This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Opinoso (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 3 July 2010 (→And more distortions of sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:08, 3 July 2010 by Opinoso (talk | contribs) (→And more distortions of sources)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Start‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Brazil Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
(no header)
Wouldn't somebody born in Brazil be a Brazilian? A Spaniard would be somebody born in Spain. RickK 08:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say that's just one of the many problems with this article. Actually, I think the article may even be deserving of deletion. The concept of "Spanish Brazilian" is pretty much useless, as far as I can see; I don't think there is a large enough number of recent Spanish immigrants to warrant such a classification. The descendants of the Spanish immigrants of yesteryear have fully integrated in Brazilian society, and are not seen as a separate or distinct group.
- Other unfounded remarks are 'They can speak Spanish, in addition to Portuguese and English', the sentence about Portuñol, etc.
- There should probably be an article containing some of the information here, something like 'Spanish immigration to Brazil'. But, once again, this article should probably be deleted, or at least heavily reworked. --Cotoco 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Its not supposed to mean they are not integrated into the society...but just as a group of people that immigrated there like the porutugese and italians...its just ancestry...
Given the widespread easy travel of today, I doubt that articles of subject "<ancestral nationality> <current nationality>" are of any notablity or use.
Besides which, seeing the title of this article makes me think "...and introducing acoustic Brazilian". :-) -- 217.171.129.79 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cotoco: I'd have to say you are basically right; there are serious problems with this article but before reaching the deletion stage or option perhaps some explanations and subsequent editing will solve most of the problems with this article. Let's begin with this:
someone wrote, «Unlike other ethnic groups in Brazil, such as Germans, Japanese and Italians, Spaniards were integrated so fast in the Brazilian society that have barely managed to leave an imprint of their national characteristics. Today it is even difficult to discern the origin of many Hispanic surnames in Brazilians, since many have Galician origins or had their Spanish family names changed to the Portuguese ...». Facts will help us; first of all using the terminology spanish (spaniard should be for old spanish people, let's say before 1800's) must be done carefully, at least with explanations in parenthesis. Those spanish who migrated to Brazil in the late 1800's and turn of the century were mostly if not all, Galicians, from Galicia, which is nowadays an autonomous region of Spain. Not by choice, by force. When articles dealing with Brazil, focus on Portuguese, German, and Italian, and also Japanese, it's more than a question of the country where they come from, it's actually about their ethnic group, and thus, their culture, their language; in order to make easier, we shall call these ethnic/cultural groups. The ethnic/cultural group mentioned in this article are the Galicians, from Galicia, very close to Portugal and Portuguese culture, in fact, Galicia has claimed and announced publicly that Galego is a dialect of the Portuguese language.
When the Galicans migrated to Brazil they would almost certainly have passports or spanish documents because Galicia was (and is )officially within the spanish nation; they spoke Galego (only nowadays are they bi-lingual, though many of the elder only speak Galego, as in the 1800's when they went to Brazil) and they felt close to the portuguese. There shouldn't be any surprise about this. They easily blended and mixed and intermarried with the 'native' brazilians, like the Portuguese, and the Italians (who also speak a latin language-and this made all the difference- in their integration).
2nd'Explanation': The spanish kept within their 'empire' while there was one and later migrated to their old colonies, and the Portuguese did likewise with their old colonies; rarely a spanish went to the former portuguese territories. So it would have been unusual to witness mass migration at the turn of the century from Spain to Brazil.
Someone included Andaluzia in the text but failed to associate this with any statistical source. Please do and then we'll re-edit according to such data.If there is such data.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
D. Pedro I of Brazil a Spanish Brazilian?????
Why D. Pedro I of Brazil is a Spanish Brazilian????? This page requires urgent help!
~No, you require urgent help, in history... Pedros mother was Carlota of Spain, daughter of Carlos IV, the Spanish King.
- It is you who require urgent help in history. He was the heir of the Portuguese throne and later king of Portugal. Kings with mothers of other ruling houses of Europe was very common. It did not make him Spanish unless the Spanish Cortes declared him so. Go learn some history. In your line of thought this would make him : Austrian, French, Italian and German from his great-grand parents. The only nationalities he had was Portuguese and Brazilian. Don't go messing with the rest because intermarriage among royal families was very common and we can find him a long list of European ancestries.
D.Pedro
Precisely; D.Pedro was born a portuguese (and then a brazilian-portuguese citizen until 1822). Pedro I would not be a spanish then or now, anymore than a brazilian child, born in Brazil, would be swedish /or something just because his parents were swedish/something else and settled in Brazil.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
José de Anchieta
- Also José de Anchieta was a Castillian (not Spanish), he never had Brazilian ancestry, the most it could have happened was the Portuguese king giving him Portuguese nationality which I never read about. Working for the Portuguese king could only make him Portuguese but there are no evidences that the nationality change ever happened.
Anchieta
I can't confirm he was granted portuguese nationality, but for practical purposes he had become (culturally if you will) a portuguese citizen, to be specific, a brazilian-portuguese citizen living and contributing to the unfolding of events in the nation that was maturing.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Resident
Since when a a Spanish-born person residing in Brazil is a Brazilian? A Spanish Brazilian? You mean it is only necessary to live in Brazil to be a Brazilian? He, he, what a great country.
Not Spanish-Brazilian
There are many people in this page who are considered Spanish-Brazilian even thought they have no Spanish blood. Some of them are soccer players who play in Spain, but they are not Spanish-Brazilian. There are people of Portuguese descent that are considered Spanish-Brazilian, but they have surnames similar to Spaniards (Both Portuguese and Spanish Surnames are quite similar but there are execptions like patronymic surnames, Spanish: -ez Portuguese: -es, and some spellings, ex. Spanish: Carvallo - Portguese: Carvalho or Spanish: Olivera - Portuguese: Oliveira), and surnames from the Basque country or Catalunya show they have Spanish Ancestry.
Álvaro Luiz Maior de Aquino, Daniel Alves, Marcos Assunção, Roberto Carlos da Silva, Adriano Correia Claro, Denílson de Oliveira Araújo, Djalminha, Milene Domingues, Júlio César Santos Correa, Anderson Luiz de Carvalho, Cristiano Marques Gomes, Diego Ribas da Cunha, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Márcio dos Santos Gaia, Anderson Silva de França, Mauro Silva, Tiago Splitter, and Sylvinho are Brazilians playing in Spain but they are not Spanish Brazilians because they have no Spanish blood. There is no mention of Spanish blood on Fabricio Werdum (surname sound German not Spanish). The person who put Rafaela Zanella in this page is a moron because in her page it say she has Italian and German ancestry not Spanish, or that person who put her in this page is a troll.
These people aren't Spanish Brazilians so I am removing them. Lehoiberri 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Pedro I
I know his mother was a Spanish princess, but declaring a heir of the throne of Portugal who was born in Portugal and who died in Portugal as former King of Portugal and father of the Queen of Portugal a Spanish-Brazilian is, to say the least, ridiculous! Maybe Elisabeth II of England is a german-british, what do you think? Maybe we should change her page, lol.
Early Assimilation
Spanish immigrnats in Brazil assimilated at a high speed almost as much as the Portuguese. The fact that most were from Galicia and spoke a similar language as Brazilian Portuguese (galego) made that assimilation easier. And the last names of Galicians integrated soon in Brazil as they are usually similar to Portuguese. That is why today descendants of Spanish immigrants are not "visible", because they have been always considered as the same culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.54 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- They are not considered as members of the same cultural group, one can only claim that they belong to the same civilization- European- and share cultural traits. They were mostly Galicians/Galegos and they felt more connected to the Portuguese. If they were old-caste spanish-castillian- or other groups outside but who already called themselves spanish, they would not have set foot in Brazil. Likewise, you may search the statistics and you will not find any mass migration from Portugal to Hispanic South-America.GFlusitania (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong: in Sao Paulo most were Spanish speaking immigrants from Andalusia, and they assimilated very soon too, and much more than Italians or Germans.--88.18.151.26 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Spanish in Brazil
Someone wrote: «In fact Spain claimed more than half of what is present day Brazil. The expansion of Portuguese-Brazilian settlements into these Spanish territories was a long and gradual process which began during the time of the Iberian Union (1580 - 1640) when the borders between the South American territorial possessions of Spain and Portugal were ignored. When the union broke it continued in the form of a defacto low intensity guerrilla war of creeping occupation led by the Bandeirantes. By the 18th century most of the Spanish territories that now lie within today's Brazil were effectively under Portuguese occupation; a fact recognised in 1750, when formal sovereignty over a vast area was transferred from Spain to Portugal by the Treaty of Madrid.» Facts: 1-The borders were not ignored. 2-Land explored and settled by Bandeirantes was within what is now Brazil, and the peoples they found and sometimes warred with or enslaved were Amerindians not Spanish. 3-The first claim about half of Brazil is completely false. GFlusitania (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources?
«Starting in the early 20th century, most Spanish immigrants were Andalusian peasants who worked in the coffee plantations, mainly in rural areas of São Paulo State.» Andalusia?? Do you have a reference source for this claim?? GFlusitania (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we have: . Opinoso (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"A maior parte dos imigrantes espanhóis se instalaram em São Paulo, onde predominaram os andaluzes (60%), seguidos pelos galegos (20%)." "(...)cabe assinalar que a partir de 1890, frente à tendência a ocuparem ofícios do setor primário que caracterizou os imigrantes da Andaluzia"(...) Opinoso (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal of sourced information
Can you explain why you removed sourced information for "Notable Spanish Brazilians", Opinoso? 200.198.196.129 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Spanish Brazilian people are the fourth largest immigrant group in Brazil, not the fifth as it is said on this article
There are not that many Indigenous Americans as Spanish Brazilian people in Brazil, the official statistics counts 500,000 - 800,000 indigenous Americans in Brazil. And Spaniards could be between 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 millions. Jaume87 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Misinterpreted source
In the subsection "The Gaúchos", the article states that
- The Brazilian Gaúchos, the inhabitants of the Pampa region in Southern Brazil next to Argentina and Uruguay, were largely influenced by the Spanish migration to this area in colonial times. The Spaniards influenced the language and economy of this area.
It gives this as a source: RS VIRTUAL.
Now, this source does definitely not say that the Spaniards influenced the language of the area. It says that "coutries of hispanic language" (which is not the same as "Spaniards") played an "important role in our century" (and our century - or the century of the source, anyway - is not colonial times).
It also does not say that the Spaniards influenced the economy of the area. It says that Spanish Jesuits introduced cattle in the area, that such cattle went feral when the Jesuits were expelled, which provided a starting point to husbandry in the region. Husbandry that was developed by "bandeirantes and lagunenses", i.e. people in the Portuguese colony.
Nowhere this source talks about Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul. Jesuits established towns populated by Guarani indians, not by Spanish settlers. Jesuits didn't mate with Guarani women in any significant scale. They didn't even introduce Spanish as a language; rather they studied and codified Guarani. Ninguém (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Readding what you admit is dubious
Here's an odd set of edits by some IP, (re)adding unsourced stuff with "citation needed" flags. Bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Population
What does "actual "Spanish Brazilian" population unkown but much smaller" mean, in the lead?
If the point is that the "true" Spanish Brazilians are those of very recent Spanish ancestry, then that should be stated; like this, for example: "First and second generation population is unknown". Cheers. SamEV (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC); 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think things are clear cut as that. It is possible to a person to be the child of Spanish immigrants, and don't care at all about such ancestry, considering him or herself to be Brazilian, period. It is also possible, although arguably less common, that a person who is a fourth or fifth generation descendant keeps strong ties to a Spanish or "Spanish-Brazilian" identity, participating in Spanish-Brazilian societies, etc. I think the lead description explains this well; anyway I have changed the infobox to match such description. Ninguém (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why must a Spanish Brazilian be someone who is "aware of such ancestry and remains connected, in some degree, to Spanish culture"? You'd be better off just relying on ancestry. It works well at Misplaced Pages for the myriad similar articles. SamEV (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it makes the myriad of similar articles an awful mess. What would be a "Spanish Brazilian"? Someone with Spanish parents? Someone with one Spanish parent? With one grandparent? With one grand-grand-grandparent? Gee, this article until recently told us that all gaúchos are "Spanish Brazilian" - because a paper says that 'maybe' they have more Spanish ancestors - in the 18th century! - than Portuguese ones. These articles pass the idea that there are cohesive groups of "Italian Brazilians", "Spanish Brazilians", whatever-Brazilians, which is completely false. According to these stupidities, I myself am not only "Italian Brazilian", but also "Portuguese Brazilian", as such belonging to at least two different "ethnic groups", and perhaps even being "mixed race" (for instance, Giselle Buendchen used to be listed as a 'mixed race Brazilian' because she has German and Portuguese ancestors). Needless to say, this has absolutely no relation to reality. Ninguém (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You fundamentally misunderstand this article, and maybe the whole class thereof, Ninguém. Some of these groups are based merely on ancestry and are not "ethnic groups" (don't be fooled by the "Infobox ethnic group" template; that's just the name Misplaced Pages gives this broad category of articles). These articles merely tell interested readers about the people in a certain country who claim or are ascribed a particular ancestry, whether fully or partially.
- As for belonging to more than one ancestry group, ancestry is not an "either/or" proposition. It is self-evident that one is of as many ancestries as the ancestries one has.
- "What would be a "Spanish Brazilian"? Someone with Spanish parents? Someone with one Spanish parent? With one grandparent? With one grand-grand-grandparent?"
- It's all of the above, as far as I know. If millions of Brazilians do have more distant Spanish ancestry, but they don't claim it, and no else attributes it to them, then so be it, Ninguém. We deal with the info we have. SamEV (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC); 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I misunderstand this article. At least in Brazil, there are no "groups" based on ancestry. "Groups" isn't a neutral word; it implies an active perception of belonging, that does not exist in Brazilian society. And I do not attribute such naïve neutrality to Misplaced Pages infoboxes; they are very intentional, and they do state a vision of things. "Ethnic group" isn't "just a name" that Misplaced Pages gives to a broad category of articles. Unless Misplaced Pages uses a totally biased definition of "ethnic group", different from those used elsewhere.
- And since ancestral categories (not "groups") are very different from "ethnic groups" (not "categories"), they cannot be confused as Misplaced Pages does. As you point out, anyone can be of a dozen different "ancestries". But nobody can be of as many "ethnicities". If a Brazilian person has Italian, German, Portuguese, and Polish ancestry, then evidently she is of Polish, Portuguese, German, and Italian ancestry. It does not make her an "Italian Brazilian" or a "Polish Brazilian", and much less such a monstruosity as an "Italian German Portuguese Polish Brazilian". Which again shows that "ancestries" and "ethnicities" cannot be conflated; the former are additive and inclusive, the latter are exclusive.
- Another point is that these "ancestries" are usually related to modern national States. But those States were not created by God along with Adam and Eve, nor do their boundaries necessarily coincide with "ethnic" boundaries, as these articles acritically assume. Clarice Lispector used to be "Ukrainian Brazilian" (and even reported, in what can only be described as an outright lie, as being "proud of her Ukrainian roots"), albeit not being of ethnic Ukrainian ancestry, because the place where she was born nowadays belongs to the Ukrainian national State (that didn't exist, or existed only in an extremely transitory form, when she was born). Carlos Drummond de Andrade is cited as "Scottish Brazilian", because Drummond is known to be a Scottish surname. And I suppose former dictator Emílio Garrastazu Médici was a "Spanish Brazilian" because he was of Basque descent. Those things are unreal; they do not correspond to any actual knowledge about the Brazilian (or Ukrainian, Scottish, Spanish, Basque, or Jewish, for what is worth) people, nor do they explain anything about Lispector or Drummond's writing or Médici's politics.
- Things may be different where you live in, but in Brazil nobody is a "Spanish Brazilian" because they descend, for instance, from Amadeu Bueno da Ribeira.
- We deal with the information we have, but we should be able to distinguish what information is in fact information, and what "information" is nothing more than the expression of wishful thinking of the so-called informants. Ninguém (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- ""Groups" isn't a neutral word; it implies an active perception of belonging"
- No, not necessarily. It can mean just a set of people, based on any criterion. You can even group inanimate objects that have no sense of "belonging", for instance. :)
- ""Ethnic group" isn't "just a name" that Misplaced Pages gives to a broad category of articles."
- Can you find a template specifically for ancestry groups? No. What does that tell you, then? Again: ancestry groups are subsumed under the "ethnic group" rubric.
- "since ancestral categories (not "groups") are very different from "ethnic groups" (not "categories"), they cannot be confused as Misplaced Pages does."
- I like your phrase "ancestral categories". The one problem would be that "category" has a very specific meaning at Misplaced Pages, as you know, so there's the potential for confusion. So "group" seems more unambiguous.
- Re: Lispector, I should inform you of our practice of recognizing people's self-perceptions. If she says she's of Ukrainian origin, then she is, as far as I and, I dare say, the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are concerned. Yes, the borders have changed, but her claim is within reasonable bounds and should be accepted. She's not claiming to be from Mars.
- You write that these classifications of individuals aren't always informative about those individuals. I agree, and more importantly, I believe that Misplaced Pages policy agrees. See WP:OCAT.
- Why don't you propose renaming the article to say, "Brazilians with Spanish ancestry"? SamEV (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the word "group", outside the contexts of sociology or anthropology, does not imply a sence of belonging. This article, however, is within the context of sociology and anthropology, so we should use the word "group" accordingly.
See, for instance, Misplaced Pages article about Social groups:
- In the social sciences a group can be defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, accept expectations and obligations as members of the group, and share a common identity. (emphasys mine)
Or, more related to this particular discussion, Misplaced Pages article about Ethnic groups:
- An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness. (emphasys mine)
Ergo, "ancestral categories" - that do not imply "identity", "expectations and obligations", "common heritages", or "consciousness", cannot be akin to "ethnic groups", that imply all that.
I understand your concern about the meaning of "category" within Misplaced Pages; but it cannot have precedence over the meaning of words in academic discussions about the subjects of the articles. At least I hope no one will Wikipedise Kant's categorical imperative into something else to avoid confusion with . However, this might or might not apply to "ancestral categories" - I am far from sure that this is an accepted anthropological term; I merely coined it in response to a subject about which Misplaced Pages cares (way (too)) much, but academic social sciences (perhaps with good reason) don't seem to take too much into account. "Ethnic origins" may be more accurate or neutral.
I am sorry if I somehow gave the impression that Clarice Lispector claimed to be Ukrainian Brazilian. That's completely untrue. Wikipedians have made such claim. And endlessly edit warred about it, calling those who disagree "antisemites". Here are some examples: , , , , , , , , , etc.
Clarice herself only aknowledged one nationality, which was "Brazilian"; when asked, she would wonder about being Brazilian or "Russian" (not Ukrainian), and conclude in favour of the former. She usually avoided the subject, with some good reason. Her mother was raped in Ukraine, in the context of the pogroms that followed the dismantling of the Czarist Empire, probably by some Ukrainian nationalist gang, and horribly died, at age 42, a few years later, already in Brazil, from syphilis, contracted in such rape. She herself was conceived and born when her mother was already ill. So these attempts to make her a posthumous "Ukrainian Brazilian" are false at best, and horribly demeaning and insulting at worst. Ninguém (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- "This article, however, is within the context of sociology and anthropology, so we should use the word "group" accordingly."
- This article has to be written for the layperson, per Misplaced Pages policy. You're not supposed to be writing for social scientists. We should therefore use "group" freely, in the sense of a set of people. If there's ever a need in the article to use it in another sense, then that sense should be indicated.
- But the issue is moot, anyway, because "Infobox Ethnic group" is not seen by readers. Only editors see it, and you are one of only a couple of editors that I've ever encountered who take the name of the infobox so seriously.
- "Ergo, "ancestral categories" - that do not imply "identity", "expectations and obligations", "common heritages", or "consciousness", cannot be akin to "ethnic groups", that imply all that." " "Ethnic origins" may be more accurate or neutral."
- So let's stipulate a definition, and put a caveat next to it, such as: "Spanish Brazilians, in this article, refers to Brazilians of Spanish ancestry. It does not imply an ethnic identity."
- Thanks for the clarification about Lispector. In her case, if she in fact rejected any identity of "Ukrainian", then she should not be called a Ukrainian Brazilian. (Opinoso's a good guy, btw.)
- Wow. What a life Lispector had. She had to endure some truly terrible stuff. SamEV (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- We shoud write for the layperson, but we should not be sloppy in our use of words. The layperson doesn't make much of a difference between, say, "number" and "algarism", but an encyclopedia must not use those words interchangeably. Also, using the word "group" freely is different from using the phrase "ethnic group" freely; they are lexically different. You cannot, for instance, use "set theory" and "group theory" interchangeably just because you can do it to "set" and "group" sans phrase.
- "Spanish Brazilians, in this article, refers to Brazilians of Spanish ancestry". Nice, but then we would be talking about something that is absolutely irrelevant: a set of people who have nothing in common with each others, who don't behave in any particular way, who cannot be distinguished from other Brazilians in any way, and who, for the most part, don't even know they belong to such set of people - and would probably reject any such identification, like the Brazilian gaúchos certainly would. An article about "left-handed Brazilians" would be far more relevant than this. On the other hand, though they certainly aren't anything close to 8.5 million (much less 15 million) people, there certainly are people who could be called "Spanish Brazilians", ie, who participate in Spanish-Brazilian associations, Spanish-Brazilian events, and who try to keep alive a "Spanish" identity, etc. Why would we have an article about an irrelevant set of people, but not about something that actually exists and has some weight, albeit quite light?
- The answer to that question, of course, is the problem. We are keeping an article that has a title that fits a few hundred thousand people, but we are trying to make it like it refers to many million. Just like in Italian Brazilian, German Brazilian, Arab Brazilian, Portuguese Brazilian, etc.
- And, by the way, anyone who publicly and falsely accuses me (or others, as you have just seen being done to User:Faustian) of being a racist is most definitely not a good guy. Ninguém (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't equate common English with sloppiness. Come on, Ninguém. And again, the term "ethnic group" is a moot point, since we're not going to call them that.
- "Nice, but then we would be talking about something that is absolutely irrelevant: a set of people who have nothing in common with each others"
- Exactly! Welcome to Misplaced Pages!
- We have the article German American, even though German Americans are part of the American mainstream. It's just an article about people of German origin. And sit down for this one: There's even an English American article!
- You see, Ninguém? This class of articles doesn't mean that these groups are insular ethnic groups separate from the rest of the nation.
- The fact that there are two (even a few more) definitions of "Spanish Brazilian" can be addressed in the article. No need to settle for just one. Our neutral point of view policy even requires that we acknowledge mulitiplicity of important viewpoints. SamEV (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, common English is not necessarily sloppiness. The problem with Misplaced Pages, however, is not common English, it is sloppiness.
Listen, I don't edit articles about German Americans or English Americans. Do you know why? Because I don't know enough about these subjects to edit articles about them.
To anyone looking from the outside, it looks that Americans are effectively divided into hyphenated tribes: English Americans, African Americans, Italian Americans, etc. Misplaced Pages certainly reinforces such impression. But this is a "narrative"; it may or may not have any relation to American reality. Having no direct experience of American society, and having not read enough reliable books and essays on modern American anthropology, I cannot realise whether yes or not. And so I shut up, and leave hyphenated-American articles to other people. Hoping, quite probably without good reason, that they actually know more than me.
But I do live in Brazil, and I have read a few books on modern Brazilian anthropology. And so I do have a working knowledge of both the Brazilian "narratives" and realities. The "narrative" is different from the American "narrative"; according to it, we are not, unlike the United States, a multicultural society; according to it, there are no such things as hyphenated identities in Brazil. Of course, reality is different; but the "narrative" stems from reality - and impacts it, strongly. These articles superimpose a literal translation of the American "narrative" into Brazil, as if it corresponded not only to Brazilian "narrative", but to Brazilian reality as well. They do that with no regards to Brazilian "narratives" and realities, and they do that through an utterly improper use of sources. Authors that say "X" are reported as saying "not X"; original research conclusions are taken based in the flimsiest evidence; other authors are quoted selectively, leaving aside what is really important in their work to underline very secondary issues, etc. Sources that contradict the POV in the articles are ignored, labeled unreliable, etc. Sources that reinforce the articles' POV are acritically accepted, even when they are obviously unreliable or unverifiable.
You say that The fact that there are two (even a few more) definitions of "Spanish Brazilian" can be addressed in the article. No need to settle for just one. Our neutral point of view policy even requires that we acknowledge mulitiplicity of important viewpoints. Fine. But this is not what these articles do. They assume a definition, and squeeze figures and facts incompatible with such definition into it. They clearly state a definition into the first line of the lead, something like, "Somewherestanese Brazilians are Brazilian citizens born in Somewheristan or of partial, full, or predominant Somewherestanese descent", and elaborate from that. And what do they elaborate?
They tell us that there are 925,528,028 Somewherestanese Brazilians, based in a source that is directly or indirectly linked to Somewherestanese government or commercial interests, and that does not point to any survey or verifiable calculation. And when you check the given figure for Somewherestanese Brazilians with the figure of actual Somewheristanese immigrants to Brazil, you see that they imply a superhuman rate of fertility.
Then they speak of the "Somewherestanese community" in Brazil, as if such "communities" had any relation to the totality of Brazilians that have "Somewherestanese ancestry". For instance, the article on "Arab Brazilians" used to report 12 million people of Arab descent in Brazil. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even possible, those were immediately assumed (per the definition in the lead) to be "Arab Brazilians", and then assumed to make part of an "Arab Brazilian community". To put it in a simpler way: when it comes to figures, the lead definition is the base, allowing the article to state a figure that, even when isn't grossly inflated by POV, is high. When the subject is described, a much stricter definition (unstated in the lead), that obviously corresponds to a much smaller number of people is assumed, but the figures are not changed accordingly, resulting in an untrue and undue exaggeration of the subject.
And finally, those articles deal with the "influence" of "Somewherestanese Brazilians". And here every Somewherestanese influence in Brazil is acritically assumed to be related to Somewherestanese immigration to Brazil. Which is evidently false. German immigration to Brazil is much bigger than French immigration. But the overall French influence in Brazil is much bigger and decisive than German influence - because a country may influence others through many other means than migration - commerce, military power, cultural prowess, universality of its cultural contributions, etc.
A particularly nasty part of this is the reported influence of immigrants in Brazilian Portuguese. Most of such reports is merely original research, either outright inventions or misinterpretations of sources. Some examples: the vast lexical imports from Arabic into Portuguese attributed to "Arab Brazilians" (when in fact they are old imports to European Portuguese, due to the conquest of Iberia by the "Moors"; a whole plethora of lexical imports from Italian (which are, for the most part, erudite imports, via Italian literature, not popular imports via colloquial talk); a supposed phonetic influence of "Italian language" in Brazilian Portuguese spoken in São Paulo - that cannot be traced to any particular phone characteristic and curiously took place only in São Paulo city, while other cities, with even proportionally bigger number of immigrants (Campinas, for instance) remain speaking with a good old "caipira" accent - that of lately has been reduced to a "softening" of the Paulistana pronunciation.
All those things are fantasies, of course. But where do they stem of? From sloppy writing, from assuming real identity between things that have similar names, from stating one definition but unstatedly working with others, etc. As you can see, nothing of this requires specialised anthropological terminology to be explained to the reader. Common English will do fine, as long as there is no sloppiness. But sloppiness is the rule.
Of course, maybe you are right - this is Misplaced Pages, and reliability should not be expected. But then what are we doing here? Ninguém (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hoped you could tell I was being somewhat facetious. Obviously German Americans do have certain things in common with each other, and the same can be said of English Americans.
- "Listen, I don't edit articles about German Americans or English Americans."
- Right. But the point is to illustrate to you that the article Spanish Brazilian belongs to a legitimate class of articles about what you termed "ancestral categories".
- "These articles superimpose a literal translation of the American "narrative" into Brazil...They do that with no regards to Brazilian "narratives" and realities"
- Are you saying that the very concept of "Brazilians of Spanish ancestry" is unknown in Brazil? Are you saying that only Misplaced Pages has ever written about these Brazilians? No social scientist, from anywhere in the world, ever has?
- The questions you raise about POV, OR, etc are a separate issue, or mostly separate, as they are really about procedure and adherence, or lack thereof, to Misplaced Pages's own policies. But we're talking about the very raison d'etre of the article.
- You need to reconcile yourself to the fact that that is settled, because the article exists, i.e., it hasn't been successfully nominated for deletion and isn't currently nominated. So what remains is to make it adhere to WP policies. Starting with NPOV.
- The definition you imposed on this article, with this business of being 'aware of and connected with Spanish culture', is either wrong or not the principal one. If it isn't changed, it should at least be accompanied by another, Ninguém. SamEV (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC); 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The concept of "Brazilians of Spanish descent", of course, isn't unknown in Brazil. But then it doesn't translate into "Hispano-brasileiro", and it refers, for the most part, to an undescribable population: they do not constitute any meaningful segment of the Brazilian population, they aren't richer or poorer than other Brazilians, (unlike, for instance, "Afro-Brazilians", whose demographic characteristics are clearly different from those of the rest of the population). They don't speak Spanish, they speak Portuguese (unlike, for instance, Talian or Hunsrieckisch speaking populations), they don't speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent, they don't consider themselves "Spanish Brazilians", they don't adhere to different religions than other Brazilians (unlike, for instance, "Japanese Brazilians", among whom Buddhism is the second most practiced religion), etc. Wonder why "Spanish is a national ancestry group that was and still is, in most cases, omitted or treated briefly or superficially by most scholars of this subject. Compared to people of Italian, German, Japanese, Arab and Slav ethnic origin, subject of numerous and extensive studies, there are no records that the descendents of Spanish immigrants have been treated with the same interest, even though Spanish immigration was the third largest among immigrant groups in Brazil", as this article states?
I have no doubt that this article exists - gee, I have even been editing it. Making it adhere to NPOV means removing what is POV in it - mainly the idea that all people with any Spanish descent in Brazil are "Spanish Brazilians". If we are going to have an article about "Spanish Brazilians", why should such article be about a different subject - Brazilians of Spanish descent? Why shouldn't it be about "Spanish identity" in Brazil, including clubs, societies, parties, etc., related to this? And if we are going to have an article about Brazilians of Spanish descent, why should we entitle it "Spanish Brazilians", and make nasty edit wars against the inclusion of Heitor Villa-Lobos as one of them? Or, even, why should it have a list of "notable" people, who, for the most part, are not notable due to such ancestry? And, more importantly, what exactly such article should say, besides "there are some Brazilians of Spanish descent; they cannot be distinguished from other Brazilians in any significant way"? Ninguém (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- "But then it doesn't translate into "Hispano-brasileiro""
- So let's remove that translation and problem solved! See how easy it is? I'm not sure that we have to provide a translation at all.
- If the concept is known in Brazil, then this population must be describable. I refuse to believe that language should mysteriously fail when it comes to this group.
- You then tell me that this group basically doesn't exist. The paradox is that in doing so you prove that they do. You paint a portrait of a group whose demographics places them completely in the mainstream of Brazil. And I believe your portrait. Your problem is that you think that their having such demographics means that they've somehow ceased to exist.
- You'd be unable to paint that portrait unless it's possible to identify who these people are. Who, after all, are you referring to when you say, "they don't speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent, they don't consider themselves "Spanish Brazilians"," Who is "they"? Surely you are not speaking of phantoms.
- "They" are a group which exists, and whose demographics you know. They are a group who are a valid subject for an article here.
- The English American article doesn't exist because English Americans lie outside the mainstream, or speak English differently, or earn more or less than the rest of the country, etc.
- It's beside the point that Spanish Brazilians haven't been studied as much as some of the other Brazilians. (And did you notice that your quotation calls them a "national ancestry group"? Isn't that what I kept telling you they are, instead of an ethnic group?) The important thing is that there have been studies. This group is a valid subject of inquiry, your own words prove.
- "Making it adhere to NPOV means removing what is POV"
- POV in the sense of WP editor POV. The article is supposed to have POVs, but they have to be the significant POVs of experts. So if "the idea that all people with any Spanish descent in Brazil are "Spanish Brazilians"" is a significant expert POV, it belongs in the article.
- "Spanish Brazilians", "Brazilians of Spanish descent", "Spanish identity"—why can't the article be partly about each of these? In any case, these subjects are so closely related that an article on one would necessarily be in part an article on the others.
- You ask 'what can we say about them?'. Obviously a lot! We have information about their immigration to Brazil. We have info about the areas of Spain whence they came. We have info about when they came. We have info about where they settled in Brazil. We know some things about their history once they arrived in Brazil. We have info about what occupations they engaged in. We know that they ultimately became part of Brazil's mainstream. We know many names of people who have this ancestry. We know — we know many things, as you can see. We know more than enough to write a nice little, or big, article that is well sourced and complies with this project's policies and spirit. SamEV (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Some things exist, but there is no available data about them.
"My" quotation is a quotation from the article, not from any expert source.
Removing POV means to remove editor POV, not expert POV. You say, if "the idea that all people with any Spanish descent in Brazil are 'Spanish Brazilians'" is a significant expert POV, it belongs in the article." Exactly. If it was a significant expert POV, it should belong in the article. The point is, is it a significant expert POV? If so, expert sources should be found and placed in the article, referencing the lead's initial statement. The problem, as I see it, is that no such sources exist (and this is the reason they are not cited - and were indeed never cited - in the article), because "the idea that all people with any Spanish descent in Brazil are "Spanish Brazilians"" isn't a significant expert POV. If it is not a significant expert POV, it doesn't belong in the article, do you agree?
You say, We have information about their immigration to Brazil. We have info about the areas of Spain whence they came. We have info about when they came. We have info about where they settled in Brazil. We know some things about their history once they arrived in Brazil. We have info about what occupations they engaged in. Let me disagree. We know such things about people who lived, and immigrated to Brazil, about a century ago. The apparently neutral pronoun "they", here, stands for a conflation: it stands both for nowadays Brazilians of Spanish descent and for early 20th century Spanish immigrants to Brazil. But they aren't the same people. Nowadays Brazilians of Spanish descent didn't immigrate to Brazil. "They" didn't come from any areas in Spain. "They" didn't settle in any areas in Brazil. The information we have, of course, is not about "them", but about a different set of people, early 20th century Spanish immigrants to Brazil, and, evidently, belongs in Spanish immigration to Brazil, not in Spanish Brazilian. Ninguém (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Some things exist, but there is no available data about them."
- Luckily, that's not the case with this subject.
- ""My" quotation is a quotation from the article, not from any expert source."
- It was your choice to quote the article, Ninguém. It was your argument.
- "Removing POV means to remove editor POV, not expert POV."
- Unfortunately, you substituted in your own POV. You failed to improve the article by doing that.
- How significant is the POV that Spanish Brazilians are only those Brazilians who are aware of and connected to Spanish culture?
- "If it is not a significant expert POV, it doesn't belong in the article, do you agree?"
- Of course I do. I just said that.
- What unbelievable things you are saying now, Ninguém. You aren't seriously saying that Spanish Brazilians, however defined, didn't originate with Spanish immigrants to Brazil, are you? Whom did they originate with? Are they autochthonous to Brazil, rising out of its very soil, sometime in the 20th century!? Do you not know that there's a "History" section, as their should be? From what you say, you seem to be arguing that there should be no mention of how Spanish Brazilians's Spanish ancestors got to Brazil! Amazing. SamEV (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC); 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You ask how significant the POV that "Spanish Brazilians are only those Brazilians who are aware of and connected to Spanish culture" is. This is the commonplace view in Brazil. But, agree, commonplace isn't a reliable source. There are not many sources that deal with "Spanish Brazilians", so this may be difficult. We do have an expert, Migule Angel García, who says something similar regarding "Italian Brazilians" - can we apply it by analogy?
Do you have expert sources that say that all Brazilians of any Spanish descent are "Spanish Brazilians"? Indeed, do you have any expert sources saying anything about "Spanish-Brazilians"? If such sources don't exist, may we completely delete this article and put the issue to rest? Ninguém (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about making an analogy; it seems kind of OR. But we could enlist the aid of others in making that decision. Keep in mind that such a view ('aware and connected') would only be one of the ones presented in this article.
- Re: expert sources, are you saying there aren't any? Because if you are, then may I ask how it is you know anything about Spanish Brazilian demographics? Did you invent everything you said about them? SamEV (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There are expert sources about Spanish immigration to Brazil. There are expert sources about Brazilians of Spanish descent. I don't think there are expert sources saying that all Brazilians of Spanish descent are "Spanish Brazilians". Are there any? If there aren't, then this article must be deleted or renamed. Ninguém (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying about expert sources. On the article title, you just called the group "Brazilians of Spanish descent". That title would be fine with me. SamEV (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just for your information, there is precedent for considering "Portuguese Brazilians" as a different set of people from "Brazilians of Portuguese descent"; for instance, see (So what? He had nothing to do with Portugal). As you see, the well established fact that Vargas was of Portuguese Azorean descent does not imply that he was a Portuguese Brazilian, because he "had nothing to do with Portugal". I don't know why this perfect logic is contested here. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
A different discussion
- Ninguém doesn't want to admit that Brazilians of recent immigrant origin have a special relation with the country of their ancestors. He wants to sell the wrong idea that everybody in Brazil is the same, that when you are born in Brazil you loose your family memory and become "100% Brazilian". Brazil is a very diverse country, and Brazilians who have recent immigrant ancestors (or not so recent) do have a special conection with the country from where their relatives come from.
I'm not 100% Italian, I only have a single Italian great-grandmother, but I feel conected to Italy, because since I was a little boy I heard my grandmother speaking about her Italian roots. Most Brazilians who have a recent immigrant element in their families are used to hear about their ancestors since they are children, and we create some admiration for that country. My mother cannot speak a word of Italian, I'm the only person in my family who speaks some Italian, because I studied it. Nevessless, during World Cup we like when the Italian team wins and when we traveled abroad for the first time, we choose to go to Italy. It's not because we don't speak Italian anymore or we are not "aware of and connected to Italian culture" that we do not have a special connection to Italy. We have, and even if that "connection" did not exist anymore, the Italian ancestry will still be there and I will pass it down to my descendants.
I also have Portuguese, African and Native American ancestries. They are even more remote than my Italian one, but I'm equally connected to Portugal and Africa. I don't look to Portugal with the same eyes I look to Sweden or Japan. I feel more connected to Portugal and Africa and I dream to travel to both places. And even if I didn't care about both, the ancestry will be with me forever.
I know some Brazilians who hate Brazil and wish they could leave the country. They are not "connected" to Brazil, or at least pretend not to be. So aren't they Brazilians because they cut the connection?
Funny that Ninguém already reported to be of "colonial Portuguese descent", and now he is saying that Brazilians of 18th-century Spanish descent are not "Spanish Brazilians" anymore! So Ninguém can be of colonial Portuguese descent, but other people cannot be of colonial Spanish descent! I can't understand this person.
So, Ninguém, stop selling the idea that Brazilians cut their "cultural" and "spiritual" relations with the country from where their relatives come from, because we don't. When Brazil is out of World Cup, people of Italian descent wants Italy to wint it, people of German descent wants Germany to win it, and so on. The Italian "nonne" (grandmas) still cook pasta for us on sundays, the cake recipe from the German great-grandmother is still being used, the Japanese traditions are part of the day-life of the community, people have memories of their Portuguese grandmas singing fado and the stories of slavery told by old black grandfathers are still alive in people's memory.
You like it or not, Brazil is a country of immigrants, with the exception of the few Indians, we are a mix of people who came from all around the world (and not exclusevily from colonial Portugal, don't forget that) and we keep the memory and traditions of our ancestors. This is what makes us "Brazilians", we are not a copy, but a mix. Opinoso (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- And about Brazilians of Spanish descent, they don't speak Spanish, many of them can't list Spanish cities. Most of them have memories of their Spanish grandparents, they hear the family stories from their parents, they see pictures of their ancestors. They don't need to love Spain to be somehow connected to that country. And even if 0% of that connection lasted, which is rare, because there's always a memory and admiration alive, they still have Spanish ancestor, recent or remote. I know a few people of Spanish descent here in Brazil, a friend of mine has a grandfather from Spain, she doesn't speak a word of Spanish, but she is proud of her Spanish roots, like the majority.
I think Ninguém should leave the Internet and talk to real-life Brazilians. It's incredible how he spends a whole day at Misplaced Pages and how much free time he has to spend here. I wish I had it to. We all did, I think.Opinoso (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ninguém doesn't want to admit He wants to sell Spare everyone the mindreading stunts, Opinoso. And the personal advice too. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, Opinoso, welcome back. Hello, Hoary.
- Excellent comment, Opinoso, especially the point about Ninguém and his colonial ancestry. SamEV (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- What does my ancestry have to do with this? Ninguém (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps SamEV could answer that question on your talk page, Ninguém. This talk page is for discussion of the article Spanish Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting suggestion, Hoary. But there seems to be a general principle involved in this: that the ancestry of people shape their perceptions of the world, in a way that makes any edit about, say, "Spanish Brazilians" unreliable if the editor is of, say, Portuguese ancestry. Is this in any way expressed in Misplaced Pages rules or guidelines? If not, can we please put a definite end to such speculations and the associated schoolyard bullying, and send appropriate warnings to editors who insist on them? Ninguém (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Somebody who wishes to appeal to the authority of a WP policy or guideline should cite that policy or guideline so that others can read it for themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the appropriate reference here is WP:Discrimination. It states that "Misplaced Pages and English Misplaced Pages should not give privilege in writing and freedom of speech, and expression, scientific inclusion, etc. to some in expense of others", which is the issue here, at it seems users Opinoso and SamEV are trying to establish a privilege for users of some ancestries at the expense of users of other ancestries. Ninguém (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ninguém, I openly challenge you to produce any proof of what you've just said about me. SamEV (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Somewhere else, please. -- Hoary (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ninguém, what are you doing?
Can't you understand the concepts of original research and neutral point of view? You're committing the former and failing to observe the latter. We have to present what the sources say, and we have to do so dispassionately. There's room in the article for both estimates. That accords with, in fact obeys, WP:NPOV. SamEV (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC); 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, sir. One estimate is based on actual research. The other isn't based on anything: no research, no verifiable calculations, nothing. One is an actual demographic source; the other is a paper on Spanish-Brazilian diplomatic relations - reliable as a source on such subject, not on demography.
- The data from the 1998 PME survey are compatible with the data about Spanish immigration to Brazil; the "data" in Ayllón's paper are not. Ayllón's figure would imply an abnormal fertility of Spanish immigrants in Brazil, that is not hinted anywhere in the literature. Ayllón's figure would imply that, while most Spanish immigrants in Brazil came to São Paulo - as the data on immigration tell us - and albeit the 20th century saw strong internal migration to São Paulo but practically none from São Paulo, their descendants would overwhelmingly live in other states. Again a phenomenon that is not mentioned anywhere in the literature. Ninguém (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ayllón credits the Spanish embassy in Brazil for his figures.
- "Ayllón's figure would imply an abnormal fertility of Spanish immigrants in Brazil"
- Per whom? Per you? That's what I'm calling original research. SamEV (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And the Spanish embassy in Brazil... does it conduct demographic research? Does it even says it does? Does it provide actual calculations, if it is an estimate? If so, this must be sourced. If not, then the Spanish embassy, sorry, isn't a verifiable source.
An abnormal fertility, per any person that stops to check the figures. Listen, if you believe this factoid is accurate, you certainly don't object placing here a table showing the number of immigrants of the various nationalities to Brazil, the alleged number of their descendants, and the numbers of the pre-immigration and nowadays populations of Brazil, with a collumn showing how many descendants per person there are in each case, and allowing the reader to take his/her own conclusions, do you? Ninguém (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OMG... What in the world makes you think I would object!? Just please keep it free of your personal observations. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that Opinoso, for instance, has removed such tables from other articles.
- Tomorrow, the tables. Ninguém (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which tables? Those you made without a single source, as usual? lol Opinoso (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Those I made with your fantasist figures and the IBGE data about immigration to Brazil. Those on which you wanted a source about a mathematical operation. Ninguém (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the table does have to be sourced, Ninguém.
- OK, I may not comment the rest of this evening, because I'm going to be editing a different article. SamEV (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
More comments on User:Ninguém
- Wasn't Ninguem the one claiming that the "vast majority" of the 90 million "White" Brazilians are descended from those few 500,000-700,000 Portuguese who settled in Brazil in colonial times (most of whom arrived in the 18th century alone)? Why couldn't there be 15 million people of Spanish descent, descended from the 700,000 Spaniards who arrived from the 19th century? According to Ninguem the Portuguese were abnormal rabbits, because 500,000 Portuguese were able to produce the "vast majority" of 90 million Whites, and they were also magics, since they had virtually no Portuguese women to have children. And more abnominal is that those 500,000 were also able to produce a mixed non-White population composed of over 100 million people. So, accoding to expert Ninguem the 500,000 Portuguese produced 100 million non-Whites and the vast majority of 90 million White Brazilians.
Compared to Portuguese, those Spaniards were loosers. Opinoso (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The prolificity of Portuguese colonists
- So, Ninguém, how can you explain that only 500,000 Portuguese males were able to produce a population with over 120 million people alone? Magic? Opinoso (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What was the size of the White Brazilian population in 1872? 500,000?
Geometric progressions are geometric progressions, and they progress... geometrically. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- So according to you geometric progressions only work for Portuguese, not for Italians, Germans or Spaniards? Opinoso (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
More misinterpretation of sources
A "verification failed" tag was removed from this paragraph:
The given source, in Portuguese, is non-academic, unsigned, and cites no references. So, for starters, it is a poor source, and should be replaced, as soon as possible, by an academic, peer-reviewed source.
But this is a comparatively minor problem. The biggest problem is, it does not say what is reported in this article.
What does it say?
- Spanish influence was felt in Rio Grande do Sul, since its beginnings. It can even be said that, without Spanish participation, husbandry - which would be the basis of the Gaúcha economy during the 19th and early 20th century - would not exist without its actual importance. But not only that: in the border speech, in cultural influences, countries of hispanic language had an important role in our century.
As we see, the linguistic, cultural, influence, here, does not refer to "Spaniards", but to "countries of hispanic language" - Uruguay and Argentina. And not in colonial times, but in "our" century - probably, the 20th century.
So we are left only with the "economic" influence represented by the husbandry. But the source further explains what it means by without Spanish participation, husbandry would not exist without its actual importance:
- ... the biggest Spanish contribution, in economic terms, can be considered the introduction of bovines to Rio Grande do Sul. During the 16th Century, when the Jesuits formed their "reductions" with Guarani Indians, they were concerned about creating huge herds to warrant their protegees' nutrition. Thanks to that, and threats of divine vengeance, they were able to keep the Indians reunited. When the Jesuits were expelled, the cattle stayed and proliferated, becoming an attractive to Portuguese and Spaniards. Paulista bandeirantes and Lagunenses who first penetrated the Gaúcho territory did it in search of cattle.
So the "Spanish economic influence" is very precise: Spanish Jesuits introduced cattle in order to feed (and gather) Guarani Indians; when they were expelled, the cattle remained. In no way this implies any Spanish settling of the territory, or the existence of a population of Spaniards or descendants of Spaniards in this territory.
The the source says the following:
- Also in cultural terms Spanish influence was present, specially in the region of the Campanha. There, living similar situations and with identic economic activities, gaúchos in both sides developed extremely similar dresses. Also alimentary habits are quite similar: meat is the alimentary basis in all the Pampa.
Here the source indeed talks of "Spanish influence", but an accurate reading shows a few problems. First, the "cultural terms" seem to be simply costumes and alimentary habits; needless to say, a region where the predominant economic activity is cattleherding will have a diet based on meat; no "influences" are needed to explain this. And this "influence", on the other hand, in no way implies a Spanish demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul any more than a Portuguese demographic presence in Uruguay or Argentina. Costumes can be copied, without need of immigration (the typical Gaúcho attire, for instance, includes the Turkish pants called "bombachas", even though there was no Turkish demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul or Uruguay or Argentina). More: the typical Gaúcho costume, or "pilcha" isn't a typical Spanish costume: not only bombachas, but xiripás, guaiacas, chapéus de barbicacho, ponchos and palas, etc., are unknown in Spain.
The source then expands about "Platine" influence in the township of Santa Vitória do Palmar. But this is about the 20th century and Uruguay, not about Spain and colonial times. Playing soccer (an English game; one wonders about an English demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul...) with Uruguayan teams, listening to Uruguayan radio, etc.
The source also says some different things, which were not cited in this article:
- In Rio Grande do Sul there is no city, not even a neighbourhood, that can be considered Spanish. And, if any, very few families speak only Spanish at home.
Then the source indulges in some confuse examples of Spanish linguistic influence in Rio Grande do Sul. An example is the name of the sparrow in Santa Vitória do Palmar, which isn't "pardal" as in most of Brazil, but "corrião". A Spanish borrowing, certalinly. But the Spanish name of the sparrow is "gorrión", and the nasal diphtong "ão" is typically Portuguese and unpronounceable to Spanish speakers... and the source ends such digressions by concluding: But, of course, this is not Spanish language.
The source then comes to what it considers an undeniable Spanish influence in Rio Grande do Sul: the tradition of flying kites in Good Friday. Anyone can, of course, base a whole theory of Spanish demographic presence on this tradition, but, without any corroboration from other evidence, it remains, how may I say it, a quite improbable theory.
Then the source veers into something different - the presence of Spanish immigrants in Rio Grande do Sul - which I hope people are able to realise is clearly not related to any supposed colonial times Spanish demographic presence.
Then the source talks about something interesting:
- "califórnias" were the punitive expeditions that Brazilian chieftains made against Uruguayan territory in reprisal of abuse committed against Brasilians that lived there.
- In older times, those who weren't able to say "pauzito" pronouncing the "z" was subjected to the "degola", since Castillians pronounce it "c" instead of "z"
For those who don't know, the "degola", also known as "corbata colorada" ("red tie") is a typical method of murder, caracterised by cutting the throat of the victim from one side to the other. So, according to this source, these Brazilians so proud of their Spanish descent, had the curious habit of asking prisoners to say "pauzito", and if they unfortunately pronounced it in the Spanish way ("paucito"), these Brazilians so proud of their Spanish descent would kill them in this way.
So I am reinstating the "verification failed" tag, as the source does not support the text in the article. Ninguém (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- You write too much to persuade people, but it doesn't work. The source claims there was Spanish linguistic and economic influence in Rio Grande. No matter how much you want them to be "Portuguese", they will never be. If you want to see real people of Portuguese descent in Brazil, go to Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo. In Wester Rio Grande do Sul you will only find a Brazilian copy of countryside Argentina or Uruguay. Opinoso (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- And "bombachas, xiripás, guaiacas, chapéus de barbicacho, ponchos and palas" are not known in Portugal as well, but you claim that Gaúchos are direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese". So what? Opinoso (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
And more distortions of sources
Another removed "verification failed" tag was removed from this statement:
- A genetic research conducted by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) on Southern Brazilian Gaúchos revealed that they are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese.
The source given is an article about a genetic study by Andrea Rita Marrero, which improperly summarises the findings of the actual study, that can be found here: História Genética dos Gaúchos. It does not conclude what is reported in the article. It says, textually, However, differently from what was seen for other Brazilian populations, it seem that Spanish contribution was more important, which is in agreement with historic data, that point to the "mobility" of borders in the edge of the Portuguese Empire. As we see, the source talks about a possibility, which is misreported in the article as a "revelation" of a fact.
Reinstating the "verification failed" tag, as this is more an instance of improper reading and improper reporting of a source. Ninguém (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Everything in the world is a "possibility". We are not sure about anything. As long as human knowledge envolves, we discover new things and discover that other things is wrong. The genetic study found that Gaúchos are closer to Spaniards than they are to Portuguese. It destroys what you were repeating everywhere, that "Gaúchos are direct descendants of colonial Portuguese". They are not, and everybody knew that, you were the only one living in that fantasy.
Gaúchos are less Portuguese than Black people from Pelourinho in Bahia. Black people in Bahia do have Portuguese admixture, since Bahia was a main destination for Portuguese colonization, but Western Rio Grande do Sul was never a place of Portuguese migratory movement. Salvador da Bahia, with all those Portuguese churches and architecture, is definetly more Portuguese than any Gaúcho pampa.
There was never any known Portuguese migratory movement to Wester Rio Grande do Sul. A poor area was not attractive for Europeans. The people who settled there came mostly from neighbor Hispanic colonies, so they brought their Spanish ancestry and left their descendants there, who were mixed with the Amerindians. Nobody is gonna find anything similar to Portugal in Wester Rio Grande, I do not know from where you took this ridiculous and pathetic idea. That are is just another Brazilian copy of countryside Argentina. And countryside Argentina is mostly Mestizo, because the influx of Italian and Spaniards immigrants did not reach there with significant numbers. Wester Rio Grande is not different. It looks nothing like Portugal, neither their people. Opinoso (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
And yet more distortion of sources
I am also restoring a "clarify" tag on this sentence:
- The genetic resource also detected a very high degree of Amerindian admixture in Brazilian Gaúchos (52% of Amerindian mtDNA
MtDNA is a very smallish part of human genome. It is impossible to determine a "very high degree" of genetic admixture based on MtDNA. So the sentence should be rewritten, to express something compatible with what we know about MtDNA, or removed, because it is false. Ninguém (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- 52% of Amerindian mtDNA indicates that MOST Gaúchos have at least one Amerindian ancestor. It destroys your theory that Gaúchos are direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese people". That's why you seem to hate this genetic study so much and is always trying to remove it from everywhere. Opinoso (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why Ayllon isn't a reliable source in this context
The "15 million Brazilians of Spanish descent" factoid is systematically reinserted into this page. The source is <ref name=Ayllon>{{cite web |url=http://www.hispanista.com.br/revista/artigo45esp.htm |title=Brasil – España: Una Relación Consolidada Pero Incompleta |first=Bruno |last=Ayllón |accessdate=2010-06-28 |work=Hispanista}}</ref>.
Ayllon, however, is a expert on Diplomatics, or International Relations, not on Demography. Accordingly, he must take his demographic data from other sources. In this case, he choose to trust figures from the Spanish embassy to Brazil. But this was evidently a poor choice; the Spanish embassy to Brazil does not conduct demographic research, nor does it have experts in Demography to make accurate calculations from primary sources. Besides, it is a political entity, whose job is not to research truth, but to politically represent the interests of the Spanish State and of Spanish citizens in Brazil. Consequently, all this amounts to sheer speculation. No actual expert sources in the field of Demography support the 15 million figure. Ninguém (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Most recently, it has been reinserted in this edit, with the extraordinary summary Ninguém, please stop your childish behavior. The necessity of retaining this info has been explained to you.
- Where is this explanation of the need to retain this information?
- Let's look at what the article says. (Despite my inability in Portuguese, I like to delude myself that much of it is sufficiently close to French to be comprehensible. Feel free to correct me where I get it wrong.) The author describes himself, or is described, as Doctorando en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid e investigador visitante en el Núcleo de Pesquisas em Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil. No sign there of a background in demographics. If I'm right, then this doesn't mean that he's incapable of handling demographic information, but it does mean that this isn't his standard stock in trade. His section "BRASIL – ESPAÑA EN CIFRAS" starts with the preambulatory Más de 15 millones de brasileños son descendientes directos de españoles before he jumps out of demographics and gets down to recent figures in dólares. It's a pleasant way to grab the attention of his Brazilian readers but he cites no source. How is he credible? Oh: Datos de la Embajada de España en Brasilia. Now, I don't want to ascribe their figures to this or that motivation, but how are they authoritative?
- Or is it just that we should unquestioningly swallow anything that embassies deign to tell us? -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- "the Spanish embassy to Brazil does not conduct demographic research, nor does it have experts in Demography to make accurate calculations from primary sources."
- And you know that how, Ninguém?
- "Where is this explanation of the need to retain this information?"
- See above, where I explained to you (or tried to) that we have a policy called neutral point of view and what it requires.
- "Or is it just that we should unquestioningly swallow anything that embassies deign to tell us?"
- Couldn't that be said of any source? Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us? SamEV (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so first "The necessity of retaining this info has been explained to you" actually meant "I have explained the necessity of retaining this info to you". And the reasoning for this was that (a) Ninguém offered no evidence for his assertion that an embassy neither conducted research nor reanalysed others' research, and that (b) a "neutral point of view" requires that we "present what the sources say, and we have to do so dispassionately. There's room in the article for both estimates. That accords with, in fact obeys, WP:NPOV."
- Of course I'd seen that stuff above, but it was so unconvincing that I'd assumed that there'd been some other explanation. But all right, here goes.
- It's plausible that some nations conduct demographic research on some others, and involve their embassies in this. For example, the Israel/Islam-obsessed USA may want to estimate the relative importances, now and in the estimable future, of voting-age secularists and Islamists in Turkey, and it may involve its embassy in this. (Indeed it has its optimistically named "Central Intelligence Agency" do just this kind of thing.) So it's indeed possible that the Spanish are conducting or coordinating demographic research in Brazil. What is the evidence that they are doing so? If we have none, then we apply Occam's razor and assume that they are not.
- WP:NPOV, cited above, says that Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Within that, "reliable sources" links to "WP:V", which tells us to use reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available .
- I fail to see that this figure either (a) is from a source that's appropriate in this context or (b) represents a prominent viewpoint.
- Now the last, curious question: "Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us?" No, we can express our doubts about any source right here, presenting our reasoning for the doubts (and avoiding accusations such as that of "childish behavior" where these are not clearly warranted). If we are persuasive, then the article is reedited accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
And you know that how, Ninguém?
- I have never seen, or heard, or read about any foreign embassy to Brazil doing this. I have never seen any paper by them giving any reasoning to support their statements in this issue. They say, "there are X people of such descent in Brazil", but they never say, "we know because we counted them, using this or that method, covering this or that territory, in this or that date"; they never say, "we know because we took this or that ancient data, applied this or that extrapolation method, and found the figures we are reporting". Indeed, what they usually say is, "it is estimated". By whom, we have to wonder. And, since they don't say that they do it, I assume that they don't. The burden of the proof lies with those who make the claim, and that the Spanish embassy is a reliable source on issues of Brazilian demography is your claim; you have to support it.
Couldn't that be said of any source? Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us?
- Of course, it applies to any source. So, if you wish, you are perfectly within what is reasonable to explain why the 1998 PME is unreliable. But it was an actual survey; IBGE employees went from house to house, knocking at the door, and asking actual questions to actual people, so you will have to find its supposed unreliability elsewhere.
- Your understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, as Hoary demonstrated above, is defective. They explain what reliability, verifiability, and neutrality mean; according to their standards, the Spanish Embassy is not neutral, is not reliable within this subject, and their purported information is not verifiable. According to the same standards, Ayllon's article is a reliable source within his field of expertise - International Relations - not on Demography. You will notice that his paper, indeed, is not about demography; it is a paper about International Relations, in which this demographic remark is an aside, indeed quite irrelevant to the points he raises: he could still say the exact same things about Spanish-Brazilian relations whether there were 50,000,000 or 50,000 Brazilians of Spanish descent. Ayllon's statement about the number of Brazilians of Spanish descent, moreover, is certainly unverifiable; we can verify only whether the Spanish embassy said what he reports, but not whether the Spanish embassy is correct in saying it.
- Misplaced Pages's rules should not be taken as encouraging solipsism. Ninguém (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Friendship with an administrator
Why is user Ninguém removing several sourced informations from this article? Why does he add tags to sourced informations, or say that a source is not saying something, when it is? And why does Admnistrator Hoary is always defending Ninguém. Is it fair to have a friend as administrator and let an user free to do whatever he wants? Opinoso (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since administrator Hoary is a "cyber-friend" of Ninguém, he should at least not become part of discussions and troubles that Ninguém is always causing everywhere, because since Hoary started to protect Ninguém, this user is feeling free to do whatever he wants in Misplaced Pages, because he knows nothing will happen to him. Ninguém spends nearly 24 hours a day connected to Misplaced Pages, he usually over-edits articles and nobody really knows that he is doing here. But since he has an administrator friend, he feels free to do whatever he wants. Ninguém writes good English and he has enough free time to make friends, probably sending them private e-mails to convince them he is right, so he can persuade people.
And then people will start to believe that most Brazilians are Whites and direct descendants of 500,000 "colonial Portuguese" who had no Portuguese women to have children, but they were magics who had children with the Mother-Nature. Opinoso (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: