Talk:Brazil/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Wikiquette alert

I have reported this page, here. -- Rico 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible, but not a single information from the old text was wrong. Opinoso (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit(s)

Does anybody propose we edit the article in some way, say, somewhere in the history section? -- Rico 21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BRAZILIAN TOP MODELS : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.173.132 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil is the land of most beautiful and gorgeous top models in the world. For instance, Gisele Bundchen, the most know and valuable girl face in the world (US$ 50 million in 2007 !), and many others, like Adriana Lima, Caroline Trentini, Isabeli Fontana, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Fernanda Tavares, Fernanda Motta, Ana Claudia Michels, by the way, a true brazilian national team of players.

One of most important, new and emergent industry is the fashion, with a very good international image and significant economy contribution in last years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.173.132 (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hehehe! I have to agree that Brazilian models are the best ones in the business, but this is not the place to talk about it! Opinoso (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature, poetry, and the usual Wikipedia mistakes...

Reading this article, I find the following, in the section on Literature and Poetry:

Until then, the books written in Brazil were printed in Portugal; Monteiro Lobato, of the Pré-Modernism (literary moviment essencially brazilian)[192], founded the Monteiro Lobato & Cia., the first national publisher, to edit your adult books.[193]

First of all, "until" when?

Second, Lobato's publishing house was not the first to print books in Brazil; in the XIX Century, the Laemmert brothers were already running a Typographia Universal to print books for their Livraria Universal.

Third, Pré-Modernism (sic, with diacritics and all) wasn't a literary movement, essentially Brazilian or not; it is the name given, ex post facto, to an array of Brazilian artists whose work displayed some Modernist characteristics and no longer fit into previous literary movements such as Symbolism, Realism, or Parnasianism, but were not and identified not as Modernists.

Fourth, as flattered as I am by the idea that Lobato founded a publishing house to print "my" books, I fear that what was meant here is "to edit his adult books". Ninguém (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Content dispute: another opinion requested

There appears to be a content dispute between a couple of editors on this page. Would an editor with some knowledge of Brazil and its history care to add their opinion and/or help resolve the issues?

Without looking too much into it, I would say discussion to substantially alter a significant portion of the article should be done before it is changed, not after. Consensus always needs to be obtained to change something, not to leave it. It looks here as if there was little (maybe no) discussion to alter these sections and other editors are very rightly upset. Grsz¹¹ 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This RFC is unclear and really vague, and it's hard to tell what the issues are. I tried looking at the history of the page, but there are at least four different places where things have been reverted. I'd recommend closing the RFC, listing all of the issues, and allowing all of the editors here to comment on them. If no consensus has been reached, then reopen the RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what has been done. All issues were raised here in detail, but with no avail. Only then was this Rfc opened. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brief history of what is going on: user:Lecen virtually erased all the History text from this article, without any justification (he only posted in the talk page he was going to change it, he could not explain why). Of course this is not allowed. That's the beginning of the issue. Later he explained the original text was "wrong". After many discussions, I asked him to show what was "wrong" about it. He pointed a few "wrong" sentences (which was not enough to erase an entire History text). Of these few sentences, none of them was wrong (it means the text was being erased without any reason). Moreover, the new text he was trying to post in this article was totally biased. I re-posted the original text, erased without justification.

Now user Lecen is using this talk page to make up personal attacks against me (he is trying to change the focus of the discussion from the article to me). I said I am not feeding this type of discussion anymore. Opinoso (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed user:Lecen is once again trying to post his biased text in that article. It seems he is trying to rise another edit-warring. He cannot be civil. I reverted it to the original text he is trying to erase. Opinoso (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen is nor edit-warring, nor is he being uncivil. He made a few minor edits to a paragraph he edited before. I will have to post a warning about being civil on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not made a "few minor edits". He actually erased the entire original text once again.[1] There's no reason for the original text to be erased and replaced by a new one. And yes, he is be uncivil, since he cannot explain why he is trying to erase a text, but keeps erasing it. Opinoso (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into it (again). Anyway, that is called "edit-warring", not "being uncivil". The less we make accusations, the better. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are right. That was indeed a revert. But may I point out that it was a revert of your revert [2]. So it is hardly your place to make this point. In fact, usual practise (see Wikipedia:Protection#Content_disputes) is to keep the present version while there is discussion. Your reverts (or Lecen's for that matter), are in contradiction to this guideline, and do not further consensus building. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I reverted it. But as Debresser said, all I did was to bring back the text that it is still under debate. Anyway, Opinoso does not want to find a solution for this crisis. It is only an infinite discussion based on Opinoso's (or his grandmother's) personal arguments and that´s all (and at most, Opinoso's fake sources). I will give my opinion: remove Opinoso's fake information out of the text and let us continue working on the Repuclic history section. - --Lecen (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I will note at this point that if editors want to continue to work out consensus on the 10 point raised above, that would be the easiest solution of all. I have seen few substantial comments there of late. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfurtunetly, in the last months, virtually all the Brazilian users who used to contribute for the English Wikipedia left the project. I do not know their reasons to leave, but they did.

Due to this lack of Brazilian users, people started to feel free to do whatever they want in Brazilian-related articles. So free that we got to the point that an entire History text was erased without any justication from article Brazil, one of the best Brazilian-related articles (until then...). Since most Brazilian users disappeared, this seemed to be free to be erased. But not so free, because I did not disappear yet. Sorry to tell you, Lecen, but you cannot erase anything here. You are not even able to explain what was wrong about the text (nothing was wrong, then).

I noticed you are focusing on my "fake" informations. There was nothing fake about Darcy Ribeiro's book. All the informations are found there. You did not even read the book. You only want to change the focus of the discussion from your attitude of erasing texts to me. I'm not the focus, your attitude is. Moreover, the Darcy Ribeiro's informations I added to your biased text are not even going to be used, since the original text cannot be erased by you. Even though you accused me: No, I did not write the old text. Not a single word was written by me. This text was written along the years, with the contribution of many Brazilian users. Unfurtunetly, in the last months, virtually all the Brazilian users who used to contribute for the English Wikipedia left the project. I do not know their reasons to leave, but they did. For this, Lecen felt free to erase their contributions. This is not a respectfull attitude with other people's work.

Sorry Lecen, but you cannot come, erase other people's work, replace it with biased informations and think nobody was gonna see. I saw that. You cannot do that. Even though for foreigners your new text may look ok, anyone who knows a little about Brazilian History realize how biased it is, and how hard you tried to paint the Brazilian Monarchy as the "angel" and the Republic and the "devil". Try to be a little more neutral next time. Opinoso (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User Grsz11 said "Without looking too much into it, I would say discussion to substantially alter a significant portion of the article should be done before it is changed, not after. Consensus always needs to be obtained to change something, not to leave it. It looks here as if there was little (maybe no) discussion to alter these sections and other editors are very rightly upset."

That's the point. Lecen erased other people's work without a discussion. He only started to show the "wrong" informations when I asked him to do that, many days later. However, there was not a single wrong information, then no reasons to erase the article. Now he is accusing me of "faking informations" or of using my grandmother as a source. That's because he does not want to get into a consensus, but only rising more and more discussion. He keeps discussing informations that are not even being used in the article, only to change the focus (which is the old text being erased, and not the new biased text).

Lecen cannot erase the sourced informations from other users. I think everybody (except him) agrees with that. What else should we discuss here? Forget Darcy Ribeiro or my grandmother. They're not being used. Opinoso (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To address the premise of your argument, one doesn't need by Brazilian to edit Brazil articles. And the statement that because there aren't any Brazilian editors, everybody else just erased everything is outrageous. Grsz¹¹ 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian history subsection: Military dictatorship and Contemporary era

Well, I have improved the text in the history subsection Military dictatorship and Contemporary era. What I did, in sum, was to expand the text so that the reader can understand better the period and I also added reliable sources to it. I used three authors: Elio Gaspari, Thomas Skidmore and Boris Fausto. However, I was wondering if I should keep the quotations inside the footnotes in Portuguese or if I should translate them to English. Anyway, please make comments or put your thoughts on what I did. - --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving myself towards the last subsection not worked yet. I'll end today writing the text about Vargas rule and his downfall from power. - --Lecen (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's over! Ended all improvements. Nothing more to do except for grammar and spelling fixes. Anyone interested on doing that, feel free to. Special thanks to everyone who helped me "surviving" this ordeal (and a very, very special one to Debresser). And for the ones who consider Getúlio Vargas the greatest Brazilian Head of State, there is also a large piece dedicated to him also. - --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points settement to history section

As Debresser requested, I am taking the lead to bring back the 10 points discussion to end the crisis in the history section. First the 10 points, and then the other editors will make any comments they desire. In sum, let´s end this once and for all, please. - --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The 10 points

1. "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"
2. "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed)"
3. "War of the Triple Alliance,[120] which left more than 300,000 dead)"
4. "During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy."
5. "Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery."
6. "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa"
7. "and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil."
8. "Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery"
9. "because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country"
10. "By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent."

Lecen thoughts on the 10 points

1) POV language.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

2) Not important enough to be in here. Also wrong information. Casualty info from one of several rebellions that occured in the period.

Comment: "The final balance of the Cabanagem was tragic, it is calculated that died around [...] 20% of the estimated population of the province." (Vainfas, p.105 - See article's bibliography)

The Cabanagem was not important macrohistorically. It did not change the outcome of Brazilian history. The rebellion deserves to be mentioned, but not at the point of even its casualties be cited too in this small subsection.

3) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: The way it is written, it seems that 300,000 Brazilians died, when in fact 300,000 Paraguayans died. This is an article about Brazil, not Paraguay. Doens´t make sense to put German losses on II World War on USA article.

4) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

5) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: Slaves were used, but they were not the only man force used. "In the rural area of the country, agriculture was done by the producers themselves (that is, without the use of slaves), supplying the local market." (Fausto (1995), p. 238–239 in Fausto, Boris. História do Brasil. São Paulo: Fundação de Desenvolvimento da Educação, 1995.) In larger farms, both slaves and free European immigrants were used. In sum, no reason to be so detailed or else, we are going to have to explain in the subsection what I just wrote.

6) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

7) I propose changing to "Slavery had been for decades in decline in Brazil since its independence: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." (Vainfas, p.18 and p.239)

8) Should stay.

9) Should be changed to "However, he too longer than expected to trespass the political obstacles and thus Brazil became the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery." (Schwarcz, p.315)

Comment on why should be changed: the passage as it is written makes it sound as the Emperor had the power to abolish slavery by himself but he did not do that because he feared the slave owners. It is much more complicated than that: the passage ignores the Parliament (the only institution that had the power to end Slavery in Brazil, and it had to be done by law), Senators, Congressmen, the Cabinet, Slaveowners, other political pressure groups, the society, etc...

10) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Another information that is wrong. Take a look in link in the citation: there were 6 million whites, 2 million blacks and almost 6 million pardos. User Opinoso simply added pardos with blacks and concluded that they were descendants of Africans. That is not correct. The category “pardo” includes mulattoes (descendants of Africans and Europeans) and caboclos (descendants of Indians and Europeans, the vast majority of Brazilian population in the north and northeast). And even if such information was correct (which it is not, at least in the ways he put it), there is no reason to be included in the history section, but instead in an article on demography of Brazil or slavery in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser thoughts on the 10 points

1. POV language.
2. If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war then remove.
3. Should not be here.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept.
6. Might be of minor importance
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.
10. Incorrect.

Elockid's thoughts

Replies to Lecen in italics 1) Change the wording and it should be fine

Another editor may add another source if they find one. It would then be possible to keep it

2) Perhaps this piece of information should go to the article History of Brazil instead?
3) After looking around a bit, Lecen does seem to be correct on this one. However I can't read Portuguese so I can't say for certain since the source does say it is Portuguese (still need to look at the book)
4) If I'm not mistaken, the information about the coffee is correct, but the rest I'm not too sure about

Just referring to the information about coffee playing a big part in the economy. The rest the information I wasn't too sure about.

5) Slave labor was used, so I don't think it should be deleted. Why not add both pieces of information? They seem to be relevant

If you mean this sentence is going too much into detail, not passage, then it wouldn't be going too much into detail. It's only one sentence and it's quite short.

6) Not too sure about this one, sorry
7) Source is temporarily unavailable. Failed verification at the moment.
8) Agree about this staying. This is an interesting piece of information
9) This is a direct copy from Encyclopedia Britannica. Probably best to remove the statement or change the wording.
10) According to the source, IGBE, the largest group by the end of the 19th century were the Brancos (whites), followed by the Pardos (brown), and lastly the Pretos (blacks or African Americans). So should be changed or removed.

Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, you are correct, I give you an "A"

Lecen, your 10 points are perfect. All of them are correct. I am a Brazilian who is deeply interested in the history of his own country. All your 10 points are not only correct but free of bias. Unfortunately, as you can see, we do not have a say on our topics in a supposedly "free" encyclopedia. Our history is tragical and brutal, yes, but it is no less brutal and tragical than the history of most other countries. It is not like there was slavery only here, it is not like there was prejudice only here. Take a look at the history section of other countries in Wikipedia, the tragedies that happened in those countries have not been associated with the people like they have been here in the Brazilian topics. For the foreign racialists, it is more about the projection of their twisted perceptions of the humankind than anything else. Fortunately modern science has demolished the idea of biological races and a hierarchy within the humankind. Of course there are still people who consider themselves superior, but that's their problem, and their history tells very clearly that they are not as special as they think they are.

Saudações de um brasileiro da gema Grenzer22

Is there anyway to remove this sockpuppet out of here? He is no good for the discussion. He does not have any past history of edition in Wikipedia, with the sole exception of this discussion page and another one about a Brazilian singer where Opinoso also contributes. Ironically, both seem to get along in there, as Opinoso has not complained about him. Coincidence? Perhaps. - --Lecen (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is a very specific term. I do not think you had that in mind. It is a serious accusation, leading inevitably to a block for the sockpuppet. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I am not asking for Opinoso's head But this Grenzer22 is not helping on anything and I can hardly believe that he is a legitimate editor. - --Lecen (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am Brazilian Lecen. I have followed this discussion and I agree with you. That's all. It is just one more case where Opinoso has bullied Brazilians, not allowing them to tell the history of their own country, in a malicious and bigoted way. Your points are entirely correct, and they should not come into discussion the way they did. Check the track record of Opinoso, check what he has done to other Brazilian posters in the past. He has managed to implant his biased views on Brazil in a supposedly "free" encyclopedia. I won't post back, you seem to have misunderstood me. Boa sorte!Grenzer22

I also agree

I also agree with each Lecen thought, once Opiniso has invented some of his edits and the Lecen's edits is more close to the Portuguese Wikipedia which has a featured article on Brasil and those editors generally are Portugueses and Brazilians who understand more about the country's history. Luizdl (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To make things easier

Since many people here are brazilian, and the portuguese wikipedia's article on Brazil is featured (as luizdl said above), why don't all the parts settle in just translate the portuguese version? At least for now. Later, when the article is in a better standard, you may start discussing some of this issues again. (but hopefully not haha) --eusourei^(talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Recents adds by user Aureola

Well, I was looking at Auréola recent adds to the article and I felt obliged to say something about it. First of all, I must say that any contribution is worth it and I am one of the first to recommend it. However, most of Auréola's adds to the article cannot be considered enciclopedic.

In fact, most of it looks like a big, giant ad or publicity piece about Brazil.

The People and festivals is such an example. And the others, such as Leisure in Brazil and Brazilian women... what are they, by the way? They are a bunch of nonsense words that do not add anything to the article. The Leisure in Brazil subsection is completely POV, or at most, a subsection devoted to criticize the Military Dictatorship and Capitalism, as the following sentence can reveal: "the military coup of 64 ensured the continuation of capitalist development in Brazil on a increasingly larger, increasing the concentration of income, choosing a conservative modernization from a coalition of classes that "playing ground the hypothesis of an antagonism between the Brazilian bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie and agrarian oligarchy of another."

Am I the only one who has noticed that? - --Lecen (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't Auréola post glamorous informations about Brazil if a section of this article is already devoted to glamourise the Monarchy? Why couldn't Auréola criticize the Military Dictatorship or Capitalism if there is an specific section dedicated to criticize the Republic? Auréola may be only following a tendency here. And he/she has sources, then, it's ok.

By the way, I like the section about "Brazilian women" that Auréola posted. If Emperor Pedro II has an entire section dedicated to enhance his skills and his glorious government, it is clear that the Brazilian women also deserve their own section too. The brave Brazilian women deserve it. Auréola, if you have "sources", go ahead, keep posting. Opinoso (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"the military coup of 64 ensured the continuation of capitalist development in Brazil on a increasingly larger, increasing the concentration of income, choosing a conservative modernization

Well, this doesn't look as a criticism of capitalism at all. Besides, it is quit true; the military dictatorship indeed ensured a political environment conducive to the country's capitalist development (socialist it was not, for sure; and actual development took place). Income concentration certainly increased during the period. And unless we were going to deny the existence of any modernisation, what else could it be called unless "conservative modernisation"?

from a coalition of classes that "playing ground the hypothesis of an antagonism between the Brazilian bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie and agrarian oligarchy of another."

The only problem I can see here is one of syntax; it is not that "conservative modernisation" was chosen "from" such a coalition of classes, but that "conservative modernisation" was chosen "over" or "instead" of a politics (that would be that of Goulart) that tried to build a coalition based on the idea of the referred antagonism. Ninguém (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not make sense:

1. Brazilian people spends much of his time in meetings with other people.[300] "Papo" (chit-chat) and the offering of teas and coffees in the cities are commons. (Unbelievable!)
2. "Brazil emerges thus as a bud mutant, rescheduled from its own characteristics, but tied to the genetic Portuguese matrix, which unsuspected potential to grow and to be full were only realized here." (Who would be capable of writing this? Ow, of course. Darcy Ribeiro. The man. The legend.)
3. The Brazilian people is known as socially happy. (Really?!)
4. Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda, one of the most important historian of the country, wrote that the Brazilians had a friendly character and this was one of its greatest virtues (which he developed the theory of "cordial man"). (That is not the true meaning of cordial man. Sérgio B. de Holanda was talking about the Brazilian capacity to use friends, family and everything else to get favours or make the use of not so correct ways to get something for themselves. In other words, the "jeitinho brasileiro". God, Auréola didn´t even bother to read the book.)
5. Models like Gisele Bundchen and Alessandra Ambrosio and the Brazil women's national football team make that Brazil has good international reputation (What?!!)
6. Brazil was placed in tenth position in the category Culture & Heritage among 15 countries; in category Tourism Brand, the country was in thirteenth place, and in the general category, was siding in the twenty-first, among 50 countries and above countries such as Russia, Iceland, Argentina and Mexico (Pure publicity!) - --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Brazilian people spends much of his time in meetings with other people.[300] "Papo" (chit-chat) and the offering of teas and coffees in the cities are commons."

Indeed, it makes no sence. It seems some self-deprecating legend Brazilians maintain about themselves (we are all lazy, etc).

"Brazil emerges thus as a bud mutant, rescheduled from its own characteristics, but tied to the genetic Portuguese matrix, which unsuspected potential to grow and to be full were only realized here." (Who would be capable of writing this? Ow, of course. Darcy Ribeiro. The man. The legend.)

To be fair, Ribeiro would not be able to write such mess. This is Ribeiro... as translated by this article's overlord, Opinoso. Perhaps with the help of Babelfish?

Opinoso makes a disservice to Ribeiro by misoverquoting him. Under Opinoso's discretion, Ribeiro is stretched, twisted, and otherwise tortured, to say things that have never crossed his mind.

The Brazilian people is known as socially happy. (Really?!)

Sheer legend, of course.

Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda, one of the most important historian of the country, wrote that the Brazilians had a friendly character and this was one of its greatest virtues (which he developed the theory of "cordial man"). (That is not the true meaning of cordial man. Sérgio B. de Holanda was talking about the Brazilian capacity to use friends, family and everything else to get favours or make the use of not so correct ways to get something for themselves. In other words, the "jeitinho brasileiro". God, Auréola didn´t even bother to read the book.)

Yes, this is a superficial, to say the least, interpretation of Buarque de Hollanda.

Models like Gisele Bundchen and Alessandra Ambrosio and the Brazil women's national football team make that Brazil has good international reputation

Looks like tourism propaganda.

Brazil was placed in tenth position in the category Culture & Heritage among 15 countries; in category Tourism Brand, the country was in thirteenth place, and in the general category, was siding in the twenty-first, among 50 countries and above countries such as Russia, Iceland, Argentina and Mexico (Pure publicity!) - --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... Ninguém (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article "Tang Dynasty" is longer than "Brazil" but has not any note about its size... Very strange... Auréola (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I need to write my words on the settings made in this section. Forgive my English, please... (I'm brazilian, to the discomfort of Lecen.) The User Lecen is concerned about his own ideologies, while I and others (who support me) are concerned with creating a good article. Nowhere in my edits I said what is good or bad on Brazilian politics or Brazilian people, so I do not create any propaganda praising Brazil. Perhaps Lecen is one of those foreign who have horrible visions about Brazil, without even knowing the country ... The user forgets that this is an article about a country and, above all, a colossal country, and deserves to be placed every angle on this same place, as well as the good Wikipedia articles about other cultures and dynasties ... Auréola (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About the Nation branding 2008, I confess that I was inspired by the section "Society" of the article "Germany" ... I think if the Germans are such a reputation, why could not the article about Brazil? Auréola (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I'll let words of my heart: I don't ignore that Brazil is precarious on education and politics, I don't ignore that Brazil is very poor in many areas (perhaps because it was stolen when was colony), I don't ignore that Brazilians can not enjoy a society a little fairer; but, above all, I don't ignore that Brazil has much good things to show, and this is exactly what I did in my edits ... Who has what to show on the bad side of the country, to do it for himself, but try find your material in/on the best sources and not in own ideologies!!! Auréola (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say Opinos... err... I mean, Auréola. Whatever you say. - --Lecen (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ahahaha, he thinks I am Opinoso!! Another reason for I laugh of those who are unaware of things. Auréola (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, esquece essa discussão e volte-se para o país que te ama... Auréola (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. You've crossed the line for the last time. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not User:Auréola. Only because she doesn't agree with you, Lecen, it does not mean we are the same person. This is such a huge accusation. I don't even know who is Auréola, but I like her contributions. Lecen, stop commenting on me everywhere. I already left the article Brazil for you to do whatever you want here and re-write the History of Brazil according to your desire. The History section is already destroyed, and I can see Auréola is at least trying to improve the rest of the article. I hope nobody will use the History part of this article for a school work (poor studants, they will think that the Monarchy was some kind of Heaven, and the Republic a Hell...also poor will be the grades they will receive from their teachers...).Anyway, keep posting Auréola and good luck. Opinoso (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil relation to the world

As I have noticed Brazil is playing a more important role in the world. I wanted to contribute to the concept in a more broad way by adding this file as a contribution should it ever be needed. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth brazil.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Brazil

You need to get reliable sources on this question and show it to me. Maybe I can help you ... Auréola (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular media section has to be expanded

The section Brazil#Popular media must be expanded. It needs two aditional paragraphies: one for Brazilian television and another one for Brazilian music. They should have, in my opinion, between six to eight lines at most. Nothing big, just to have an idea, similar to other country articles. - --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is impossible to write a short paragraph about Brazilian music, Lecen. Brazilian television even could have this paragraph, but the music, no... We can write a entire section about Brazilian music with two or three small paragraphs, but they must be complete. Auréola (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Popular midia" to "Cinema"

I changed the name "Popular midia" because Cinema is not a popular media in Brazil... (It is very funny see the name of Glauber Rocha in a section that says "popular".) And I do not really think important to write about Brazilian television; this is a task for the articles about Brazilian cities. And I will insist again that Brazilian music deserves its own section, as with articles about others countries, like England... I do'nt kwnow why Lecen implies with the size of the sub-cections of the Culture section if the article about England is like this... Auréola (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if you do not consider Cinema a popular media, because it is. Cinema is popular culture is thus treated as such in the other Wikipedia articles about countries. And it does not matter if you do not think it is important to write about Brazilian television. And it does not have any sense to say that it is a task to articles about Brazilian cities. The article must have at most 2 paragraphies at each subsection, just as all other articles about countries. - --Lecen (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, have I erased your additions even though they do not make any sense and is nothing more than tourism publicity? No, I opened a discussion topic in here to talk about it. - --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The History section is nothing more than a Monarchy publicity. Opinoso (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious racial informations

I noticed that dubious (and wrong) informations about the racial composition of Brazil was included, as follows:

"The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattos (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians). The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern, Northeastern and Central-Western regions. Bahia and Maranhão are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states".

Why they are dubious:

1) Race in Brazil is based on self-classification. Any person can claim to be of any race, according to their personal wish. Not all Pardos need to be "multiracial" to claim to be Pardo. Many of the "Whites", "Blacks", "Asian" and "Amerindian" are multiracial as well. Pardo means "brown", not multiracial. Brazilian census is based on skin color, not on race.

2)It sells the false idea that Brazilian multiracials are separated ethnic groups. They are not. It's impossible to separate the Caboclo (White and Indian) from the Mulatto (White and Black). Everybody mixed with each other, producing a "tri-racial" (Black, White and Indian mixed) population. All genetic studies conclude that most Brazilians have some degree of European, African and Amerindian DNA. Caboclos did not live in guettos separated from Mulattoes or vice-versa. They mixed with each other for centuries, producing the bulk of the Brazilian population.

3) Caboclos are not the majority of the population in Northeastern Brazil, and Maranhão or Bahia are not the "Black exception" there. The vast majority of Northeastern Brazilians are of African descent, mixed or not. Amerindian and European ancestry is of course found mixed with the Africans. Again, Caboclos and Whites did not live in guettos separate from Blacks or Mulattoes. In fact, they mixed for 500 years to produce the Northeastern Brazilian population.

In a genetic study, the main mtDNA found in the White population of Northeastern Brazil is of African origin.[3]. It's not even European neither Amerindian. The "Caboclo majority" is a false information.

4) The source used to claim "Caboclos are majority in Northeastern Brazil" comes from BARSA encyclopedia. This book is not even specialized on racial subjects. The IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) claims that the "Black population is concentrated in the North and Northeast".[4] The IBGE is the official agency responsible for racial matters in Brazil. And it reports that the Black Brazilian population is concentrated in the Northeast. Then, the "Caboclo majority" is really a false information.

From IBGE:

"On the map, one can see that the black population in the Southeast and South of the country is below 40% - notably in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, where it stays below 25%. But in large parts of (states) of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá and in different points of Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins the map shows that blacks are more than 85% of the population."[5]

Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins are all located in North and Northeastern Brazil, and IBGE said they have a large "Black" majority. Then, the "Caboclo" theory is fake.

5) For many years people tried to "hide" the African contribution for the population in Northeastern and Northern Brazil: "The idea that Fortaleza was a white city was sold very strongly,". "Historically, the participation of blacks in the formation of the society in Ceará has been completely forgotten."- said Historian Cecília Holanda.[6].[7]

Even though there is a significant population in Northeastern and mostly Northern Brazil with more Amerindian phenotype, it does not mean they are the local majority neither that they do not also have African descent. In fact, miscegenetation between Africans and Amerindians was quite common in Northern Brazil, as Gilberto Freyre already exposed decades ago and a recent genetic resource conffirmed:[8]

The "Caboclo majority" theory is false. I'm adding a "dubious" tag on those informations. Opinoso (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, here we go again. So, that on-line newspapers says that over 40% of the Southeast population is black? And the in Tocantins 85% is black? So, the remaining 15% is what? Whites, mulattoes and Caboclos? Oh, and more, are you saying that Barsa (encyclopedia) is not a reliable source? Are your sources reliable, Opinoso? - --Lecen (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "on-line newspapers" which says that. It's IBGE, the official agency of the Brazilian Government. You like it or not. You must read: Ownership of articles. And Barsa is not the official agency of the government. Opinoso (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted sources information, Opinoso. You have once again atacked me. - --Lecen (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not revert you. I only added "dubious" tags there, because the informations are dubious. Remember that this article is not yours. I can add dubious tags, since the informations you added claim the opposite that the official agency of Brazilian government does. The Brazilian government source about race is more reliable than the Barsa or any other encyclopedia. By the way, stop commenting on me everywhere.[9]. It won't help. And you are the one who revertes everybody here.[10]. This article is not yours. Opinoso (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You have changed the multiracial word for Brown although int the text it was sorced. You simply did it and did not wait to ask other editors opinions or to discuss it, I will not revert it. You also accused one again that the history section is biased although it was aproved by several editors. This time I will ask for you head. Hear my words: I will not give up until you are expeled from here. ---Lecen (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To leave this kind of messages [11];[12];[13] to others users only to rise disruptions is not the correct thing to do, Lecen. This article is not yours, even though you reverte and criticize everybody who tries to contribute for it (Opinoso, User:Auréola or Luizdl). Respect the work of other people, since you're not the only one allowed to post here. Opinoso (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a {{Dubious}} tag (even a group of them) is perfectly fine. What is not, is the constant stream of personal attacks Opinoso is leaving everywhere to the address of Lecen. Accusing of "original research" instaed of assuming that the other editor has a different understanding or even just made a mistake is one of them, constanly telling him that he doesn't own the page is another. Please stop that. And please spare me unnecessary replies. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it is really nice to see that Opinoso now believes it is right to put "dubious tags" in the articles.

But does the IBGE say that 85% of the population of Amazonas or Tocantins are black?

Here is what the IBGE actually says about the "racial" composition of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, and Bahia:

• Tabela 2093 - População residente por cor ou raça, sexo, situação do domicílio e grupos de idade
• Variável = População residente (Pessoas)
• Sexo = Total
• Situação do domicílio = Total
• Grupos de idade = Total
• Ano = 2000
• Cor ou raça Unidade da Federação

Unidade da Federação
Cor ou raça	Amazonas	Pará	Amapá	Tocantins	Maranhão	Piauí	Bahia
Total	2.817.252	6.195.965	477.032	1.157.690	5.657.552	2.843.428	13.085.769
Branca (White)	681.717	1.617.015	126.850	353.754	1.512.324	752.760	3.297.989
Preta (Black)	87.471	340.901	25.543	82.032	542.834	220.371	1.704.248
Parda ("Brown")	1.884.507	4.115.414	313.519	701.167	3.523.999	1.836.589	7.869.770
Amarela ("Yellow", ie, Asian)	9.343	11.574	795	2.592	7.565	5.272	23.796
Indígena (Indigenous)	113.391	37.681	4.972	10.581	27.571	2.664	64.240
Sem declaração (undeclared)	40.822	73.380	5.354	7.564	43.260	25.771	125.726

So we see that only by misinterpreting the category of "Pardo" as necessarily "Black" can we come to the conclusion that such a huge majority of people in these states are Black. The confusion arises because other government agencies - not the IBGE - indeed group "pardos" and "pretos" as "Negros" for their own reasons and purposes. And then we have again the main problem with Opinoso - he tries to make any information that he personally likes stick, even if he has to distort sources or decree that some sources are "reliable" (a newspaper article about IBGE's findings) and others (the IBGE itself) are not. This explains why Wikipedia harbours such ridiculous pieces of disinformation such as "there are 10 million Arab Brazilians", "there are 18 million German Brazilians", "speaking German in Brazil during WWII was forbidden under the penalty of torture", "Pardos are Blacks who lie to the Census", etc. For a time we even had the "information" that people in Rio Grande do Sul speak Portuguese with "a Spanish accent"!

And, of course, in order to maintain such "informations" in Wikipedia, Opinoso hurls insults and plays dirty tricks to whomever opposes him, as he is now doing to Lecen. This, by the way, is the reason Brazilian editors avoid editing articles related to Brazil, particularly to Brazilian demography: Opinoso has made doing it a hellish experience, conducive to being accused of lying and racism, to be threatened to legal action, etc., etc., etc. Ninguém (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Issuing legal threats is a fast and sure way to a block. wp:ani is the address. BTW, on Brazil we are now keeping barking dogs (all of them) on a short leash, so edit as much as you please. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, out of curiosity, how do you expect us to edit anything if when there is something sourced that displeases Opinoso he simply reverts or erase it calling it "personal theories"? See here. Do you really expect us to reason with him? Or do you expect him to be reasonable? - --Lecen (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The IBGE does count Blacks and Pardos as Blacks. This is not the place to discuss if IBGE is right or not. It is the official agency of the government, and it is the main source when it comes to racial figures about Brazil. I won't answer Ninguém, because this user is angry with me for months, since I realized he was using Phone Books and surnames of people from Brazilian colleges to claim they are of "Portuguese descent"[14] (as if African Americans who have British surnames are of "British descent"). Since then, this user's account is dedicated to criticize me whatever there is an opportunity. I only ignore this user.

About Lecen's accusation that I reverte something sourced that "displeases me", not true. Lecen is the one who revertes everybody here [15];[16]. By the way, he already removed an entire History section, which was all sourced. Then, his accusations that I am the one who removes sourced informations makes no sense. Opinoso (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ow... so, IBGE treats Blacks and Pardos as... Blacks?! So, why does it even bother itself to have 2 different categories? And more: what happened to the millions and millions of Brazilians that live in the Northeast and North that are caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians only) such as myself that forms the majority of the population in both regions? IBGE does not recognize them? And before someone asks, my questions are pure ironies. - --Lecen (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Caboclos are not the majority in Northeastern Brazil. Blacks and Pardos are the majority, and IBGE says Blacks are concentrated in Northeastern Brazil. Northeastern Brazil is the more "African" region of Brazil, in culture and ethnicity. It was the main gateway for Black slaves in Brazil. The main mixture there involved Black slaves, not Amerindians, who were largely exterminated in the first century of colonization. Northeastern Brazil is not Mexico or Chile, Mestizo countries. It is far from them. And genetic resources show that the African ancestry is predominant there. Do you have any source from IBGE, the official agency, or any genetic study reporting that most people in Northeastern Brazil do not have African ancestry? Opinoso (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic studies:

"On the basis of studies in individuals self-classified as White from several Brazilian regions, we estimated that approximately 146 million Brazilians (86% of the population) had more than 10% African contribution to their genome".[17]

"One more study carried out on whites of Northeastern Brazilian origin living in São Paulo found 70% European, 18% African and 12% Amerindian admixture".[18]

"On the other hand, the Whites of Natal (Northeastern Brazil) had 58% White, 25% Black, and 17% Indian admixture. This study found that both persons identified as White or Pardo in Natal have similar admixture"[19]

The main MTDNA found in the White population in Northeastern Brazil is of African origin: African (44%); European (34%); Native American (22%).[20]

All genetic studies in Northeastern Brazil show that the African ancestry is larger than the Amerindian ancestry and that virtually all the population has African ancestry. Opinoso (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Caboclos are not the majority? Did you ever came here to say that? Have you ever been in Fortaleza, Natal, Recife and João Pessoa? Who told you that? Your grandmother, perhaps? Are you saying that there, these and these people are Blacks? Do you at least know what it is a Caboclo?

Why genetic studies? Someone can have 50% of African ancestry and be White as an European. If we take an account genetic studies, at least 60% of the Brazilians are Portuguese and Portuguese only.

And who do you think you are to come in here and accuse editor Ninguém from mishandling sources? You are the one who fakes them. I said that you are going down, and you will, trust me. - --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, user Lecen is getting angry because he cannot prove Caboclo is the majority and keeps commenting on me, and not on sources. By the way, it dosn't matter if I have been to Northeastern Brazil or not. I don't need to go there. I just need to see what IBGE says. It says Blacks are concentrated there. Nothing about Caboclo majority. Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The studies posted by Opinoso are far from being conclusive. As shown below (Tiazinha and José Sarney examples), the European autosomal contribution is remarkable and to downplay it is as ridiculous as to overestimate it. Even from the point of view of that study alone both "pardos" and "whites" from Natal would be overwhelmingly European. As for the often quoted research by Pena (the 86% figure) that study was done a long time ago, and it has not been proved conclusively. As pointed out below, the Brazilian population is remarkably heterogenous, and there is no way to tell so far what is average, only if all Brazilians were tested. Just to illustrate it, another study, recently published, concluded that all Brazilians, be them "black", "white" or "pardo" would be predominantly European in ancestry (at 80% on average according to that study; in the South the European gradient would be even higher, at 90%) (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u633465.shtml). From a few examples of celebrities one can see that the African gradient is high and so is the European. If the European were not high, "black" celebrities like Ildi Silva, Neguinho da Beija-Flor and others would not turn out to be over 60% European. As for the Northeast of Brazil, it is a vast region, and Ceará is a lot different from Bahia, no doubt, in many respects. Bahia, contrary to Ceará, has a sizeable population of nearly complete European ancestry, and also the largest African derived population in Brazil. Ceará was mostly the result of European and Native American contributions (Portuguese wikipedia article on Ceará has some interesting genetic studies about it). Luiza Brunet, the "Native American beauty" whose family is from Ceará, is mostly European (at 80,5%) and only 15,5% Native American (the African, at 4%, is practically within the noise range of the test).

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

The Wikipedia article about Pardo states:

According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Pardo is a broad classification that encompasses Brazilians of mixed race ancestry, mulattos, and assimilated indigenous people ("caboclos").

If this is correct - and to my knowledge it is -, it is obvious that not all "pardos" are of African ancestry. If the IBGE is considering all "pardos" as Blacks (and I am still to see any evidence of this besides newspapers stories that seem to confuse the IBGE tripartite classification with the SPIR Black/non-Black classification), it is obviously making a mistake. In that case, this should be addressed in the article - the reasons why a Brazilian governmental agency is considering "Black" people who are not actually Black. What shouldn't be made is to endorse an official misclassification just because it is official. Ninguém (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The heterogeneity of Brazil

The exact proportions of Amerindian, African and European contributions to the Brazilian genepool are far from being precisely determined. That study by Pena was based on about 200 samples. Another study, also based on about 200 samples, concluded that Brazilian "pardos", "blacks" and "whites" are on average 80% European (the average in the South a bit higher at 90%). Besides mtDNA and yDNA do not tell the whole thing, far from it. Just two examples: José Sarney is from Maranhão, colonial family stock, even though his mtDNA is African, his autosomal (the sum of his ancestors) is 99,9% European, which means that the African contribution was diluted close to zero. The same goes for Tiazinha, who is from the interior of Paraíba. Ivete Sangalo, from the interior of Bahia, scored 99,2% European and only 0,4% African and 0,4% Native American. Marcos Palmeira, whose family is from Bahia and Maranhão, who has a classic "pardo phenotype" (brown skin, curly hair, somewhat similar to Tiazinha) scored 93% European 5,5% Amerindian and only 1,5% SSA. Zeca Camargo, another tanned/brown skinned Brazilian, scored 96,5% European 2,6% Native American and 0,9% SSA(his mtDNA is European by the way). The key is: the Brazilian population is heterogeneous. There is no way to tell what is average so far. We all know there is strong African and European influences, besides Native American ancestry. Another important point, which is often overlooked, is that the current profile of Brazil is the result of a brutal exploitation process called colonization, which involved the decimation of Native Americans, the slave trade of Africans, and the cultural genocide of these populations. Moreover, leading scientists are also telling us that "race" is a social construct, not for real. Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22

Ah, this is the space "constructed for users to leave their ideas and others users to intervene with votes and comments," right? I'd second Grenzer's comments above regarding the imprecision inherent in the concept of "race" and efforts to calculate and quantify it. I see a bunch of racial/demographic terms bandied about here that aren't described in the article in a cohesive manner. I think that reading the debate on the talk page may have actually taught me more about what culture in Brazil must be like than the discussion in the article itself. Lost in all of the reversions in the article and the argument here is a big opportunity. The article does not as yet effectively convey what would appear to be a great deal of controversy and debate among Brazillians concerning demographics and racial issues (as evidenced by the numerous debates on this talk page). As a reader not from Brazil, I would be far more interested in understanding the referenced and verifiable facts behind how and why this debate on demographics is occurring, than "truth" as to specific categories, population numbers, and percentages. If it must be explained to the reader how one reaches a figure of "45.2%" or some other number, then that explanation is probably more informative than the number itself. Steveozone (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Steveozone! You are welcome! It is indeed a hard task to describe exactly how much Amerindian, European and African ancestries the Brazilian population is made of. There is no way the Census, with its colonial times words ("white", "black" and "pardo"), will capture the reality of Brazilian diversity. The levels of ancestry of Brazilians vary from person to person in such a way that it is really difficult to precise it. According to another study by the very same Brazilian Geneticist Sérgio Pena, in a sample of about 335 Brazilians from Rio de Janeiro, the "blacks" tested would be on average 41,8% European and 7,3% Native American in ancestry, thus roughly 50% non African in ancestry, autosomal ancestry (the sum of the ancestors, the overall profile)(http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/152784). Would it be appropriate to characterize them as "Africans" then? They have multiple ancestries. According to that same study, the "pardos" from Rio de Janeiro would be roughly on average 70% European, and the rest made of African and Native American contributions respectively. And the "whites" from Rio de Janeiro would be roughly 90% European, and about roughly only 5% SSA (the African on par with the Iberian source, and practically within the noise range of the test), this way contradicting the often quoted studies posted so far. It is a proof of the high levels of diversity in Brazil. Again, it is important to stress the diversity of the Brazilian heritage, which is the result of European colonialism. Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22 (talk) 17 November 2009

Brazil in 1872

I will trasncribe now some passages of the book "The Dictionary of the Imperial Brazil" that deal with the first official demographic census in Brazil made in 1872 and before the large influx of European immigrants took place.

Article "Slavery": "The province of Minas Gerais was the one that had the greatest slave population, withholding almost 25% of the total, followed by Rio de Janeiro, with 19%, Bahia, with 11%, and São Paulo, with 10%." (p.239)

Three provinces in the Southeast had together 54% of Slave population of Brazil in 1872.

Article "1872 census": "In regional and ethnic terms, the provinces of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná and São Paulo characterize themselves by the majority presence of white population, but with significant number of Indians in Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul; most of the population of Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo was black and mestizo; Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas and Pernambuco were the provinces that had reached the lesser ratio of white population of Brazil, with a little more than 1/3 of the total; Ceará, Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte presented a ratio of significant white population, around 40%; the provinces of the north, Piauí, Maranhão, Pará and Amazonas, characterized themselves by small ratio of white population, few slaves and strong mark of Indian population, that in Pará was superior to 15% and, in Amazonas, was 2/3 of the population; Mato Grosso and Goiás had the lesser rates of population growth in the 19th, possessing less than 1/3 of whites, few slaves, expressive presence of indians and majority of 'pardos'." (p.133)

Note: The book uses the term "Pardo" and "Mestizo" interchangeably.

Source: Vainfas, Ronaldo. Dicionário do Brasil Imperial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2002 (752 pages).

So, could someone tell me how it is possible that in the Northern and Northeastern regions more than 85% of the population is black and in the Central-West between 40 to 70% is black? And t his was in 1872, when the large influx of Europeans immigrants was beginning. - --Lecen (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Not to forget that the Northeast was in a deep economic crisis in the last days of slavery, and the Northeastern slaveholders were selling their slaves to the more dynamic regions of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, where coffeeculture could absorve such work force... Ninguém (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian demographics according to experts

Marcos Amorim Coelho

"The Brazilian population formed itself from three basic ethnic groups: the Indian, the White and the Black. The intense miscegenation (crossings) that occurred between those groups gave origin to numerous Mestizos or Pardos (as they are officially called), whose basic types are the following ones: the Mulatto (White + Black), the most numerous; Caboclo or Mamluk (White + Indian); e Cafuzo (Black + Indian), the least numerous. Observe figure 15.3." (p.268)

"Over this foundation it was added, beyond the Portuguese, who since the colonization continued entering free and regularly in Brazil, several other peoples (immigrants), extending and diversifying even more the ethnic formation of the Brazilian population. The main groups that entered after Brazil Independence (1822) were the following ones: Atlantic-Mediterranean (Italian and Spanish), Germanic (German), Slavs (Polish and Ukranians) and Asians (Japanese)." (p.268)

Source: Coelho, Marcos Amorim. Geografia do Brasil. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 1996.

Melhem Adas

"The Brazilian population is formed by three basic ethnic types: the Indian, the White European and the Black African." (p.103)

"However, in the current century, another group came to participate in the Brazilian formation. The Mongoloid Asians, represented mainly by the Japanese." (p.103)

"The crossing of those ethnic types gave origin to the diverse Mestizo groups or to an ethnic diversification. It can be perceived, by the picture below, that Brazil is a country of ethnic complexity." (p.103)

Source: Adas, Melhem. Panorama geográfico do Brasil. 1. Ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 1983.

Main Brazilian ethnic groups.

Aroldo Azevedo

"Peoples of many origins fixed themselves in here, coexisting in complete harmony: Whites of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population; Blacks, whose ancestors came from Africa; the Yellows or Mongoloids, represented by the Japanese and their descendants, as well as by Indians, primitive owners of our land; and by the great number of Mestizos, resultants of the crossings of those different ethnic types. This population, that it is still in an ongoing formation, it is distributed in different ways [...]." (pp.2-3)

"Not all Whites that live in Brazil had the same origin: some came from the Atlantic-Mediterranean Europe, others from central-eastern Europe, others of Asian lands in the Middle Eastern. In relation to the Blacks, their ancestors came from the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, such as Angola and Mozambique, different in their physical types and customs. Even among the Mestizos, the differences are deep: Caboclos, Mulattoes, Cafuzos, Juçaras, Ainocôs." (pp.2-3)

Source: Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971.

North region

"Taking on basis the data of the 1950 census [...], it is believed that more than 60% of the population of the Amazon Rainforest is constituted by Pardos, that is, Mestizos." (p.19)

"Inside this ethnic group, everything indicates that the Caboclos, descendants of Whites and Indians predominate. The history of the regional settlement justifies this predominance and it is confirmed by observation." (p.19)

"However, it is necessary to distinguish, in the Amazon rainforest, two types of Caboclos: Amazonian and the Northeastern." (p.19)

"The Amazonian Caboclo (many times called Tapuio) corresponds to the oldest of these types of Mestizos. Its appearance has origins in the 17th century, when the White settlement began and the marriages with Indians became frequent. It presents strong percentage of Indian blood and it manage to be confused with the Indians already civilized and it appears in the entire region, although it is more concentrated in the Low Amazon." (p.19)

"Now the Northeastern Caboclo started to settle itself in the region about a century ago, mainly since 1877, when the northeastern hinterland was afflicted by a dreadful drought. Its number became always bigger, due to successive waves of immigrants who arrived in the Amazon rainforest to extract the rubber, in the years of the great activity of exploitation of this regional wealth. [...] It is distinguished from the previous type by its lesser dose of Indian blood." (pp.19-20)

"After the Mestizos, it is probable that the most numerous group is represented by the Indians; but their accurate number became impossible to affirm, because the majority of them still live deep in the forest, without almost no contact with the civilization." [...] (p.20)

"The remaining of the Amazonian population is mainly constituted by: 1) Whites, closely or remotely descendants of Europeans, mainly Portuguese, and of Syrian-Lebanese; 2) Blacks, that descend of Africans introduced there in the colonial period, particularly in Pará, or that from the ones that had escaped towards there in the 19th century from Maranhão; 3) Yellows that came from Asia - Japanese, that settled themselves in the Low Amazon, since 1929." (p.20)

"The Blacks correspond to about 5% of the total population, concentrated in restricted areas, particularly in Pará. In consequence, its contribution for the crossbreeding must have been small, what takes us to assume that are reduced the numbers of Mulattoes and Cafuzos." (p.20)

Source: Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971.

Northeastern region

"In the same way that the northeast nature offers many contrasts, also its inhabitants reveal sensible differences among themselves, such as in color, lifestyle or in its economic activities. The inhabitants of the Baixada Maranhense do not confuse themselves with the ones from the hinterland of Piauí. For times, inside the limits of the same State, such differences are observed: thus it happens, for example, between a man of the so called Zona da Mata and another one from the hinterland, in Pernambuco, in a similar way it happens with the ones that live in the Recôncavo and the ones that inhabit the valley of São Francisco, in Bahia." (pp.71 and 74)

"However, an ethnic type dominates the entire Northeast - the Mestizo, represented by its three varieties: the Caboclos, the Mulattoes and the Cafuzos." (p.74)

"The Caboclos are the majority in most areas of this region of the country, in the northern littoral and, especially, in plateaus in the countryside, from the far south of Maranhão and the Parnaíba Basin up to the lands drained by the River São Francisco, as well as in all the vast hinterland that extends from Ceará and Rio Grande do Sul until the southern limits of the Bahia plateaus. They started to appear in 17th century when the white settlers entered in contact with the Indian tribes, today no longer extant (such as the Cariri group that marks the names of many places in the region) [...]." (p.74)

"The Mulattoes are more numerous, as it is expected, in the areas where it is concentrated the Black element. And the Cafuzos, the most rare of our Mestizos, are distinguished particularly in Maranhão, where the three basic Brazilians ethnic types - the White, the Black and the Indian - kept and continue to keep a closer contact, which justifies the colors of its flag and the presence, there, of an original Mestizo - Juçara." (p.74)

"At the side of the Mestizos, the Blacks occupy a place of undeniable prominence in the northeast population. They are concentrated, over three distinct areas, all of they not very far away from the coast: 1) in the Baixada Maranhense and the medium-inferior valley of the River Itapecuru; 2) in the Zona da Mata, from Paraíba to Alagoas; 3) in the Recôncavo in Bahia. They descend from slaves brought of Africa [...]." (pp.74-75)

"It remains to mention the Whites, close or remote descendants of Portuguese, who settled there since the 16th century and that gave origin to traditional northeastern families, as well as of other peoples from Europe (Spanish, Dutch) and from Asia (as it is the case of the Syrian-Lebanese)." (p.75)

Source: Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971.

Barsa Encyclopedia

Brazil: "The whites, in their majority, are descendants of the atlanto-mediterranean people (Portugueses, Spanish, Italian); therefore; it is the country with the greatest white population in the tropical world. The mestizos occupy a place of great prominence, being represented by caboclos (descending of whites and amerindians), mulattoes (of whites and blacks) and cafuzos (of blacks and amerindians) the blacks are equivalent to around 10%, while the remaining are yellow, particularly the Japanese and theirs descendants". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.230)

Northern region: "More than 60% of the population are formed by caboclos, mestizos of white and indian, provenient of crossings done in the region iteself or that came from the northeast region, during the rubber rush (1877-1910). The blacks are very scarce (04%). Beyond the whites, descendants of Portugusse-Brazilians (30%), there exist yellows represented by a minority of Japanese [...] and a decreasing number of indians, many of which still far away from civilization". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.255)

Northern region: "The northeastern population, of Portuguese origin finds itself intensely mixed with the primitive indian population (from which remain only modest residues) and with black elements, brought of Africa."(Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.258)

Where in the Northeastern region the Africans had a greater impact:

Bahia: "The population of Bahia presents a strong contingent of blacks and mulattoes, concentrated in the Recôncavo [the region around the capital Salvador], beyond numerous caboclos, who predominate in the plateaus [all the remaining area of the state], not mentioning the population of white color." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 3: Aparelho digestivo – Battle y Ordóñez. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Bahia", p.399)

Maranhão: "The population is concentrated mainly in the plains in the litoral and in the Itapecuru valley with strong ratio of blacks and mulattoes, beyond indian remainders of the tupis and jês groups." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 10: Judô – Merúrio. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Maranhão", p.355)

This work represents views that are 50 years out of date. Why not take advantage of the explosion of scholarly research on race in Brazil and use Wikipedia to present to people the latest, cutting edge research on race rather than duplicate an out of date encyclopedia pople already may have? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Carlos César Guterres Taveira

"The Brazilian population was constituted by three basic ethnic types: the White European, the Amerindian and the Black African, then increased by the corresponding crossbred types: the caboclo or mamluk (White with Indian), the Mulatto (White with Black) and Cafuzo, Zambo or Curiboca (Black with Indian)." (p.31)

Source: Taveira, Carlos César Guterres Taveira. Geografia do desenvolvimento no Brasil. São Paulo: Livros Irradiantes, 1971.

Igor A. G. Moreira

"By the way, the Mestizos are known as:

- Mulattoes, resultant of the crossings between Negroid and Caucasian.

- Mamluks, Curibocas or Caboclos, descendants of the crossbreeding between Caucasian and Indian;

- Cafuzos, Taoicas or Caburés, that are crossbred between Negroid and Indians." (p.108)

[...]

"Particularly in the eastern coast, especially in the northeastern Zona da Mata, in the Recôncavo in Bahia and Rio de Janeiro, the presence of Black and Mulatto are strong among the set of the human groups." (p.108)

[...]

"In the Amazon rainforest, where such forms land usage does not occur, the Mamluk or Tapuio [or Caboclo] is the predominant type. The same can be verified in northeastern Hinterland, where the figure of Sertanejo is of a Mamluk. […] In Maranhão, appears the Mestizo known as Juçara, who is a result of the fusion between the white, the black and the Indian." (pp.108-109)

"The yellows correspond to the Mongoloid Asians from the Far East, basically Japanese, who, with the crossing with the Caucasin, already makes appear a known type as Ainocô, frequent in São Paulo." (p.109)

Source: Moreira, Igor A. G. O Espaço Geográfico, geografia geral e do Brasil. 18. Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1981.

José William Vesentini

"They were three the main ethnic groups that constituted the Brazilian population: the indian, the white and the black. The miscegenation, or crossing between the ethnic groups, was very intense, giving origin to the Mestizos or “Pardos” (as they are called in the official statistics), that are: the Mulatto (white + black); the Caboclo or Mamluk (white + Indian); e Cafuzo (Indian + black)." (p.117)

"The statistics gotten from the country’s general censuses (of 10 in 10 years) are very precarious in relation to the ethnicities in Brazil. The 1960 and 1970 censuses, purely and simply, did not research nothing related to it. The last census, of 1980, returned to include it in its research [...]." (p.117)

"It is noticeable that these data are very questionable, as they do not take in account the ethnic origin of the people (black or Indian ancestry, etc.), but only the color of skin. Moreover, the notion of “Pardo” is not very rigorous, as it includes from very dark Mulattoes to Caboclos and Cafuzos." (pp.117-118)

Source: Vesentini, José William. Brasil, sociedade e espaço – Geografia do Brasil. 7ª. Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1988.

Caio Prado Júnior

"In the Far North, including the captaincies of Pará and its subordinate São José do Rio Negro, it is the Indian who predominates: the pure one (Tapuia), in great number still, and its crossbred variants Curiboca and Mamluk respectively of first and second generations of crossbred. The black in there is rare." (p.113)

"Also in other regions the Indian blood is preponderant. [...] It is the case particularly of Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, except for Paraíba, the south coast of the Bahia (judicial district of Ilhéus and captaincy of Porto Seguro), Espirito Santo." (p.113)

"Similar thing, even so with some difference, if occurs in the northeastern Hinterlands. There the majority of the population is also of Indian blood." (p.113)

Source: Prado Júnior, Caio.Formação do Brasil contemporâneo. São paulo: Brasilience, 1999.

In conclusion

The Brazilian people is thus divided in the following main ethnics groups:

• Whites: Brazilians of mainly White ancestry.
• Blacks: Brazilians of mainly Black ancestry.
• Indians: Brazilians of mainly Indian ancestry.
• Mongoloid Asians: Brazilians of mainly Mongoloid Asian ancestry.
• Mestizos (or officially Pardos): Brazilians of mainly mixed ancestry.

The Mestizos are divided in the following groups:

• Mullattoes: Brazilians of mainly White and Black ancestry.
• Cafuzos: Brazilians of mainly Black and Indian ancestry.
• Caboclos (or Mamluks): Brazilians of mainly White and Indian ancestry.
• Juçara: Brazilians of White, Black and Indian ancestry where none of them are predominant.
• Ainocô: Brazilians of mainly White and Japanese ancestry.

Marvin Harris elicited over 60 diferent races in Brazil, including moreno, moreno oscuro, moreno claro, etc - how about these? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article does not belong in Wikkipedia if it is filled with sentences like "The Brazilian people is thus divided in the following main ethnics groups." The brazilian people are not divided into the following ethnic groups. A proper WIkipedia article will say, "According to point of view X, the people of Brazil are divided into y ethnic groups." Then it will say "An according to the different view, M, Brazil is divided into n ethnic roups" and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"In the 1980 census, for example, the non-White Brazilians, when asked by the IBGE researchers about their color, answered that is was acastanhada, agaleada, alva, alva escura, alvarenta, alva rosada, alvinha, amarela, amarelada, amrela queimada, amarelosa, amorenada, avermelhada, azul, azul marinho, baiano, bem branca, bem clara, bem morena, branca, branca melada, branca morena [...], morena canelada, morena castanha, morena clara, moreca cor de canela [...], puxa para branca, quaqse negra, queimada da praia, queimada do sol [...]." Source: Coelho, p.270

Marvin Harris, who I don't know who he is, must have been talking about Brazilian answers to IBGE researchers. No Schoolar on this field calls them ethnics groups. - --Lecen (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

Well, perhaps I am "mistaken", as Slrubenstein said. But so it will be all specialized books in the subject written in Brazil from the 1970s up to the 1990s. But I know that I am correct. Or, as people from the Northeast of Brazil (from where I come) says: "Eu mato a cobra e mostro o pau." --Lecen (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if "Pardo" or "Mestizo" is not a multiethnic category, I would like to know what it is. Because it is not Brown for sure. --Lecen (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardo is Mestizo but Mestizo is not necessarily Pardo, Pardo is an option in census commonly made on Brazil asking for the skin colour. Luizdl (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

These Ainocôes surely didn't chose Pardo on census, I don't think Opinoso could input the word "Brown" all the articles about Brazilian cities on theirs demography as you accused him in my talk page, essentially because it is the meaning of the word second our dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizdl (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Brazilian bliefs about mesizaje to be similar to mestizaje in the Spanish-speaking Latin America. Stutzman and others have analyzed Mestizaje in the Andes and it is not the same as anything in Brazil. We have to move away from talking about how just because something can be translated, that the translation helps us. Same with "mulatto," and ugly word. Multiethnic categories? I do not question that pardo or a dozen other categories do not represent different kinds of hybridity. From a purely scientific point of view of course there is no pure race, White and Black are both mixed races. But different countries have different race ideologies. As for specialized books, obviously I do not think that all specialized books are mistaken. Lecen, do you really not understand me, or do you just reject Wikipedia policy? This is not a matter of agreewing with or not agreeing with a source. All significant views from reliable sources must be included, even ones that contradict. This is not about ou finding the "correct" view, it is about our represening the many diferent views. And I mentioned several works, or starts I would like to see Wagley and Skidmore's research in this article, hy wrote quitesome time ago and were good scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I give up. You all won. I can't fight that. I just can't. I bring specialized books written in Brazil about the matter that cover several decades to revealed that the classification has not changed. Others just bring their personal believes and that's it. Whatever, if you want to put that in the North and Northeast Caboclos are the majority and they are also Blacks, do it. I don't care. Nothing makes sense. --Lecen (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me in what way this is a response to my post? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, the IBGE in English use the term "Brown" for translate "Pardo", see on its official website http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_impressao.php?id_noticia=737 Luizdl (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not if Pardo is Brown or whatever. This is something I was discussing with you privately. The matter is that Opinoso said that no schoolar says that there is a name like "Caboclo" to represent a sub-group of the Pardo category. He also said that 85% of the Northern and Northeastern population is plain Black. What I am t rying to do in here is to show what the experts tell about it. - --Lecen (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for I have used the talk page of the article instead our talk page, but I did it because you used this talk page for say the frase "Because it is not Brown for sure". I had to answer here. Luizdl (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not just that Opinoso states that no scholar uses the term "caboclo". The problem is, the main reference source of Opinoso, Darcy Ribeiro, extensively uses the term "caboclo", and even has a chapter "O Brasil Caboclo" in his book O Povo Brasileiro. The problem is, there is no way to come to such a conclusion as "85% of the population of Northern and Northeastern Brazil is Black" without going against everything that is known about Brazilian history, anthropology, ethnography, human geography.

I agree that terms like "caboclo", "pardo", "mestiço", etc., are not well defined and that perhaps an earnest discussion about their meaning is in order (to me, it would be a pleasure to participate in it). However, even without such discussion, we can say for sure that the majority of the population of the Northern Region are not Black, and that the majority of the population in the hinterland of the Northeastern Region are not Black. We may be unable to state with certainty what they are; but we cannot allow the article to state that they are Black. Ninguém (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A summary of sources

Up to this moment, we have seen the following sources on the issue of "pardos", "caboclos", Blacks, and their relation to the Northern and Northeastern Regions:

1. The IBGE's Census figures, which I have summarised above:

Unidade da Federação
Cor ou raça	Amazonas	Pará	Amapá	Tocantins	Maranhão	Piauí	Bahia
Total	2.817.252	6.195.965	477.032	1.157.690	5.657.552	2.843.428	13.085.769
Branca (White)	681.717	1.617.015	126.850	353.754	1.512.324	752.760	3.297.989
Preta (Black)	87.471	340.901	25.543	82.032	542.834	220.371	1.704.248
Parda ("Brown")	1.884.507	4.115.414	313.519	701.167	3.523.999	1.836.589	7.869.770
Amarela ("Yellow", ie, Asian)	9.343	11.574	795	2.592	7.565	5.272	23.796
Indígena (Indigenous)	113.391	37.681	4.972	10.581	27.571	2.664	64.240
Sem declaração (undeclared)	40.822	73.380	5.354	7.564	43.260	25.771	125.726

Figures for the other states of both regions (Roraima, Rondônia, and Acre in the Northern Region, and Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, and Ceará in the Northeastern Region) are available and can be included here if necessary for the discussion.

I am now going to place a version of such table, showing percentages instead of absolute numbers:

Unidade da Federação
Cor ou raça	Amazonas	Pará	Amapá	Tocantins	Maranhão	Piauí	Bahia
Total	2.817.252	6.195.965	477.032	1.157.690	5.657.552	2.843.428	13.085.769
Branca (White)	24,20%	26,10%	26,59%	30,56%	26,73%	26,47%	25,20%
Preta (Black)	3,10%	5,50%	5,35%	7,09%	9,59%	7,75%	13,02%
Parda ("Brown")	66,89%	66,42%	65,72%	60,57%	62,29%	64,59%	60,14%
Amarela ("Yellow", ie, Asian)	0,33%	0,19%	0,17%	0,22%	0,13%	0,19%	0,18%
Indígena (Indigenous)	4,02%	0,61%	1,04%	0,91%	0,49%	0,09%	0,49%
Sem declaração (undeclared)	1,45%	1,18%	1,12%	0,65%	0,76%	0,91%	0,96%

It shows clearly that a majority of the population of each of these states is "parda", or considers itself "parda". The issue, of course, is "what is a pardo?"

2. A newspaper article [21] (in Portuguese), from O Estado de São Paulo, popularly known as Estadão, one of the two most important and reliable newspapers in São Paulo, Brazilian biggest city, that says:

In the date in which Brazil celebrates 120 years of the aboilition os slavery, the Secretaria Especial de Políticas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial - SEPPIR (Special Secretary for Policies of Promotion of Racial Equality) and the IBGE present the Mapa da Distribuição Espacial da População Negra (Map of the Spacial Distribution of the Black Population. According to the paper, in Northern and Northeastern Regions, in practically all places - except for the Indigenous Reservations - the self-declarations point to more than 75% of Blacks.

(...) On the other hand, in big extensions of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá and in various places in Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins, the map shows that Blacks are more than 85% of the population.

This article is from the May 13, 2008 issue of the "Estadão".

As the figures in the map were obtained from the 2000 Census, it is clear that the "Black majority" refers to the sum of the "preta" and "parda" categories. The map itself can be found here: [22] (PDF file), and, in its upper right corner, bears the following legend:

Distribuição espacial da população segundo cor ou raça

- Pretos e Pardos -

2000.

So, again, it is a mere sum up of the "preta" and "parda" populations. If we can agree that all "pardos" are "Black", then, yes, the Estadão is accurately reporting the issue. If not, then...

3. This table [23] from this article [24], by geneticists Juliana Alves-Silva, Magda da Silva Santos, Pedro E. M. Guimarães, Alessandro C. S. Ferreira, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Sérgio D. J. Pena, and Vania Ferreira Prado, that represents the MtDNA of small samples of the White population of the different regions of Brazil. It does show a very important contribution of Subsaharian MtDNA in the Northeastern Region (44%). It shows the exact opposite concerning the Northern Region: only 15% of Subsaharian MtDNA, compared with 52% Amerindian MtDNA. The study does not report on the subregional (litoral or hinterland), nor on the rural or urban origin of the samples. As pointed by Opinoso himself, this refers to the White, not the "parda" population. It also refers only to MtDNA, which is inherited by individuals exclusively by maternal line, so it says very little about the whole composition of each individual's genetic pool.

4. This newspaper article [25] (in Portuguese) from the Diário do Nordeste, featuring the following quotes from historian Cecília Holanda, coordinator of an NGO dedicated to Afro-Brazilian culture:

Researchs to quantify Blaks in Brazil may not give an appropriate account of reality.

and

The problem is that a big part of Brazilian Blacks does not recognise itself as such. Blacks don't want to be Black, they want to be "pardo". That's because they know that being Black in Brazil means to be the target of very intense prejudice.

Which may well be, but isn't supported by any research or data. As far as we know, it could be Ms. Holanda's personal opinion. Besides, it is referred to Fortaleza, Ceará's capital, situated on the litoral of the Northeast, not in the Northern region or in the Northeastern hinterland.

It is also a newspaper article; we hope it represents adequately Ms. Holanda's thought, but it certainly cannot convey any detail.

5. This article, [26] (in Portuguese), by historian and sociologist Hilário Ferreira, that briefly makes the point that the importance of the presence of Blacks in Ceará has been understated by the historiography.

6. This paper, [27], that shows the MtDNA distribution of people from "five Amazonian African-descendant communities". Unsurprisingly, since it investigates people from African descent, it finds a huge percent of Subsaharan MtDNA (50.2%). Perhaps more interestingly, it shows an enormous (46.6%) percent of Amerindian DNA (so, in the Amazonian region, even Blacks are in fact... "cafuzos"), and even a small (1.3%) percent of European MtDNA.

7. This article, [28] (PDF, in Portuguese), that shows the importance of the Subsaharian genetic contribution to the genome of Brazilians.

8. This article, [29] that analises MtDNA from Brazilians of different "cores", in a rural community in the Southeast and in metropolitan areas of Brazil, to distinguish Subsaharian from European (but not Amerindia) ancestry.

9. This newspaper article [30], which refers to a research that would demonstrate that about 80% of the genetic pool of Brazilians is of European origin.

10. The Encyclopaedia Barsa, that says that the majority (60%) of the population of the Northern Region is "cabocla".

11. O Povo Brasileiro, by Darcy Ribeiro, which says that the majority of the population of the Northern Region is "cabocla", and that the majority of the population of the Northeastern hinterland is "brancóide" with an "indigenous base". Ninguém (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

12. The Dicionário do Brasil Imperial, by Ronaldo Vainfas ([31]), that, in Lecen's translation, states:

Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas and Pernambuco were the provinces that had reached the lesser ratio of white population of Brazil, with a little more than 1/3 of the total; Ceará, Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte presented a ratio of significant white population, around 40%; the provinces of the north, Piauí, Maranhão, Pará and Amazonas, characterized themselves by small ratio of white population, few slaves and strong mark of Indian population, that in Pará was superior to 15% and, in Amazonas, was 2/3 of the population; Mato Grosso and Goiás had the lesser rates of population growth in the 19th, possessing less than 1/3 of whites, few slaves, expressive presence of indians and majority of 'pardos'."

13. O Brasil e suas regiões, by Aroldo Azevedo ([32]), that says, in Lecen's translation:

Taking on basis the data of the 1950 census [...], it is believed that more than 60% of the population of the Amazon Rainforest is constituted by Pardos, that is, Mestizos. (p.19)

Inside this ethnic group, everything indicates that the Caboclos, descendants of Whites and Indians predominate. The history of the regional settlement justifies this predominance and it is confirmed by observation. (p. 19)

and

The Caboclos are the majority in most areas of this region of the country, in the northern littoral and, especially, in plateaus in the countryside, from the far south of Maranhão and the Parnaíba Basin up to the lands drained by the River São Francisco, as well as in all the vast hinterland that extends from Ceará and Rio Grande do Sul until the southern limits of the Bahia plateaus. They started to appear in 17th century when the white settlers entered in contact with the Indian tribes, today no longer extant (such as the Cariri group that marks the names of many places in the region) [...]. (p.74)

The Mulattoes are more numerous, as it is expected, in the areas where it is concentrated the Black element. And the Cafuzos, the most rare of our Mestizos, are distinguished particularly in Maranhão, where the three basic Brazilians ethnic types - the White, the Black and the Indian - kept and continue to keep a closer contact, which justifies the colors of its flag and the presence, there, of an original Mestizo - Juçara." (p. 74)

14. O Espaço Geográfico, by Igor A. G. Moreira ([33]), which, according to Lecen's translation, gives us:

In the Amazon rainforest, where such forms land usage does not occur, the Mamluk or Tapuio [or Caboclo] is the predominant type. The same can be verified in northeastern Hinterland, where the figure of Sertanejo is of a Mamluk. […] In Maranhão, appears the Mestizo known as Juçara, who is a result of the fusion between the white, the black and the Indian. (pp 108-109)

15. Caio Prado Jr.'s Formação do Brasil Contemporâneo (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=lvErAAAAYAAJ&q=forma%C3%A7%C3%A3o+do+brasil+contemporaneo&dq=forma%C3%A7%C3%A3o+do+brasil+contemporaneo&ei=BMkGS9nBO4b0ygSr4ujSDw&client=firefox-a), which, again in Lecen's translation, tells us that:

In the Far North, including the captaincies of Pará and its subordinate São José do Rio Negro, it is the Indian who predominates: the pure one (Tapuia), in great number still, and its crossbred variants Curiboca and Mamluk respectively of first and second generations of crossbred. The black in there is rare. (p.113)

Also in other regions the Indian blood is preponderant. [...] It is the case particularly of Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, except for Paraíba, the south coast of the Bahia (judicial district of Ilhéus and captaincy of Porto Seguro), Espirito Santo. (p.113)

Similar thing, even so with some difference, if occurs in the northeastern Hinterlands. There the majority of the population is also of Indian blood. (p. 113) Ninguém (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)