to do it.

6. Most of the settlers during the colonial period were Portuguese, including Portuguese Jews. There is no need to say that some were “actually” Jews, as if that precluded their being Portuguese. They were Portuguese subjects, and Portuguese anti-semitism at the time was a religious kind of anti-semitism. Jews that converted into Christianism would be considered Portuguese.

7. Italians arriving in Brazil in the early 20th century, were mostly employed in the coffee plantations in the Southeast. This is an important difference from the Italian immigrants that arrived earlier and went to the South, who mostly became small landed proprietors.

8. The Southern states were not “mainly settled by German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish immigrants.” They received huge numbers of German, Italian, and Polish (but not Portuguese or Spanish) immigrants, but when such happened, they had already been settled, and were widely recognised as part of Brasil (see Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná). And São Paulo did receive many Portuguese and Spanish immigrants, but not German ones.

9. North and Northeast don't both have a stronger Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous influence. The North has a stronger Indigenous influence, and parts of the Northeast, namely Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, but especially the former, have a strong African influence.

10. The list of small towns in the “Demography by Cities and Towns” section should have the number of inhabitants of each one. I don't know why such information is systematically removed, but readers have a right to know that one-race cities are very small and unrepresentative of Brazil.

A serious "Demography by Cities and Towns" section, on the other hand, should discuss the demography of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Salvador, Porto Alegre, Fortaleza, Curitiba, Recife, Belém, Campinas, etc.

11. Pedras Grandes is in Santa Catarina, not in Rio Grande do Sul. Apparently solved.

12. The figures of people of Italian and Arab descent should be better, and seriously, discussed.

The IBGE, which is the official source of demographic information about Brazil, does not provide figures of people by descent. It does, however, provide the number of immigrants arriving in Brazil, by date and origin. From its figures, it is clear that:

About 1,500,000 Italian immigrants arrived in Brazil, from the late XIX century to the end of immigration. If there indeed were 25,000,000 people of Italian descent in Brazil, either,

• the IBGE numbers are wrong, and sources should be quoted stating it and providing evidence that they so are; or
• the Italian immigrants and their offspring in Brazil reproduce almost at the double rate than other Brazilians. Sources would be needed to substantiate that claim.

The same goes for the Lebanese. According to the IBGE, about 100,000 Syrians and Lebanese came to Brazil in the immigration period. If there indeed were 10,000,000 people of Lebanese descent in Brazil, either,

• the IBGE numbers are wrong, and sources should be quoted stating it and providing evidence that they so are; or
• the Lebanese immigrants and their offspring in Brazil reproduce almost at ten times the rate than other Brazilians. Sources would be needed to substantiate that claim.

If the IBGE figures are right, which I assume them to be until evidence of the contrary, and if the reproduction rate of immigrants is similar to that of the rest of Brazilians, which I also assume true until evidence of the contrary, then people of Italian descent in Brazil should be, at the very most, about 16,000,000, and people of Lebanese descent, also at the very most, about 1,000,000.

Italian and Lebanese embassies and consulates are not authorities on demographic issues. They do not conduct or sponsor demographic research. Their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and reported as just that, claims, not as the absolute truth, especially when they contradict the Brazilian demographic authority – the IBGE.

The figure of 25,000,000 people of Italian descent seems to be a mere meme. It probably is the result of this miscalculation:

a) The total population of Brazil in 1872 was of 9,930,478. In the year 2008, it was of 169,872,856. It was multiplied by a factor of 17.11.

b) The number of Italian immigrants to Brazil, starting from 1872, was of 1,507,695. Multiplied by a factor of 17.11, this is 25,790,949.

This reasoning would be correct if all 1,500,000 Italian immigrants came to Brazil in 1872. But they didn't; they came during a period of more than 50 years, so the initial “Italian” population of Brazil in 1872 was not of a million and half. A calculation that takes into account the number of Italian immigrants arriving during this period, distributing them on a simple average during those years, and interpolating the numbers for the whole Brazilian population would give a projection of about 15,900,000 people of Italian descent in Brazil. This number is still possibly overestimated though, since:

a) it does not take into account the numbers of immigrants who went back to Italy or further emigrated to the USA; b) it does not take into account that not all populational growth of Brazil was due to internal reproduction (ie, one factor that made Brazilian population grow by 1611% was immigration itself; without it, growth would be somewhat smaller). c) it assumes an even distribution of immigration over a given period; in the period of 1884-1893, for instance, it assumes 1/10 of the 510,533 immigrants of the whole decade arrived each year – when in fact, the immigration quite certainly grew during the period, with less than 1/10 arriving in 1884, and more than that in 1893.

As for the figure of 10,000,000 people of Arab descent in Brazil, I have no idea where this comes from. It certainly does not match Brazilian reality, and it is even more of an overestimation than the figures for Italians. Anyone acquainted to Brazil knows the proportion between people of Italian descent and Arab descent is much higher than 2.5:1. Arab immigrants to Brazil were something like 1/15 of Italian immigrants, and, in average, they arrived quite later. Of course, it is possible that even the majority of Brazilians do have Arab/Berber ancestry, because the Portuguese themselves were highly mixed with their Muslism conquerors. But this is certainly not what is ordinarily considered “Arab Brazilian” in Brazil, and it certainly seems a totally unwarranted overextension of the concept.

As for 18,000,000 people of German descent in Brazil, it is a figure given by historian Dieter Böhnke, not endorsed even by German diplomatic offices in Brazil, that claim a figure of 5,000,000. I never found the reasoning that supports it, but Böhnke does start the history of the German presence in Brazil from 1500; according to him, Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook was German. So perhaps this is how he arrives at such numbers. In any case, I see absolutely no reason to hide the information that Dieter Böhnke is the source that claims there are 18,000,000 people of German descent in Brazil. Donadio (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "White"

A further problem with this article is that it does not discuss the concept of "White".

It is quite evident, however, that such concept is very different in Brazil compared with the Anglo-Saxon countries; first, because the USA has a "racial" category, "Latino" that, for obvious reasons, does not exist in Brazil (most people discussed in this article as "White" would be considered "Latino" - and "Latino" implying "non-White" - in the USA). Second, because the way Brazilians understand race (which is usually called "cor", meaning "colour") is radically different. This article goes to the heart of the issue:

In Brazil, not withstanding relatively large levels of genetic admixture and a myth of “racial democracy,” there exists a widespread social prejudice that seems to be particularly connected to the physical appearance of the individual (8). Color (in Portuguese, cor) denotes the Brazilian equivalent of the English term race (raça) and is based on a complex phenotypic evaluation that takes into account, besides skin pigmentation, hair type, nose shape, and lip shape (4, 9). The reason the word Color (capitalized to call attention to this particular meaning) is preferred to race in Brazil is probably because it captures the continuous aspects of phenotypes (4). In contrast with the situation in the United States, there appears to be no racial descent rule operational in Brazil and it is possible for two siblings differing in Color to belong to completely diverse racial categories (8). The Brazilian emphasis on physical appearance rather than ancestry is demonstrated by the fact that in a large survey when asked about their origins (the question admitted multiple responses) <10% of Brazilian black individuals gave Africa as one of their answers.

If you look at the US Census Bureau's race and ethnicity categories, you'll see that this, the standard for US demographics, doesn't treat White and Hispanic/Latino as mutually exclusive — Brownsville, Texas, a city on the Mexican border, is 81% White and 91% Hispanic/Latino. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, true. But in common usage, most Americans think of race as a three way system, White/Black/Latino, not as a 2x2 matrix White/White Latino/Black/Black Latino. And to explain race in Brazil to American users is to explain it to people acquainted to common usage, not to people acquainted to the Census categories. Donadio (talk) 11:07, 29 January 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? Donadio (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since no one is against the replacement, I'm making the edit. Donadio (talk) 00:25, 11 February 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 User:Donadio. 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? Donadio (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I think Donadio should read: WP:NOTFORUM

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

If Donadio 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. Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss if the Embassies are lying or not. I think Donadio 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.

Misplaced Pages 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. Donadio (talk) 16:13, 30 January 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? Donadio (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal theories are not allowed

Donadio, 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 Donadio'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: Donadio, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (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 Donadio that Misplaced Pages does not allowed him and any other users to make up theories. Donadio 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 Donadio 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, Donadio, 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, Donadio, 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. Donadio (talk) 23:57, 30 January 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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, Donadio 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. Donadio 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.

Donadio 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 Donadio 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 Donadio, 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 Donadio, 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

Please, Opinoso, can you explain what is wrong with quoting Fabio Porta ?

If I say that the Embassy figures are inflated, you say it is original research. Now if I quote an Italian parlamentary representative stating that the Italian authorities are manipulating numbers, you simply erase the edit (along with completely harmless improvements of unrelated references), calling it "vandalism"? Why? Donadio (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide English cites per policy? thank you, --Tom 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, I haven't found them.

Here is what Fabio Porta says, in Portuguese:

“Esses números são usados como alarmismo e terrorismo porque não são reais. O processo para obter a cidadania é complicado e a grande maioria nem tem condições de conseguir a documentação necessária.”

Here, an attempt at translation:

"These figures are used in an alarmist and terrorist way, because they are not real. The process to attain Italian citizenship is complicated, and the great majority doesn't even have conditions to obtain the necessary documents." Donadio (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fábio Porta was not even talking about the figure of 25 million people of Italian descent. He was talking about the sentence of an Italian Ministry, who claimed that around 5 million people in São Paulo are able to become Italian citizens if it was their wish. Fábio Porta does not agreed with him, then he said that many of these 5 million would not find the necessary documents to become Italian citizens.

A person can have Italian ancestry and not be able to find the documents to get an Italian citizenship (like the Birth certificate of the Italian ancestors). Moreover, people with maternal Italian ancestry or people whose Italian ancestors were naturalized Brazilians are also not able to become Italian citizens. That's what Fabio Porta as talking about the figure of 5 million "future Italian citizens" is not correct. He was not talking about the figure of 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent.

Next time, assume good-faith, and stop manipulating the informations of sources in Portuguese, because most people cannot read Portuguese, then you are using any information to attack everything about Italians in this article. Stop attacking the informations of Italians. What's your problem with Italians? Why are you so obsessed with Portuguese? Opinoso (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Italians being attacked

Please, administrators, block this Donadio. He is obviously using a single purpose account . All he does at Misplaced Pages 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 Donadio's wish. The article Portuguese people already exists. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith and stop this. Donadio (talk) 01:22, 7 February 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Donadio (talk) 10:26, 7 February 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)

Broken Links

Opinoso, stop removing fact tags when the links are broken. Broken links are not valid sources. Donadio (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, because you use Phone Books as source. You claimed everybody with Portuguese surnames, such as Silva, Pereira, Nascimento or do Santos are Portuguese (which would include Edson Arantes do Nascimento and Benedita da Silva. I didn't know both were Portuguese.

How about Douglas Silva. Portuguese too? Silva is a Portuguese surname, then according to your theory, Douglas is Portuguese. Do you know if he has Portuguese citizenship?? Tell me.

Moreover, you also claimed people from Calabria are not Italians...then, what are they? I'd like to know where you take all these informations from.

You need to learn what is a source, not me. Moreover, stop removing sources informations from this article. This is vandalism. And, unfurtunetly, I'm not on vacation anymore, then I cannot waste my time with you anymore. But I'm surprised that you are spending hours a day checking my account, looking at my contributions...do you find my account that interesting. Please, do not waste your time with my account. There are funnier things to do. Opinoso (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class Brazil articles
• High-importance Brazil articles
• WikiProject Brazil articles