Talk:German Brazilians

German Brazilians- by VivaLatinAmerica

Opinoso, please stop changing the number of German Brazilians to 5 million. I have found many websites with far higher estimates. Even Fernando Henrique Cardoso sites a minimum of 10 million German Brazilians in his book The Acccidental President of Brazil. I say we settle on 5-10 million German Brazilians. Thanks -VivaLatinAmerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivalatinamerica (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso is right here. There is no possibility that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil. About 250,000 Germans immigrated to Brazil; they would have to have a superhuman prolificity to become 18 million in 2009.

This is interesting, since Opinoso has consistently edit-warred against me to keep the 18 million misinformation in the White Brazilian article.

Even more interesting, Vivalatinamerica's writing style is very similar to Opinoso's - both mangle the English language in a very similar way, and like to accuse others of having an ethnic agenda. I wonder if both post from the same computers, too. Ninguém (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

who the heck are you talking too? These comments make no sense. There are 12 million German brazilians. The 250.000 figure largely only recorded adult age males. So if you were married with 4 children, you might only show up as 1 immigrant.66.190.31.229 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

5% of Brazilians are full descendants, but at least twice has German origins. http://www.dw.de/brasil-alem%C3%A3o-comemora-180-anos/a-1274817 "Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão. Parece muito, mas é pouco, se comparado aos 43 milhões de norte-americanos (15,2% da população dos EUA) que dizem ter pelo menos um ascendente germânico, formando o maior grupo étnico do país. "No Brasil, esses números são bem menores, mas sem a sua contribuição é impossível entender a história, cultura e identidade brasileira", conclui"

How can 3 ​​million Germans descedents still speak the language in a total number of 5 million? The vast majority of German-Brazilians only speak Portuguese. Further proof that the number of descedents is much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuser777 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did the first German-Brazilians settled?

According to this article, the Germans first settled in Ilhéus, Bahia, but in the article of Nova Friburgo it say that Nova Friburgo was the first German settlement in Brazil. In Portuguese Wikipedia, it also says that the first settlement was Nova Friburgo. Which one is right? Lehoiberri (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some also say that São Leopoldo was the first. Actually, you only need to read the dates. Ilhéus was settled in 1818 and Nova Friburgo in 1824.Opinoso (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Santa Maria de Jetibá

Why dont this article cite any information about the city of Santa Maria de Jetibá, in Espírito Santo? It's the largest pomeranian community in the world, there are more pomeranian descendants in this city than in Pomerode, in Santa Catarina. Althoug the percentages are smaller, people with pomeranian ancestry in Pomerode are 80% while in Santa Maria, they are 60%, because there also lives italian-brazilians, and immigrants from the northeastern region of the country, most of them from Bahia, the most afro brazilian state. But still Santa Maria has a large population and it has more unmixed pomeranian descendant people than Pomerode.--Martinense (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tyrol

There's an IP claiming people from Tyrol are Germans. Tyrol (state) is an state of Austria and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is a region of Italy. Those Austrians who settled Treze Tílias came from the Austrians state, because German Tyrol did not exist. They are not connected to Germany anymore. They're Austrians. Opinoso (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So, Opinoso, German Swiss or Volga Germans aren't German? They should be counted, respectively, as Swiss and Russians? Ninguém (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you the IP user? Because I started this discussion to solve this problem with the one who was including Austrians as Germans. Moreover, assume good-faith and stop cheking my "last edits" posting unnecessary comments when you have nothing to do with this discussion. Remembers that following other users' edit is vandalism, and I noticed you are a Single Porpose Accounts enterely dedicated to the articles I recently edited. Be carefull. This kind of vandalism, you may be blocked once again. Opinoso (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not the IP user.

And why do you assume I am not assuming good faith?

Who told you I "have nothing to do with this discussion"? Are you the owner of Wikipedia, to determine whether other editors may or may not post into articles Talk Pages?

Now, about the substance:

I actually agree that these people are of Austrian, not German, descent. But some kind of consistency is necessary. Your argument that they are "Austrians" because when they came to Brazil there was an Austrian State does not seem to hold, otherwise Volga Germans would have to be considered "Russian-Brazilians", because they came from an established Russian State. So you cannot simply reverse this other editor's contribution, calling it vandalism, just because you disagree with him. So, please, engage in civil discussion about the topic. What is the difference between those people in Treze Tílias and Volga Germans who also immigrated to Brazil and are always counted as "German-Brazilians", and never as "Russian-Brazilians"? Ninguém (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't waste my time reading your out of place comments. With some many article at Wikipedia, you only appear at the same article I have recently edit. You are obviously following my edits. I'm contacting an administrator to resolve it. Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! This guy is so funny. First he flip-flops on the issue of Tyrol, he accuses me of vandalism, and now claims that I am connected with this other user. LOL! This is the guy who say Tyrolese are not German but Austrian, but Austria is listed in this article, so he flip-flops and makes up a claim that the are German-speaking people in Austria that are not Austrian (WTF?). Seriously, dude, all German-speaking people in Austria are Austrian. I told this guy that if he wanted to remove Treze Tilias, then remove Austria from the first paragraph in the immigration section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.173.225 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If an information in this article may be wrong, it does not allow you to include a new wrong information. These people from Treze Tílias came from Austria. I know people from this town, and they see themvelses as Austrians. They have nothing to do with German Brazilians.

You have to bring a source claiming these people from Austrian Tyrol are Germans. And stop reverting. If Austria is listed, it's probably referring to those earlier immigrants, who were not completly identified with a German state, so people who came from Austrian were integrated in other German-speaking communities. However, Treze Tílias was settled in the 1930, many decades after the formation of the German and Austrian states. Then, stop confusing the dates and their ethnic view. Opinoso (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly again, you are flip-flopping. If you say Austrians are not Germans, THEN REMOVE AUSTRIA FROM THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF MAKING UP STUFF! Stop the flip-flopping! First, you said that there are are people who speak German but not Austrian in Austria, now you claim its the earlier immigrants. You are full of it. 99.179.173.225 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is as simple as this - Historicly austrians have allways called themself germans. After world war two this has changed and most austrians now a days dont call themself germans anymore. The persons that migrated from austria prior to world war two should however be counted as germans since they are very likely to have considered themself germans. The reason for austrians not being called germans anymore is only political, if you talk about ethnicity they are germans just as much as bavarians are germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.59.91 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle class

Sorry, but an information such as "Germans had established the first middle-class population of Brazil, in a country divided between slaves and their masters" absolutely needs to be sourced. Who said such thing? Ninguém (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources said. Not the "first middle class", but the first permanent middle class:

"Introduziu também outras grandes modificações. Até aquele momento, a classe média brasileira era insignificante e se concentrava nas cidades. Os colonos alemães acabaram formando uma classe de pequenos proprietários e artesãos livres em uma sociedade dividida entre senhores e escravos".[1]

"Esta, por sinal, foi a característica da imigração alemã, que, desse modo contribuiu para a constituição de uma classe média urbana e rural no país."[2]

"Alemães ajudaram a formar a classe média paulistana"[3]

To find reliable sources, you only need to google. Do not use Fact Tags before making a resource to know if the information is real or not. Maybe the person only forgot to include the source. Opinoso (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. Reliable source = peer-reviewed academic article, published book or primary sources such as statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.234.63 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Persecution vs Discrimination

The word "persecution" is not apt to describe what happened to "German Brazilians" in Brazil. They weren't confined to concentration camps; they weren't expelled from the country; they weren't killed or jailed; their civil rights were not taken or suspended.

Only their language was forbidden - and then, only the public use of it, such as in schools or press. This may be awful, morally wrong, politically incorrect, etc. But "persecution" it is not. The correct word here is "Discrimination". Ninguém (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources? Or more personal theories? Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Opinoso. If you claim that "German Brazilians" were "persecuted", the burden of proof is upon you. Give us instances of real persecution: unlawful imprisonment, lynchings, expulsions, removal or suspension of civil rights. If you can do so, I will gladly admit they have been persecuted. If you can't, I stand by my position: discrimination, yes; persecution, by no means. Ninguém (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also like to take a reading of German American: though certainly the treatment of American citizens of German ancestry was much harsher than that of "German Brazilians", the article in no moment talks about "persecution", or even "discrimination". The use of this word seems not neutral. Ninguém (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over grammatical corrections

The use of articles in English is different from Portuguese; expressions like "the idea that the German Brazilians" or "In this context, the monolingualism appeared to solve the problems" sound quite awkward. I don't see why they should be reinstated as part of an edit war.

"it was natural that the children continue speaking German rather than adopt the Portuguese language that they rarely had contact" is just simply wrong, either in English or Portuguese. Again it is difficult to understand the rationale of keeping a borderline unintelligible phrase here.

Using the word "guilty" in the expression "the language of immigrants as guilty of school failure" seems too colloquial for an encyclopedia. In a formal text, "guilty" should be only used when referring to human subjects, not to entities such as languages. Again, it seems almost incredible that it is necessary to bring this into a Talk Page.

"difficulties for learning Portuguese" is wrong; the correct is "in learning Portuguese". It is fantastical that I have to discuss this as if it was a "content issue", but so be it.

"the mayor of Santa Maria do Herval, a town in Rio Grande do Sul, down a municipal decree that prohibited the use of German" is, beyond wrong, incomprehensible. Mayors don't "down" decrees, they "issue" them. This is babelfishing Portuguese, where, indeed, mayors "baixam decretos". Why does this need to be talked about in a Talk Page remains a mistery to me. Why is this reversed as a "useless change"? What is useless in making the text understandable?

"the classroom of the municipality" is wrong, and even funny - the municipality has only one classroom? Again, why is it necessary to revert to such mistaken phrase?

"Most of the German-Brazilians are Roman Catholics or Lutherans (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil), but with significant Jewish, Mennonite and Adventist German communities." This remains unsourced and possibly POV (what is the criterium to distinguish a "significant community from an insignificant one? Why are the Jewish or Mennonite "German" communities significant, but "German Brazilian" atheists aren't mentioned? Or "German Brazilian" Presbiterians, by the way?).

I was in fact wrong about the Santa Maria do Herval's mayor's decree being unsourced. I tried to open the link half a dozen times from my job, and systematically got an error message, so I assumed the link was broken. But apparently it has to do with my job's network, or perhaps policy, not with the link itself. So I do apologize. However, I would like to point out that the whole incident is not encyclopedic at all. The decree is clearly unconstitutional, and cannot even be enforced, since the municipality doesn't have a police. Besides, Santa Maria do Herval is a town of 6,427 inhabitants, hardly representative of Brazil. So this information is more fit in an almanak or trivia collection than in an encyclopaedia, where things must be put into perspective. Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All the informations are sourced, with the exception of the religious issue. It would be more civil for you to source about the main religious followed by people of German descent in Brazil, and not only include a "fact tag" only to crate disruptions.

All the other informations are sourced, and you included a "fact tag" after the information about the decree in Santa Maria do Herval, and now you argue it's a small town and the information should be deleted. Do you have any Wikipedia's rule that you can use to delete informations because it happened "in a small town, hardly representative of Brazil"? Unless Wikipedia claims that small towns are not important, the information will keep there to show that speaking German in Brazil is still a problem for some people. Opinoso (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two "informations" that are under discussion here. One is unsourced, and so I added a fact tag to it. What is uncivil about this?

I already explained why I thought the information about Santa Maria do Herval was unsourced. I don't think it is necessary to do it again. And yes, the information seems to be irrelevant. The relevant Wikipedia rules are Wikipedia:Relevance and Wikipedia:Handling trivia:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used

I am here stating that the fact that the mayor of Santa Maria do Herval, a town of less than 7,000 inhabitants, issued an inconstitutional and unenforceable decree forbidding the use of the German Language in the township's schools is irrelevant to the understanding of the situation of "German Brazilians" in 2009; or, worse, that referring to it without context is POV and creates a false impression that "German Brazilians" are a discriminated minority in Brazil.

Now, can you address the reasons you may have to reverting several grammatical corrections and reinstating grammatically wrong, and even incomprehensible, text to this "encyclopaedia"? Else, I will reinstate those corrections immediately. Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the rules claim that to talk about small towns is an irrelevant information. This is your personal theory, wich is not relevant here. Opinoso (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, none of these rules addresses "small towns". They address relevance, and trivia. That's what matters here; it is unreasonable to assume there is a Wikipedia rule for each irrelevant information. This has to be addressed case by case. The information is perhaps relevant to an article about Santa Maria do Herval (even then, not in such incomplete fashion - what did courts say about the decree? What was the discussion in the Câmara de Vereadores? What were the practical consequences of the decree?); but it certainly isn't relevant to an article about "German Brazilians".

But this is only part of the problem. I am saying that that information is promoting a fringe POV that "German Brazilians" constitute a persecuted minority in Brazil, which is false, and inducing non-Brazilian readers of this "encyclopaedia" to believe we are a lawless country of savages, where people can be sentenced to jail for speaking Martin Luther's language.

I understand you have nothing against the grammatical corrections (or "useless changes", and so am going to reinstate them. Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The rules of Wikipedia do not claim informations about small towns are irrelevant. This is your theory, and you should avoid posting them here, because this is not a Forum. If the source claimed the mayor did a municipal decree forbiding the use of German in schools, then the information is relevant and it will keep there. If you find it irrelevant this is not important. Funny that you are always accusing me of Ownership of articles, but it seem you are the one choosing which informations should ot should not stay in the article. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, stop selling the idea that foreigners call us "macaquitos"[4] [5] (little monkeys in Spanish) and that this article introduce them to a "lawless country of savages". What's your point? That Brazil is treated by foreigners as a country of savage monkeys? Stop using the talk pages of articles as Foruns, and stop selling this kind of theory. Opinoso (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that all sourced information is valid and should be included? I am then preparing a small section about Nazism in Brazil and German Brazilians. Would you cooperate? Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since you asked me to source the religion section, can we discuss which sources can be used? Preliminarly, I would like to state that I don't consider the churchs/cults themselves reliable sources about their membership. Which other sources do you suggest?

I would prefer to use the IBGE, but, as you know, they don't research ancestry. I have taken a look at the religion results for a few municipalities that we can agree have significant populations of German descent, such as Ivoti, Pomerode, Novo Hamburgo, Santa Cruz do Sul. None of them seem to have a significant Jewish population. The IBGE doesn't even discriminate Mennonites. Adventists seem to be present in most those cities, always in very small numbers, and alternate with other Evangelic denominations such as Presbiterians or Baptists, but do not seem to constitute a more significant group than Pentecostals, non-religious, JWs, etc. Can you give some input on this? Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. If you believe my edits are not improving the article, please explain why here, before reversing them. Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

I am placing fact tags about three different bits of information in the article:

1. That all manifestations of German culture were forbidden. Seems unlikely. Schumann or Brahms were forbidden? Hegel? Pretzels? If this is true, it absolutely must be sourced, because it is an extraordinary claim; else, it should be removed.

2. That houses built according to German architectural traditions were demolished. Where? By whom? Were the proprietors indemnified? Seems extremely unlikely, is an extraordinary claim, and must be convincingly sourced or removed.

3. That there were arrests motivated by the use of foreign languages. Unlike the others, this seems quite likely, especially during the time around declaration of war, when the sinking of Brazilian merchant ships exacerbated anti-German sentiments. But it needs to be sourced and explained, especially regarding what happened to people arrested due to this. Were they prosecuted? Jailed without due process? Sent back home? Ninguém (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't any source for these informations, I am going to remove them. Ninguém (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the first two. Later I'm going to try to find sources for the third one. Ninguém (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

This sentence, to the end of the "Persecution" section, seems incomprehensible:

The Brazilian education system is set by the failure to deal with students who do not speak Portuguese, who are often ridiculed and segregated.

I have searched the reference to see if I could find what could have been its origin, but couldn't find anything. If I could reasonably guess what it means, I would correct it, but I honestly can't. So, if somebody can figure out what it means, please correct it. If no one can, I am proposing to take it out, and volunteering to do it. Ninguém (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten. Hope this is acceptable. Ninguém (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Santa Maria do Herval

I have found the original source for the bit about the "decree" by Santa Maria do Herval's mayor: [6].

It doesn't mention any decree: apparently, there was a verbal orientation to the municipality's teachers, to keep elementary students who expressed themselves during class in Hunsruekisch to teach them Portuguese during breaktime. Probably not the best idea, even if vehemently supported by part of the community of German descent. Far from constituting anything remotely similar to "persecution", though. Ninguém (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am rewriting it to fit the source (no decree is mentioned). The relevance of this information is still unproven. Ninguém (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of "German Brazilians" and Brazilian cities and towns

The section about "Number of German Brazilians and ethnicity" lists (and does not source) a series of Brazilian cities and towns as being a majoritarily populated by "German Brazilians". Let me explain here why I find this information quite dubious (and am, consequently, placing Fact Tags on them).

The Brazilian Census does not count people according to their ancestry (descent, "ethnicity", origin, etc.). So there are no official sources for this kind of information. Such information is usually divulged by the mayorities of those cities, but they cannot be taken as reliable sources in this precise case, since they have material interests - particularly in tourism - that can be fostered or hampered by information like this.

I have checked the IBGE data for religion in those cities. The proportion between Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany is about 1:1; in the case of cities and towns where the proportion is much lower than 1:2 (meaning less than 1:4), I am placing Fact Tags. This does not mean that I think the information is necessarily false (it could be the case that the population of German descent of that precise town came from a German region where Catholicism is more important, or that there was a significant movement of conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism); it means that I believe that reliable sources need to be brought to substantiate the claim. In cities where the proportion is above 1:4, I am taking as unnecessary to further source the information, which is either correct or close enough not to raise concerns. Redacted because I misused sources in the first edit. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reason can be brought here into the Talk Page to justify the reversion of my edits? If there is no reason, I am going to reinstate them. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Lutheran theory has nothing to do with this. There's only 1 million Lutherans in Brazil, in a population of at least 5 million of German descent. Lutherans are a minority among German Brazilians. The fact that Germany is half Lutheran half Catholic cannot be aplied in the German-descend population of Brazil.

Use sources, not theories. Opinoso (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So, using exclusively reliable sources, which of these towns and cities can be confirmed as being majoritarily populated by people of German descent? Those that cannot must be taken from the article. Which is what I am going to do, if the sources aren't provided. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All those towns were settled by Germans, and they are a majority. Opinoso (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No source, then? Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the tag facts were again removed. Since there are no sources, what's the reason for so doing? Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém is asking a very reasonable question. Opinoso, please either explain or self-revert. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Ninguém asked the fact tags, but he included in the tags (as usuall) a personal theories. This time, he concluded that only towns with a majority of Lutherans have German-desceded majorities, when in fact most German Brazilians are Roman Catholics and the size of Lutheranism in each town has nothing to do with the percentage of German-descended people. Besides making this Lutheran personal theory, he included a "fact tag" after each name of the several towns there, when the correct was to include a single fact tag template above the session. And finally, all those towns were founded and settled by Germans, and everybody knows most people there are of German roots and the other editor only needs to google and the sources are avaible.

I think if a person is really interested in improving an article, this person should look for sources before posting fact tags. In this case, all those towns are known as predominantly of German descent, even though the sources are not there, they can be easily found by the person who seems to be "interested" in the quality of the article. Opinoso (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can do two things: place Fact Tags on all the cities on that list, since there aren't sources for any of them; or I can be reasonable, and only put fact tags on the cities I doubt have a majority of German origin. The "theory" merely explains why I have put fact tags on some of those cities but not on others. What I cannot, and should not, is to allow unsourced and possibly false information to stand unchallenged.

Do I need to look for sources before I place Fact Tags? If I do, how do I prove that I have looked for them? Because, well, it just may be that I have thoroughly looked for sources for the information under discussion, and have found none. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you say: In this case, all those towns are known as predominantly of German descent, even though the sources are not there, they can be easily found by the person who seems to be "interested" in the quality of the article. I'm happy to read this. So add them. And in this or any other article, do not remove any more "fact" or "unreferencedsection" tags merely because you think the sources can easily be found: either (a) add the sources and then remove the tags or (b) don't touch the tags. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the Fact Tags. I hope they won't be removed except if sources are added. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just now removed the passage. Ninguém was justified in readding the fact tags, but there seems little point in messing up the article to that degree. Here's what I've removed:

, such as São Leopoldo, Novo Hamburgo, Nova Petrópolis, São Bento do Sul, Blumenau, Joinville, Santa Isabel, Gramado, Canela, Santa Cruz do Sul, Estância Velha, Ivoti, Dois Irmãos, Morro Reuter, Santa Maria do Herval, Presidente Lucena, Picada Café, Santo Ângelo, Teutônia, Ibirubá, Victor Graeff, Brusque and many others.

If you look at this in editing mode, you'll see lots of SGML comments. However, please don't edit it. Instead, feel free to edit the version below, within the blue box. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (fixed bizarre typo Hoary (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

, such as Quinze de Novembro (3,582 inhabitants), Linha Nova (1,564 inhabitants), Imigrante (3,850 inhabitants), Nova Petrópolis (16,891 inhabitants), Marques de Souza (4,241 inhabitants), Colinas (2,462 inhabitants), Coronel Barros (2,454 inhabitants), Lagoa dos Três Cantos (1,627 inhabitants), Senador Salgado Filho (2,927 inhabitants), Teutônia (22,891 inhabitants), Ivoti (15,318 inhabitants), Ibirubá (18,633 inhabitants), Victor Graeff (3,924 inhabitants), Picada Café (4,673 inhabitants), Presidente Lucena (2,069 inhabitants) (all in Rio Grande do Sul); Arabutã (4,160 inhabitants) and Braço do Trombudo (3,187 inhabitants), (in Santa Catarina); and Santa Maria de Jetibá (28,774 inhabitants) and Laranja da Terra (10,934 inhabitants) (in Espírito Santo).

In Rio Grande do Sul, these towns have a majority of Lutherans:

• Quinze de Novembro - RS
• Linha Nova - RS
• Imigrante - RS
• Marques de Souza - RS
• Colinas - RS
• Coronel Barros - RS
• Lagoa dos Três Cantos - RS
• Senador Salgado Filho - RS
• Teutônia - RS

I honestly don't see how they would have a majority of Lutherans if they hadn't a majority of people of German descent. So I think they can safely be added to the article. But I would say it is necessary to add their total population, too. With the exception of Teutônia (by no coincidence the one with the smallest proportion of Lutherans), that has some 22,000 inhabitants, all of them have less than 5,000 people.

The following cities, also in Rio Grande do Sul, have a very significant Lutheran minority, bigger than 25%. I do think they have a majority of German descent:

• Vale do Sol - RS
• Nova Petrópolis - RS
• Novo Machado - RS
• São Lourenço do Sul - RS
• Brochier - RS
• Victor Graeff - RS
• Cerro Branco - RS
• Sinimbu - RS
• Santo Antônio do Planalto - RS
• Chuvisca - RS
• Ubiretama - RS
• Horizontina - RS
• Turuçu - RS
• Agudo - RS
• Candelária - RS
• Morro Redondo - RS
• Lindolfo Collor - RS
• Ibirubá - RS
• Sertão Santana - RS
• Canguçu - RS
• Coqueiros do Sul - RS
• Toropi - RS
• Picada Café - RS
• Doutor Maurício Cardoso - RS
• Travesseiro - RS
• Novo Cabrais - RS
• Vera Cruz - RS
• Condor - RS
• Três de Maio - RS
• Paraíso do Sul - RS
• São Vendelino - RS
• Ajuricaba - RS
• Ernestina - RS
• Nova Ramada - RS

I would have no problem with them being added to the article. Again, I think the total population should be added. The biggest of them, Canguçu, has 51,000 inhabitants; half of the others have less than 5,000 people, and all but five less than 20,000.

I can do a similar research for Santa Catarina and Paraná, if there is consensus that the Lutheran proportion can be used as an index of the population of German descent. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can now fairly agree that there are no easy to find sources about this issue. Can we also agree that at least some of those towns do have a majority of German descent? Because the article is now unbalanced to the opposite side; before, it listed many towns that possibly do not have a majority of German descent; now, it doesn't give any towns that do have. Ninguém (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

I notice a recent, almost uninterrupted stream of edits to this article by one editor. Perhaps some of the changes are for the better. Some appear likely to be controversial. None has an edit summary.

Please supply an edit summary for any edit; and before making any change that's likely to be controversial, please get agreement for it on this discussion page.

Also see my comment in the section above on the need for sourcing assertions, and the need not to remove "fact" and "unreferenced" tags from what remains unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit [7] is problematic, as this paragraph has been removed:

However, during the whole period, there was no internment of Brazilians of German descent, nor their civil or politic rights were treated differently than those of other Brazilians (Vargas' government was a dictatorship and all Brazilians, regardless of origin, were subjected to censorship, policiac surveillance, prohibition of political activity, etc.; but this was not directed to any particular sector of the population).

Vargas government was a dictatorship and not a particularly mild one. People were arrested, tortured, jailed without due process, etc. But this was aimed against people who opposed the regime or its policies, not against people of a given ethnicity. People were never interned for being of German descent; they were jailed when police believed, correctly or not, that they were active communists, anarchists, Nazis, integralists, or any other ideology that the regime found unsuitable.

Indeed, not only most Brazilian people of German descent remained "free" (to the extent that anyone could be "free" under Vargas' regime), but some even wore Brazilian military uniforms and distinguished themselves in military action against Nazi Germany in Italian battlefields.

Trying to transform this into an issue of ethnic persecution, as this article seems to be intent on, is POV. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit [8] is also controversial, due to the inclusion of the following:

Speaking German was banned under penalty of imprisonment and torture. Stores owned by Germans were depleted and the government set the time for people to go home. Establishments registered in foreign names had to be changed and worship in churches had to be spoken only in Portuguese.

Brazilian Republican law never allowed something as a "torture penalty", so it is absolutely impossible that "speaking German was banned under penalty of imprisonment and torture".

Stores owned by Germans (and Italians) were depleted by popular riots in response to the sinking of Brazilian merchant ships by German and Italian submarines. Police and army repressed those riots and restored order.

The government "set the time for people to go home", ie, imposed curfews, wherever it saw necessary to restore order, and did against the populace in general, never especially against people of German descent.

"Establishments registered in foreign names had to be changed" means exactly what? Companies owned by foreign people had to change the names of the proprietors, or companies that had a foreign "fantasy name" had to change their "fantasy names? Both seem unlikely. What seems likely is what the source in fact says, that German businessmen were replaced in company boards, and the administration (not the property) transfered to the Liga de Defesa Nacional. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems somebody is trying to deny the fact that Germans in Brazil were obliged to stop speaking their mother tongue and that many of them were arrested and even torture because of this. Yes, Brazilian Republican law never allowed people to be tortured, but in Brazil's History the law is often not respected, and torture is still widely used even today. And also, the sentence "Vargas' government was a dictatorship and all Brazilians, regardless of origin, were subjected to censorship, policiac surveillance, prohibition of political activity, etc" is another failed theory and it has nothing to do with this subject. The fact that Vargas persecuted other people, like Communists, does not erase the fact that his Government did persecute German immigrants and Brazilian citizens because of their German ancestry and because they spoke German as their mother tongue. We're talking about people being arrest because they were German or of German descent, not people arrested because they were Communists or did not support Vargas's Government. The first was an "ethnic discrimination", the later was a "political persecution" and does not belong to this article's subject. They have nothing to do with each other.

"The government "set the time for people to go home", ie, imposed curfews, wherever it saw necessary to restore order, and did against the populace in general, never especially against people of German descent."

This is another failed theory by yourself. The source claims that for people of German descent curfews were imposed. It was not necessary to "to restore order" like your theory is claiming, because Germans and descendants weren't doing anything "wrong", besides speaking German or keeping with their traditions.

Be neutral, and do not change the Historic facts. It's not encyclopedical to try to hide facts of the past just because they do not seem "correct". Vargas persecuted ethnic Germans in Brazil, as well as Japanese and Italians. The fact that he persecuted other people because because of their political views or opinions has nothing to do with persecution against immigrants, which was against people because of their ethnicity, ancestry or languages that they spoke, not because of political views. Totally different. Opinoso (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit [9] is controversial:

During World War II, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) enlisted many Germans and people of German descent to fight alongside the Allied forces, which was tragic for many of them, considering that the soldiers were forced to fight against Germany.

They were Brazilian citizens and they fought for their country. There is nothing wrong or especially tragic about that (more than going to war, being exposed to harm, and having to shoot at fellow human beings is tragic for any person of any nationality and descent). Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you really serious starting this discussion?

"They were Brazilian citizens and they fought for their country".

This is your personal theory. According to the source, it was tragic for them. These people were fighting against the country of their parents and against the country they were still culturally and ethnically connected. Germany was not just a "foreign" country, as it was to the other Brazilians. For most German Brazilians, Germany was their country, not Brazil.

"There is nothing wrong or especially tragic about that (more than going to war, being exposed to harm, and having to shoot at fellow human beings is tragic for any person of any nationality and descent)."

This is, once again, your personal theory. Many people go to a war because they want to, because they feel it is important for them to make part of that conflict, and many of them feel confortable "being exposed to harm, and having to shoot at fellow human beings" because they think the reasons they are killing other people are "correct".

This was not the case of "Brazilian citizens of German descent" who were enlisted to fight in a war against the country from where their family came from. A Brazilian citizen of non-German ancestry had less "psychological problems" fighting against Germany than a Brazilian citizen born to German parents, who spoke German as his mother tongue and that felt that he was part of the German population.

It's like a person born abroad to Brazilian parents, who speaks Portuguese and feels Brazilians being obliged to fight against Brazil in a war. It's the same psychological aggression.

The psychological/cultural differences between a person whose relatives came from Germany being obliged to fight against Germany in a war with a person that had no family ties with Germany are so obvious that I cannot even believe that I am wasting my time explaining it here. But since I promissed Gwen Gale I would try to discuss everything that appears in the talk pages, I won't break my promissed. However, I still cannot believe a person is not able to distinguish the trauma that is for someone fighting a war against the country of their own family, especially among German-Brazilians, who lived within a community strongly connected to Germany.

I think people should use talk pages to discuss real problems of the articles, and not use them to discuss sourced informations or to leave their personal theories. The subject of this discussion is useless and even an absurd. It seems the other editor is always trying to find "problems" in articles, when they do not exist. There are several unsourced, vandalyzed articles in Wikipedia needing someone to take care of them, and I think this "availability to discuss problems" should be taken to these articles. Opinoso (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And also, stop including "fact tags" in sourced informations, when you deslike it or want to "hide" it. This is not encyclopedical. Opinoso (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the same source that says that there was a "torture penalty" for speaking German. An unreliable source, that cannot be taken into account. And Fact Tags do not exist to insult people, but to point out that a given information must be sourced (or properly sourced, if it relies in an unreliable or unrelated source). Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that sourced information, based on reliable sources (Brazilian decrees and "Decretos-Leis") was removed. Any reason for this? Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not the one indicated to determine if a source is reliable or not, because you frequently write unsourced personal theories in articles. I remember when you tried to use Phone Books as source, like you did before claiming that most people in Brazilian Phone Books have Portuguese surnames, then they're all whites of direct Portuguese descent. I also noticed that when you "deslike" an information you claim it is not a reliable source, just like when you flooded several pages of wikipedia claiming that Embassy sources are not relible (that's because you wanted to decrease the 25 million Italian-Brazilian figure).

Non-neutral attitudes.

The fact is that you're trying to "hide" the anti-ethical attitudes towards Germans during the Getúlio Vargas government, saying they're "sensationalist claims". There's nothing sensationalist about it, it was a historic fact. Do you have sources do claim they're "sensationalist" or is it your personal theory? Unless you do, it seems you're trying to "soften" the case. Why? Wikipedia is a not place to "soften" historic facts. Use sources, not theories. Opinoso (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what Darcy Ribeiro, whose opinion you seem to value so much, has to say about Getúlio Vargas. Here: [10].

Nota bene: I disagree with Ribeiro in this subject, too. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have given the appropriate sources for the "prohibition of German language" in Brazil: the legal texts that actually forbid it. They have been removed. Why? Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for protection? I'm inclined to protect the article (and perhaps the wrong version of the article). If you don't want that to happen, persuade me that you're much less interested in denigrating each other's edits and questioning each other's motives than you are in presenting the facts as these are available from reputable and credible sources.

The tragic nature of going to war is surely an even more complex issue than is that of what the Brazilian government used as ostensible and/or de facto penalties for speaking German. I therefore suggest that you limit yourselves to discussing the latter. When you've thrashed that out to the point where you reached agreement (even if it's just an agreement to disagree), you can move on -- to other measures (if any) against German-owned companies, to directorships held by people with German names, to kangaroo courts (if any) and mob rule as it impinged German Brazilians, and so forth.

Meanwhile, don't forget that one issue (the relative populations of Portuguese and Italian settlers and their descendents) is open at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think protecting the article is a good idea. Otherwise we will have to deal with this discussion and with the endemic "12 million" or "18 million" edits to the fact box. I would hope two things: that besides being protected, the article be given a label for disputed accuracy; and that at least what is an outright lie - a torture penalty for people who spoke German - is removed. But even without that, it is still better than the present situation. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The source avaible, from the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas reports that people were arrested and tortured for speaking German. Does Ninguém have a source that denies this fact, or is it only his personal theory that it did not happen? Unless he has a source denying it, there's no problem about that information. Remember that we work with sources in Wikipedia, not with personal theories. I think I already said it a thousand times. Opinoso (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas report that people were arrested and tortured for speaking German? Up to now, we don't know it. We know that an article, signed by a journalist called Polliana Milan, talks about that in a context that seems to imply that the book says that. Now, this article so grossly misinterprets so many topics, that without actually seeing the book, it is impossible to take this allegation at face value. Can you please provide us a quote from the book, and/or point us to the precise page where this information can be found? Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The article didn't say that people were arrested and tortured for speaking German. The article was saying that speaking German was forbidden under the penalties of prison and torture. That's false; there was no such thing as a torture penalty. If people were tortured, this happened illegally, not as a result of law enforcement. I have included the relevant governmental decrees forbidding the use of foreign languages. They do not mention torture; they do not even mention any penalty at all. The information that people could be sentenced to torture under Vargas' dictatorship is false.

Then the problem is the source actually supports that blatant falsety. This doesn't make the lie "encyclopedical"; it makes the source unreliable. Until the other informations based on that source are substantiated by other sources, I am considering them equally untrustable. "We" work with reliable sources, not with every source, regardless of its reliability. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

People are tortured in Brazil even today, that we live under a "civilized democracy"[11] [12]. It's not a surprise that under an early 20th century dictatorship the torture was even more widespread. Why are you trying to hide the facts? Just because it does not look ok that people were (and still are) tortured in Brazil? The source does report people of German origin being tortured in Brazil, being one of their penalty for speaking German. It does not say this penalty was legal, because torture is not legal in Brazil since the end of slavery in 1888. However, it's an "illegal penalty" widely used in the country, even today.

Please, do not try to "soften" the historic facts and try to sell the idea that everything works well in Brazil, and that the law is respected here. It is not respected. Everybody knows the problems of Brazil, you do not need to try to hide them. This is not encyclopedical. Opinoso (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Hoary to protect this article. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He does not need to protect it, and I told him why: "No need for that. The information is sourced. If the other editor is removing a sourced information because he deslikes it (or wants to hide it), and creating an useless edit-war, he should be blocked because of that, like he was blocked several times last months because of disruptions." Opinoso (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think we are coming back to personal attacks. Ninguém (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the article for one week. I'll soon have more to say about this.

I shall take a particularly dim view of any potentially controversial edit to an article on any ethnic group in Brazil (or any other closely related matter) as long as this article is protected. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote dump

In preparation for the next section, dumping any footnote:

Torture, etc

One key disagreement appears to be over penalties for speaking German (and perhaps also Spanish, Italian, Yiddish, or any imported language other than Portuguese, or for that matter any indigenous language).

What was legal and what was not legal? What was penalized? (The legal might have been penalized, the illegal might not have been penalized.) What were the prescribed penalties? What were the de facto penalties?

Was torture a prescribed penalty? Did the Brazilian authorities, anticipating Cheney and his underlings, prescribe torture that they defined as something other than torture? Was anything that could be torture unambiguously eschewed on paper but torture practiced anyway?

You're free to argue these points right here. Here are the rules:

You do have to avoid any statement that might be taken as libelous by any historian, journalist or other. You have to remain silent about any idea you might have of any other editor's motivation. (Indeed, you'd better be silent about any other editor.) Conciseness is a virtue. You do not have to be polite about events that occurred over half a century ago.

I've taken the current version of what seems to be the most contentious paragraph of the current version and rewritten it somewhat, completely ignoring any charge that it might be factually incorrect, biased, etc, and instead trying to improve its expression of what it does say. (This is hard, as it seems to contradict itself on the legality of speaking German.) I'm turning it into two little sandboxes. One's for editing by Opinoso and not by Ninguém; the other's for editing by Ninguém and not by Opinoso. Anybody (Ninguém included) is welcome to question Opinoso's version, suggest improvements, etc. Anybody (Opinoso included) is welcome to question Ninguém's version, suggest improvements, etc. At the end of this, I hope we'll have two competing versions about which we can have an informed, dispassionate discussion.

I apologize in advance for any misunderstandings and/or typos I may have made in elaborating the footnotes. (I am completely ignorant of Portuguese.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There were many people tortured under Vargas' dictatorship. Some may have been "German Brazilians". It is unlikely, but even some may have been tortured merely for speaking German (as opposed to being actual or suspected German spies or Nazi political agitators - or Communists, for what is worth). In this case, the information should be included and sourced. If such information cannot be sourced, some generic sentence referring to "possibilities" can be added. But the information that is now in the text is false and must be removed.

The relevant legal texts are, up to my knowledge, the "Decreto-Lei" (Decree-Law? Law-Decree?) 1.545/1938 and the Decree 3.010/1938. Both combined forbade the use of "foreign languages" in governmental precincts, subjected publishing in foreign language to previous censorship, and required that religious service be conducted in Portuguese (Latin? a good question. I suppose that a Catholic priest used to say the Mass, at that time, in Latin, meaning a fixed set of religious texts that could not be construed into a political discourse - and even if he decided to depart from the liturgical text and make a vehement political anti-dictatorial discourse in Latin, this would be irrelevant, since the populace would not understand Latin. So I suppose Latin was allowed; perhaps it wasn't considered a "foreign language" since it was not the language of a foreign State. The concern, in any case, was that a Lutheran Pfarrer would make political statements in German, ununderstandable to the average political cop).

Neither legal text prescribes any penalty for speaking foreign languages. Either there is a third decree I couldn't find that does it, or - which I think much more plausible - speaking foreign languages would be punished as a different infraction (possibly "desobediência" or "desacato".

While the legal texts always used a neutral wording, forbidding "foreign languages" in general instead of "German, Italian, and Japanese" in particular, the intent was clear and the police knew that. Enforcement, therefore, was different and certainly harsher against those languages and especially against the German language or German dialects.

As far as I am informed, people who spoke German (or any other foreign language) risked at most to spend a night in a police precinct (which, considering they would be Brazilian police precincts at a time of dictatorship, would be a rather disagreeable experience, but torture it was not.

Torture was not legally allowed, and much less enshrined in law. In practice, it was widespread, brutal and primitive, and used against real or perceived political enemies of the regime (which would have included "German Brazilian" Nazis, but also "German Brazilian" Communists, etc.), not as a penalty, but as a weapon to destroy their organisations. Typically, one would be tortured when under arrest during policiac investigation; once one was sentenced, torture would become pointless.

I will search for concrete examples of torture against "German Brazilians"; for the moment, at the top of my mind, I would remember that Vargas' chief torturer, Felinto Muller, was a "German Brazilian" himself. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. The source that, according to Pollianna Milan says that speaking German was forbidden under the penalty of torture is "Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas", by Prof. Dennison de Oliveira (Milan doesn't get right even the author's name, that she mispells as "Denisson").

The book can be find online here:

[13]

I have searched it for "tortura" (torture or she/he tortures), "torturar" (to torture), "torturado" (tortured), "torturador" (torturer), "torturaram" (they tortured), "torturou" (he/she tortured), and "torturam" (they torture). All these searches have returned null results. It seems that Oliveira actually didn't say anything about torture in his book. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Version O

Opinoso (alone) is free to edit the following (and to do so as radically as he wishes). Anyone is free to discuss it below, with an eye to helping Opinoso make it as good as possible.

In April, Vargas forbade any political activity by foreigners; in May, the Integralists attempted a coup against Vargas, which further complicated the relations between Brazil and Germany. Up to this moment, however, no actions were taken against cultural, religious or sports associations. Measures were intensified in 1939, when the public use of foreign languages was forbidden, including in elementary schools and religious ceremonies (René Gertz points out that about half of Lutheran ministers in Rio Grande do Sul were affiliated to the Nazi party). The cultural associations had to stop promoting foreign cultures. In 1942, when Brazil entered World War II, further restrictions took place, and their enforcement was made more strict. No effort was made to suppress the Lutheran church; the teaching of foreign languages, including German, continued in high school and college, and these could still be spoken in private. Speaking German was banned under penalty of imprisonment and torture. Stores owned by Germans were ransacked and the government imposed curfews. Establishments registered in foreign names had to be reregistered with Portuguese names and worship in churches had to be spoken only in Portuguese. During World War II, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) enlisted many Germans and people of German descent to fight alongside the Allied forces, which was tragic for many of them, considering that the soldiers were forced to fight against Germany.

Version N

Ninguém (alone) is free to edit the following (and to do so as radically as he wishes). Anyone is free to discuss it below, with an eye to helping Ninguém make it as good as possible.

In April, Vargas forbade any political activity by foreigners; in May, the Integralists attempted a coup against Vargas, which further complicated the relations between Brazil and Germany. Up to this moment, however, no actions were taken against cultural, religious or sports associations. Measures were intensified in 1939, when the public use of foreign languages was forbidden, including in elementary schools and religious ceremonies (About half of Lutheran ministers of the Sínodo Riograndense were members of the Nazi party.). The cultural associations had to stop promoting foreign cultures. In 1942, when Brazil entered World War II, further restrictions took place, and their enforcement was made more strict. No effort was made to suppress the Lutheran church; the teaching of foreign languages, including German, continued in high school and college, and these could still be spoken in private. Stores owned by Germans were ransacked by the populace, revolted with the sinking of Brazilian ships by German U-boots; police and army suppressed those riots and ensured, as possible, the integrity of lives and property. Some stores and companies that had German or Italian names, or names that recalled Germany or Italy had their name changed, in fear of further reprisals. However, most companies owned by people of German descent retained their names, as, for instance, Renner and Hering, important corporations in textile industry. An important exception were the airline companies, VARIG, VASP and Sindicato Condor, which were, since 1927, under the partial control of Lufthansa. Together, those companies covered 75% of the South American territory, allowing Germany to effectively control means of communication and transportation. Besides that, Lufthansa and Lati (the Italian airline company) controlled the totality of flights between Brazil and Europe. According to the gaúcha police, those companies were involved in an espionage scheme. Besides that, Lati, which transported Brazilian diplomatic correspondence to Europe, allowed the Italian security services to violate it. In 1940, legislation was passed requiring the pilots to be born in Brazil; in consequence, German and German-born pilots were fired. In Santa Catarina, some companies were subjected to intervention by the State government; Hering was an example. The intervention meant the administration - not the property - of the companies was transferred to a manager loyal to the State Governor (in the particular case of Hering, the imposed administrator was Roberto Grossenbacher, himself a Brazilian of German descent). These facts are related to the struggle for state-level power in Santa Catarina, between its two main oligarchic families, Ramos and Konder-Bornhausen. During the Old Republic (1889-1930), the Konder-Bornhausens aquired political control of the state and its dominating political party, the Partido Republicano Catarinense. The Ramos held their local stronghold, Lajes, and fostered an opposition party, the Partido Liberal Catarinense, which joined the 1930 Revolution that put an end to the Old Republic. As a result, Nereu Ramos was made interventor (unelected governor) of Santa Catarina; the Konder-Bornhausen were expelled from power and actively opposed Vargas' rule. The Ramos weren't above exploiting the German surname of their foes in order to further isolate and marginalise them.

During World War II, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) enlisted many Germans and people of German descent to fight alongside the Allied forces.

Discussion of "Version N"

Ninguém, it would be better if you didn't merely strike out material you disagree with that's within the "version D" sandbox. Instead, be bold and erase it. In general, be bold -- as long as you can back up your claims with sources (which you should add in footnotes). Feel free to rewrite it to a point where the original version would be unrecognizable within it. Just lay off "version O" -- other than in making polite and concise comments, but even these would I think be better delayed till you're happy with "version D". -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This article, <ref>Pollianna Milan<!-- Is this the author's name? -->, "Um processo cultural forçado", ''Gazeta do Povo,'' 27 September 2008. (Available [http://portal.rpc.com.br/gazetadopovo/vidaecidadania/conteudo.phtml?tl=1&id=812033&tit=Um-processo-cultural-forcado here].) {{pt icon}}</ref> cannot be used as a source here. It is totally uninformed and biased. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While you're free to say this here, I think that neither saying it here nor saying in this way is helpful. In "version D", just cite what you believe is worthy of citation. If something you believe does not merit citation is cited in "version O" or the article, say it does not merit citation -- but (coolly, politely) explain why it does not merit citation. (Milan uncritically repeats the assertion famously made by [writer A] that [event B] occurred. This assertion was demonstrated by [writer C] (in [source D]) to be a gross exaggeration of what really happened, namely [event E]. Further, Milan ignores evidence (see e.g. [source F]) that [event G] occurred.) Of course compilation of this kind of thing is tiresome; however, if you really need to discredit a putative source, this is the way to do it. ¶ Incidentally, I put quite a few minutes of my limited lifespan into making the footnotes at least moderately neat and informative. Please do try to do the same with the footnotes that you add; something like: <ref>Author, "[http://blahblahblah.br/blahblah.pdf Article title]" (X MB PDF file), name of website.</ref> (though of course adjusted according to the particular kind of source). -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed mistaken source. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in parentheses is odd. After markup stripping: (According to Mario Maestri, in "A inesperada reabilitação de Getúlio Vargas", Revista Espaço Acadêmico, n. 62, July 2006, René Gertz points out [footnote with bare URL] that about half of Lutheran ministers of the Sínodo Riograndense were members of the Nazi party). An obvious fix (though probably not the correct one) is (René Gertz points out [[detailed source for Gertz, with URL]; also see the discussion by Mario Maestri, in "A inesperada reabilitação de Getúlio Vargas", Revista Espaço Acadêmico, n. 62, July 2006] that about half of Lutheran ministers of the Sínodo Riograndense were members of the Nazi party). -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found the relevant passage in Gertz's book online. It is in an awkward format, but at least it confirms Maestri's quotation of it. I have then changed the reference in the sandbox; I hope this improves the text and its sourcing. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It may have improved the sourcing; but if you really think that Relevant passage can be seen in [http://amazingly_long_URL_that_forces_horizontal_scrolling] is the best way to do this, then I'm about ready to give up. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to change it according to your proposal. Just not now, I am in a hurry. Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for changing this. But what's Seitenfus's work? If a book, we need the usual publication details. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also get those numbers: ISBN 8574301221, 9788574301228. Are they useful? (what are they, after all?) And perhaps it is useful to mention that it was a doctoral thesis, presented to the Universtity of Geneva in 1980? Ninguém (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we using note style or reference style? If the former, "Forename(s) Surname(s)"; if the latter, "Surname(s) comma Forename(s)" -- and consistently, in every such reference. Book titles go in italics. Either one of ISBN 8574301221 and ISBN 9788574301228, but not both. They're ISBNs, and in order to see what they are for, just click on the automatically generated link for either. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso and his vandalism

This is to Opinoso, the vandal who has managed to control Brazilian related subejcts at wikipedia, with his heavy bias, at the expense of Brazilians who are those who have THE RIGHT to tell who they are.

Opinoso, Your lack of respect for Brazilians, your totalitarian tactics to control Brazilian subjects at wikipedia and your LIES have compelled me to let this message to you. 1. You are a LIAR. You are NOT Brazilian, nor you have Italian or African ancestry from Brazil, f.e 2. You project American Racialism at Brazilian topics, which is wrong. Brazil is not Africa or Europe, Brazil is Brazil, and Brazilians are Brazilians. Stop posting foreign scholars (like Telles), who are totally biased, just like you. The US is only 65% non hispanic "white", and the majority of these have non European ancestors (be it from Pocahontas or Creoles from Louisiana, among others). 3. José Mindlin and Clarice Lispector are Ukrainian Jews not ethnic Ukrainians. 4. "Caboclos" are not "Afro Brazilians". 5. There is no "white" man or "western" world. These are social constructs. Everybody is related, according to the newest genetic studies. I can show you at public databases plenty of Jews (even Rothschilds) who have "African" mitocondrial DNA (and also paternal haplogroup). 6. Brazilians and Latin Americans in general, NOT YOU, are those who have the right to define themselves. 7. There are tons of Brazilian of "Teutonic"/"Germanic" ancestry. I can trace my ancestry back to King Alfred several times. Your attempts to downplay it are as ridiculous as your jokes about the "English" spoken by Brazilians. I bet you don't speak as many languages as I do.

Brazilians who read this, ACHTUNG, wake up, There is someone heavily biased controlling English wikipedia and Latin American topics. He may even work for foreign governments or foreign agencies. WielandDerSchmitzFreiheitWarrior WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit (talk)

If you want to improve the article, improve it. If you want to complain about it, complain about it. If you want to complain about the conduct of another editor, do so elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS but before you do any of that, you'll need to make a successful appeal for the unblocking of your earlier ID, "User:AfroLusoTupiBrazilianNationalist", and you'll have to use that ID. -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Current population

200.150.39.111 is a sockpuppet of Opinoso; has been used in the past to win an edit war on Chilean People. Ninguém (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed your title, for reasons that will become clear.

Let's put aside for a moment the question of who this IP might be. His most recent edit is this one. It's very simple:

|poptime= 12 5 million<ref>[http://www.passeiweb.com/na_ponta_lingua/sala_de_aula/geografia/geografia_do_brasil/demografia_imigracoes/brasil_imigracoes_alemanha A Imigração Alemã no Brasil | Brasil | Deutsche Welle | 25.07.2004<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref>

So one simple fact attributed to one source is changed to another attributed to that same source.

Unfortunately I cannot read Portuguese, but I ignorantly guess that the last sentence of:

Os alemães representaram aproximadamente 5% dos imigrantes que buscaram uma nova pátria no Brasil. Ao longo de mais de cem anos, chegaram ao Brasil aproximadamente 250 mil alemães. Atualmente, calcula-se em cinco milhões o número de seus descendentes em solo brasileiro.

means something like "Currently, five million of the descendents of German immigrants are in Brazil" -- though "solo" baffles me.

I'd be grateful for a comment on what the cited article actually says and perhaps also on its credibility. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Solo" is Portuguese for "soil", but, yes, your translation is correct. As for the article, it seems quite reasonable, and the figure of 5 million matches other information available for Brazilians of German descent (number of German immigrants to Brazil, the 1998 IBGE PME survey). Ninguém (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then let's pause for a moment and thank 200.150.39.111, whoever he may be and whatever his motivation may be.

And there's a lesson in this, surely. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are probably many lessons in this. We can learn one if we look at this IP's other edits - namely the one from November 16th, where he teaches us how to engage in edit wars without ostensively breaking the 3RR rule. We can learn another one, perhaps, though it is a much more difficult one, if we contrast the behaviour of the puppetmaster in two different articles - German Brazilian, where he wipes out any figure different from 5 million, and White Brazilian, where he has systematically defended the figure of 18 millions. But I guess this is probably too old to warrant action against, isn't it? Ninguém (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to interest me in a charge of puppeteering, you're going to have to do a lot better than this. Here is an IP with a grand total of three (3) edits. The one I happened to look at first is a correction of blatantly wrong citation. The one of 16 November is the reintroduction of a claim sourced to Ribeiro; like the claim or not, it's concise and clearly attributed. The third edit is a removal of three unsourced sections, two of which look to me like total junk (and one of which looks blatantly offensive). I'd say that the net effect so far of this editor has been positive.

I had a quick look at Talk:White Brazilian and there read an argument over whether or not Brazil had 18 million people of German descent. Now, I neither know nor care if it has 8 thousand or 8 million or 28 million such people. I do know that somebody with a single great-great grandparent is (in some sense) "of German descent" but is most unlikely to be a "German Brazilian". Anyway, the argument took place in June, and no, I haven't the slightest interest in taking action over what somebody said in June. -- Hoary (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I didn't ask you to do anything - I would have posted in your talk page if this was the case. Ninguém (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Saoleopoldo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saoleopoldo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of 70% of the Southern Brazil pop. are ethnic germans?

There's a section - "Total Population" - "arguing" a number of 70%, or so, "ethnic germans" in the Southern Region of Brazil.

Although the number of people with german heritage in the region is significant, they're far less than 70%: Santa Catarina, the brazilian state with the the highest percentage of german-brazilians, has c. 40% of it's population having german ancestors (less than 3.5 million in a total of 6.2 million habitants). Combining with the other two states, which have less than 40%, would give, obviously, a percentage even lower.

I don't want to know why somebody would try to overestimate the number of "germans" living in the South, but is highly wrong.

--201.52.171.65 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, it is a complete absurd. It is contradictory even with the already absurd figures the article used to have for the total German Brazilian population; according to that, there would be 10-20 million German Brazilians. But 70% of the Southern Region population means 19 million people, by for more thant the lower limit of the total guesstimate.

The only reliable data for the populations of immigrant origins is the 1998 PME survey, which points towards 2.6% of the Brazilian population being of German descent (some 5,000,000 people). All other figures are based on sheer speculation, when not outright lies.

It took me months of struggle to remove these absurds (here, and in Arab Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Italian Brazilian). Now all those ridiculous figures are all back - and I am not interested in wasting my time again to battle against such ignorance by trying to help an "encyclopaedia" that actually doesn't want to be helped. There is no quality control here; any stupidity can and will be reinserted, and nothing short from knowledgeable people performing slave labour for Wikipedia can minorate it. Ninguém (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in German Brazilian

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of German Brazilian's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT":

• From Secession: The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia
• From Supermodel: Justine Elias (25 January 1998). "A Chic Heroine, but Not a Pretty Story". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
• From Linz: Paul Hofmann (1987-04-05). "Letting Linz Castle cast a spell". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-02.
• From Ethnic Germans: Bolivian Reforms Raise Anxiety on Mennonite Frontier, New York Times

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in numbers

According to the article, "German Brazilians" make up 12% of the Brazilian population. And 90% are in the Southern Region. Now, the Brazilian population stands at about 190 million people. 12% of 190 million is more than 22 million people. But the Southern region only has some 28 million inhabitants. Is this article saying that more than 75% of the inhabitants of the Southern region are "German Brazilians"? If so, it is mistaken beyond any reckoning. Indeed, the article itself gives very different (and smaller) numbers when it discusses "German Brazilians" in Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná. Ninguém (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Xuxa and Paula Toller

Xuxa and Paula Toller are not German Brazilians. Both are descendents from ethnic Italians from the current province of Trento (formerly Tirolo Meridionale-Welschtirol). Dantadd (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on German Brazilian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121221183002/http://www.rog.com.br/claudiovereza2/mostraconteudos.asp?cod_conteudo=735 to http://www.rog.com.br/claudiovereza2/mostraconteudos.asp?cod_conteudo=735
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402095437/http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=604 to http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=604

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on German Brazilian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110310052559/http://www.bpb.de:80/wissen/08937231579775312662617270950640,1,0,Auslandsdeutsche.html to http://www.bpb.de/wissen/08937231579775312662617270950640,1,0,Auslandsdeutsche.html#art1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930150450/http://www.saofrancisco.edu.br/itatiba/mestrado/educacao/uploadAddress/RegisNegrao%5B10461%5D.pdf to http://www.saofrancisco.edu.br/itatiba/mestrado/educacao/uploadAddress/RegisNegrao%5B10461%5D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604203414/http://www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/LWF-Statistics-2009.pdf to http://www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/LWF-Statistics-2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100323020420/http://www.hojecentrosul.com.br:80/hoje/geral/experi-ncia-dos-campos-concentra-vida-dos-imigrantes-paran to http://www.hojecentrosul.com.br/hoje/geral/experi-ncia-dos-campos-concentra-vida-dos-imigrantes-paran
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123170603/http://ibge.gov.br:80/brasil500/alemaes/tradicoes.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/alemaes/tradicoes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121221183001/http://www.ce.ufes.br/educacaodocampo/down/cdrom2/pdf/texto18.pdf to http://www.ce.ufes.br/educacaodocampo/down/cdrom2/pdf/texto18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120328015129/http://gabeira.locaweb.com.br/causas/causa.asp?id=941&idSubd=40 to http://gabeira.locaweb.com.br/causas/causa.asp?id=941&idSubd=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120530095532/http://www.leismunicipais.com.br/twitter/222/legislacao/lei-2251-2010-pomerode-sc.html to http://www.leismunicipais.com.br/twitter/222/legislacao/lei-2251-2010-pomerode-sc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402095443/http://www.ipol.org.br/upload/Image/lei1.jpg to http://www.ipol.org.br/upload/Image/lei1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513103303/http://www.guarios.com.br:80/guanews/roteiros.php?id=5 to http://guarios.com.br/guanews/roteiros.php?id=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 10. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on German Brazilian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706155856/http://www.iterpa.pa.gov.br/files/leis/Federal/Agraria_Federal/Legislacao_Agraria_Atual/DEL_1.545-1939.doc to http://www.iterpa.pa.gov.br/files/leis/Federal/Agraria_Federal/Legislacao_Agraria_Atual/DEL_1.545-1939.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717054052/http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.h to http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.h
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151120091426/http://www.hsc.org.br/site/portal_hsc/pt/imprensa/ultimas_noticias/ultimas_noticias_detalhes_8455.aspx to http://www.hsc.org.br/site/portal_hsc/pt/imprensa/ultimas_noticias/ultimas_noticias_detalhes_8455.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120327161223/http://www.nehscfortaleza.com/artigos_arquivos/artigo_032.htm to http://www.nehscfortaleza.com/artigos_arquivos/artigo_032.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121221183002/http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/portal/index.php?p=noticias&getID=5307 to http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/portal/index.php?p=noticias&getID=5307
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151120085427/http://www.guiaresplendor.com.br/noticias/resistencia-cultural to http://www.guiaresplendor.com.br/noticias/resistencia-cultural
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150908143012/http://guiaroberto.vilabol.uol.com.br/trezet.htm to http://guiaroberto.vilabol.uol.com.br/trezet.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041013002620/http://topicos.net:80/fileadmin/pdf/2004/1/Wir_Deutschbrasilianer.pdf to http://www.topicos.net/fileadmin/pdf/2004/1/Wir_Deutschbrasilianer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
  

http://web.archive.org/web/20110706155856/http://www.iterpa.pa.gov.br/files/leis/Federal/Agraria_Federal/Legislacao_Agraria_Atual/DEL_1.545-1939.doc
http://web.archive.org/web/20110717054052/http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.h
http://web.archive.org/web/20151120091426/http://www.hsc.org.br/site/portal_hsc/pt/imprensa/ultimas_noticias/ultimas_noticias_detalhes_8455.aspx
http://web.archive.org/web/20121221183002/http://www.brasilalemanha.com.br/portal/index.php?p=noticias&getID=5307
http://web.archive.org/web/20150908143012/http://guiaroberto.vilabol.uol.com.br/trezet.htm

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
  

http://web.archive.org/web/20120327161223/http://www.nehscfortaleza.com/artigos_arquivos/artigo_032.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20151120085427/http://www.guiaresplendor.com.br/noticias/resistencia-cultural
http://web.archive.org/web/20041013002620/http://topicos.net:80/fileadmin/pdf/2004/1/Wir_Deutschbrasilianer.pdf

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/hitler_adolf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Figures of German Brazilian

An user is trying to use sources that claim that the 2000 Brazilian census found 12 million people claiming German ancestry. The sources are wrong, based on the simple fact that Brazilian censuses DO NOT EVEN have question about ancestry.

Here we have a few sources (reliable) which found between 3.6 and 7.2 million people of German descent in Brazil, far from the 12 million fabricated figure:

According to another survey, 1999, sociologist, former president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Simon Schwartzman, 3.6% of Brazilian respondents said they had German ancestry, a percentage that in a population of about 200 million Brazilians, represent 7.2 million descendants.[14];

In 1986, Born and Dickgiesser estimated at 3 million and 600 thousand the number of German descendants in Brazil.[15]

In 2004, Deutsche Welle cited the number of 5 million descendants of German Brazilians[16]

The 12 million figure is fake. Xuxo (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed in multiple places, but here are my comments so far:

(from User talk:Xuxo): The source you added refers to an an old article in Deutsche Welle that AFAIK was published before the 2000 census, and does not trump multiple reliable sources reporting a higher figure, so please stop changing the numbers. If you can provide definite proof (such as a link to the website of the Brazilian census authorities) that there was no question about ancestry in the 2000 census, start a discussion on the talk page of the article, and provide the links there, but do not remove content sourced to multiple reliable sources!

(from User talk:Iryna Harpy: The "12 million" is sourced to multiple reliable sources all claiming that it's based on the Brazilian census of 2000, while Xuxo's claim is based only on a link to a website quoting an old article from Deutsche Welle (an article that AFAIK predates the 2000 census) and makes no mention of what their figure of 5 million is based on.

And this discussion from User talk:Thomas.W also belongs here:

Oh please, you want me to prove that Brazilian censuses do not have question about ancestry? How can I prove something that does not even exist? This is illogical. You can Google it and check it by youself. I am Brazilian and the National census DO NOT ask about ancestry. The sources you postes are not telling the truth.

If you want sources, go to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia article about German immigration. There are many sources that put the figure between 5 and 7 million people. 12 million is a gross exaggeration. Xuxo (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Then why don't you post those sources on the talk page of the article so that we can see if they're reliable or not? Instead of just blindly reverting here, quoting a source that gives a number without telling anything about what it's based on, unlike the content you remove, which is sourced to multiple sources all saying that their number is based on the Brazilian census of 2000. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever to Brazil or Germany, but I object to replacing material sourced to multiple reliable sources, all saying that their numbers are based on the Brazilian census of 2000, with material sourced only to an old article with no mention of what the numbers are based on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist in the fake figure, then bring us where in the official Brazilian censuses we can find the information that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. If you are able to show us this part of the censuses, then we keep the fake information. Xuxo (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BURDEN works, Xuxo. There are multiple RS attesting to 12 million, including teaching material sponsored by, and written in collaboration with, the Brazilian Embassy in London here on page 4. Per BURDEN, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your one secondary source is somehow truthier than a multitude of others. Like Tom, I have no personal stake in this statistic. I am under no obligation to find out the methodology used to arrive at this figure because it has been reiterated by RS numerous times, and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for ignoring RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, what are you talking about? I brought three sources that claimed the figures of German Brazilians between 3.6 million and 7.2 million. You removed them all from the article without any justification.

I'm not removing the 12 million source because "I do not like it". I removed them because both claim that Brazilian censuses counted the number of German Brazilians when actually Brazilian censuses do not even ask about ancestry.

Unless you guys can prove Brazilian censuses ask about ancestry (which you can't, since it doesnt) those sources must be removed. Xuxo (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Grenzer22, look at this. Xuxo (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".

It is up to Thomas.W to show where in the 2000 Brazilian census it was found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. Xuxo (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ciro Damke's work has not been published for peer review: the WP:SPS article you cited only notes that he is working on his PhD under the a couple of supervisors. The Simon Schwartzman article was written in 1999: that is, prior the 2000 census. The most recent, hence most compelling, estimates are far later (particularly the Brazilian Embassy publication for teaching about Brazil in 2009). I have no interest in engaging in an edit war with you, or anyone else, based on earlier publications. Reiterating: BURDEN has been met. Challenging and removing later publications which say something else entirely different to what you believe to be the TRUTH is disruptive and duplicitous. No one is compelled to 'prove' these figures to be true by meeting your demands for how information was gleaned from the 2000 census because that is WP:OR. We don't analyse WP:PRIMARY sources; we derive our content from what reliable secondary sources have established. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, you keep talking about the Brazilian census when I already explained it several times that it does not ask about ancestry. Brazilian censuses ask about race, not ancestry. The 2000 census is avaiable online in the [IBGE] website [17]. If you cannot read Portuguese, use Google Translator.

It is pathetic how you try to downplay Simon Schwartzman's work, when he was the President of IBGE, which is responsable for conducting the Brazilian census. But you think that an Al Jazeera source is more reliable than the work of the Brazilian scholar responsable for the census. This is ridiculous. And Ciro Damke did not made up the number, he was citing the works of other scholars. Damke is an importante Brazilian linguística who has many published works. You also removed the Deutsche Welle source, which is a German source published in Portuguese, which is more reliable than yours published in English.

You are removing the sources because you do not like them.

And it was Wikipedia that started the 12 million figure thing. An IP number was always including the information that the Brazilian census found the 12 million figure. Other people just copied it, including the Brazilian embassy in London, which, by the way, is not responsable for conducting censuses anywhere (this is not a task of embassies).

Everybody in Brazil is aware that Brazilian censuses do not ask about ancestry and a source that claimed that is wrong. You both are not even Brazilians and are trying to spread wrong information. You try to change my words as if I did not "like the source", which is unfair. I am just trying to keep correct information in the article. Xuxo (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xuxo: We don't care what "everybody in Brazil" is aware of according to you, we go only by what reliable sources (per Wikipedia's rules) say. Period. Your sources are either too old or not reliable per the rules that apply here, on the English Wikipedia, or both, and do not trump the multiple reliable sources that say 12 million, as you have been told multiple times by now, by both me and Iryna Harpy, so stop. Continuing your disruption here, on multiple articles (German Brazilians, Germans and Brazilians), along the same lines as yesterday, is only going to get you blocked. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the poster Xuxo, the other sources he referred to should also be posted: "According to another survey, 1999, sociologist, former president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Simon Schwartzman, 3.6% of Brazilian respondents said they had German ancestry, a percentage that in a population of about 200 million Brazilians, represent 7.2 million descendants.[14]; In 1986, Born and Dickgiesser estimated at 3 million and 600 thousand the number of German descendants in Brazil.[15]In 2004, Deutsche Welle cited the number of 5 million descendants of German Brazilians[16]"Grenzer22 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can also attest that, as Xuxo pointed out, the Brazilian census of 2000 did not ask about German ancestry. Often newspapers articles contain wrong or misleading information.Grenzer22 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Grenzer22: Read what I wrote two steps up on this page: we go by what reliable sources say, not by what individual editors claim they know. Multiple reliable sources, including educational material published in London in 2009 in co-operation with the Brazilian embassy there ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B08StxROSeYGbTZNM1JoMjFrTk0/view see page 4), say there are 12 million people of German descent in Brazil. Also see what Iryna Harpy writes about Xuxo's sources a few steps up in this discussion, showing why they don't trump the sources in the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have jumped across from the 'Germans' Talk page that also discusses this issue. I chanced on the discussion and my interest is mainly in doing the right thing: I have no connection with Brazil or Germany and I cannot read Portuguese. Despite the WP rules and way of doing things there does seem to be an uncomfortable problem here that needs to be dealt with. I am not familiar enough with the WP way to find this out myself but there must surely be a process that can stop a 'blindly follow the leader' approach. IMO that is what might be happening here with each source feeding off the other. I disagree with xuxo for removing the citations as he/she has done, without prior discussion, but I think he has a strong point in wanting to see where in the 2000 census it talks about 12m Germans. It does seem highly illogical and unfair to have to 'unprove' something that has been 'proved' by evidence that does not stack up - I do not think it is questioned that the 'reliable' sources that prove 12m Germans either give no citations of their own or they refer back to the 2000 census. If we can show that the 2000 census does not have that 12m data then surely all those reliable sources should be removed.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: Please read WP:NOR. There is nothing to prove or disprove here. The 2009 teaching material is from the Brazilian government itself. Do you have some reason to believe that the Brazilian government is lying? That is how Wikipedia works. When it comes to WP:RS, we do 'follow the leader' (sic) in using the most current RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have three users here who are not happy with those wrong sources, my Brazilian sources were removed based on silly arguments and replaced by foreign sources that tell an obvious lie about the Brazilian census. And two foreign users, who know nothing about Brazil, who cannot even read Portuguese and show us where in the 2000 census they asked about German ancestry, are trying to spread wrong information here. What a shame.

"Do you have some reason to believe that the Brazilian government is lying?" - what a pathetic argument. That silly touristic propaganda published in London is not a reliable source for demographics information. Governments also make mistakes. It is not about lying or not. The unreal 12 million figure was duplicated in many websites, after those IP numbers published it here, in Wikipedia, claiming it came from the census. I have been reverting those IPs for years but unfurtunetly their theory is now back to this article disguised as "multiple sources".

Iryna Harpy, you are doing a terrible work here, ignoring the advices of two Brazilian users about the fact that Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry. You are using rules of Wikipedia to keep that wrong information and ignoring our attempts to have a rational discussion. If you know nothing about Brazilian topics, you should be smart enough to admit your lack of knowledge and ask someone else do deal with the situation. Xuxo (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• You're not doing yourself any favour by attacking editors who, unlike you, know the rules that apply here, on the English language Wikipedia, and follow those rules. Your sources do not trump the sources that say 12 million. Period. Whether you like it or not. And since this is the Internet where anyone can claim anything, we never, as in never ever, go by what people claim to personally know, like your constantly repeated phrases about knowing that no census in Brazil has included questions about ancestry. Those claims have no value whatsoever in this discussion, so do yourself a favour and stop repeating them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian sources for German ancestry

Brazilian censuses do not ask about German ancestry, however there are many serious Brazilian sources that did found the figure of about 5 million people of German descent, which make clear that the 12 million figure is a gross exaggeration. I've added some of these Brazilian sources to the article, however Iryna Harpy removed them and replaced them by an Middle-Eastern, Al Jazeera source and another non-Brazilian newspaper or by a silly touristic propaganda published in London.

1- The work published in 1999 by Simon Schwartzman. Why is it reliable? Between 1994 and 1998 Schwartzman was president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), which is the organ responsable for conducting the Brazilian censuses. His work proves that the 2000 census did not ask about ethnic origin: [18]

"A Comissão consultiva do Censo do ano 2000 se reuniu no IBGE em Dezembro de 1998, e foi informada dos resultados desta pesquisa. Depois de amplo debate, os membros da Comissão resolveram, por maioria, recomendar ao IBGE que mantivesse no Censo do ano 2000 a pergunta sobre "cor ou raça" tal como ela tem sido aplicada até aqui, e não incluisse uma nova questão sobre origem". ("The Advisory Committee of the Census of 2000 met with IBGE in December 1998, and IBGE was informed of the results of this research. After extensive debate, the Committee members decided, by majority vote, to recommend to the IBGE to maintain in the Census of 2000 the question of "color or race" as it has been applied so far, and not to include a new question about origin").

Why would Simon Schwartzman lie about the census? He made it clear that the 2000 census only asked about "color and race" and not about "origin".

What did Schwartzman found? He interviewd over 30 million Brazilians about their ethnic ancestry and only 3.6% claimed to be of German ancestry. In a population of 200 million Brazilian, that figure would be 7.2 million, not 12 million.

2- The work by Ciro Damke.[19] Why is it reliable? Damke is an important Brazilian linguist who has many published works, including about German language spoken in Brazil.

What did Damke found: his work cites two German linguists who made a great resource about German speakers in Brazil: in 1986, Born and Dickgiesser estimated at 3 million and 600 thousand the number of German descendants in Brazil. Born is professor doctor [Joachim Born http://www.staff.uni-giessen.de/born/] and Dickgiesser is Sylvia Dickgiesser, both of whom have many works published.

It is impossible for the German-descended population to have grown from 3.6 million in 1986 to 12 million only 14 years latter, in 2000. Between 1991 and 2000, Brazilian population only grew 1.63 per cent[20] and German immigration to Brazil in the 1990s was quite insignificant. The figure of German-descendants would be around 5 million in 2000, which is close to what Schwartzman found in 1999.

3-In 2004, Deutsche Welle cited the number of 5 million descendants of Germans in Brazil [21]. Why is it reliable? Is comes from a a German newspaper and it is writen in Portuguese for the Brazilian public. The figure of 5 million is nearly the same found by Schwartzman in 1999 and by Joachim Born and Sylvia Dickgiesser in 1986.

4-In the book A Imagem Do Terceiro Reich Na Revista Do Globo. 1933-1945, published by Brazilian historian Maltez Dalmáz,[22] it was estimated that, in the 1930s, there were 1 million Germans and descendants in Brazil. Between 1920 and 2000, Brazilian population grew 5.6 times[23] so, again, in the year 2000 the population of German descent would be around 5 million, not 12 million.

5-In September 2016, the Institute of Applied Economic Research, an organ of the Brazilian government, launched an interesting research that found out that only 3.3% of Brazilians have a Germanic last name (page 18 [24]). Why is it reliable? It comes from the Brazilian government and it analyzed the names of nearly 47 million Brazilians. The 3.3% figure is nearly the same found by Schwartzman back in 1999 (Schwartzman found 3.6% of Brazilians claiming German ancestry). By the way, having a Germanic last name does not equal to German ancestry, since it can also be Austrian, Swiss, English among others, but since most Germanic immigrants in Brazil were Germans, it give us an idea about the actual size of the German-descended population in Brazil and that it is far from being 12 million. 3.3% in a population of 200 million Brazilians would be 7 million, not 12 million.

Those are five realiable Brazilian sources about the size of the German-descended population. They all lead to the same figure: around 5 million, a little more or a little less. Not 12 million at all. Xuxo (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proof that Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry

In the website of IBGE one can find all the resources made by this agency, which is responsable for conducting the Brazilian census. Here is [the list of the research they made http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/pesquisas/sintese.php#O]. There is nothing about German ancestry. The part about demography is found at "Síntese de Indicadores Sociais (População, Indicadores Sociais)". One can read there:

"Elabora e analisa indicadores da população brasileira, construídos a partir de dados do IBGE, do Censo Demográfico e da Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, e de outras instituições, abrangendo temas como características da população, educação, crianças e adolescentes, família, trabalho e rendimento, saúde, cor ou raça, idosos, saneamento e habitação, entre outros". ("Prepares and analyzes indicators of the population, constructed from IBGE data, the Census and National Sample Survey of Households, and other institutions, covering topics such as population characteristics, education, children and adolescents, family, work and income, health, color or race, elderly, sanitation and housing, among others".)

The 2000 census can be read here. There is nothing about German ancestry.

Another source also proves that the 2000 census did not ask about German ancestry. [25] Simon Schwartzman, who was president of the IBGE agency from 1994 to 1998 was clear:

"A Comissão consultiva do Censo do ano 2000 se reuniu no IBGE em Dezembro de 1998, e foi informada dos resultados desta pesquisa. Depois de amplo debate, os membros da Comissão resolveram, por maioria, recomendar ao IBGE que mantivesse no Censo do ano 2000 a pergunta sobre "cor ou raça" tal como ela tem sido aplicada até aqui, e não incluisse uma nova questão sobre origem". ("The Advisory Committee of the Census of 2000 met with IBGE in December 1998, and IBGE was informed of the results of this research. After extensive debate, the Committee members decided, by majority vote, to recommend to the IBGE to maintain in the Census of 2000 the question of "color or race" as it has been applied so far, and not to include a new question about origin"). Xuxo (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well done xuxo. I think that should put an end to this matter, except perhaps to reflect on why it was ever necessary for xuxo to spend so much time 'proving' his case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Xuxo: I don't know if you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters or if you simply don't know better, but the first link is definitely not any proof for there not having been questions about ancestry in the 2000 census, it has in fact nothing whatsoever to do with the 2000 census. The header at the top of the page says, translated to English, "This page shows the list of current research released by IBGE", meaning that it's simply a list of the most recent (current) research that IBGE (the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) has published/released, and the 2000 census is definitely not current statistics. Link #2 is to a huge site with tonnes of pdf-files that will take weeks to go through, but I'll see what I can do, and #3 only says that a committee decided to recommend that IBGE not include it, not that they didn't include it. And as you wrote yourself Schwartzman left the IBGE two years before the census was made, and thus wasn't involved in it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol You need to learn Portuguese before getting involved on Brazilian topics. Correntes in Portuguese is not the same as "current" in English. What a shame.

Anyway, I am not wasting my time. I'd like to ask volunteer User:WebCite what can be done now. Xuxo (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xuxo: You're not only wasting your own time, your wasting everyone else's time too. It's your job to find proof that it wasn't included, as you claim (such as a definite list of which questions were asked), not mine. I took a quick look at the IBGE Census 2000 site, and found that the census results are split over hundreds of Excel-files, plus a large number of PDF-files (I downloaded one of the PDF-files, and that single file alone is more than 500 pages...). I have a fairly good knowledge of Spanish, and can read Portuguese reasonably well because of that, but the time I can spend on this is limited, just like the time other editors here can spend on this is. And even if it's off topic, how would you translate "Esta página apresenta a relação das pesquisas correntes divulgadas pelo IBGE"" into English? Hint: "balança corrente" in Portuguese means "current account" in English, just like balança de capital means capital account in English... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Hi, the proof you are asking for can be found here: https://www.ibge.gov.br/censo/questionarios.shtm if you click on Questionário Básico ("basic form") and Questionário da Amostra ("sample form" - used in between 10-20% of all households) at the top of the page you can view and download PDF files with forms used in the 2000 census. As any Portuguese speaker can confirm, the basic form didn't ask any questions regarding ethnicity. The sample form only asked about the color or race of the resident (in 4.08 - with the options being white, black, yellow, brown and indigenous) and his/her nationality (in 4.19 - with the options being born Brazilian, naturalized Brazilian and foreigner). There was no question about the resident's ancestry, so the 12 million figure for people of German ancestry in Brazil is clearly not based on the 2000 census and it's source can't be verified. I am not sure why the author of the 2009 publication published by the Brazilian Embassy in London made such claim, but my guess is that he simply found it somewhere on the internet and since it wasn't doubleckecked and the material was published by an official institution it gave more credibility to this claim - an example of circular reporting. --Ayazid (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are all of these WP:OR scenarios about? Your guess is that they found it on the internet? Of course, the Brazilian embassy just gets a middle high school work experience kid in to write teaching materials for the British education system (and any other English language educators who would care to use them anywhere in the world)!!?? Are you being serious? Where is their any claim that the figures were taken from the Brazilian census? Governments have comprehensive statistical divisions which may use methodologies you haven't even thought of. It's an official position, and from a WP:RS. Please stop chasing around trying to prove that it isn't an RS because you don't think that it could have been derived from any form of census. This has long since become WP:POINTy, so please drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, I didn't participate in this discussion before and I think that your aggressive and condescending tone is totally uncalled for. Second, the article itself (and the included links) claims that 12 million figure is based on the 2000 Brazilian census. However, as the official documents published by the Brazilian government show no question about ancestry was asked in that census, so this information is clearly false and the article should be corrected. What more evidence you need to prove that the census didn't ask anything about ancestry, if the actual census forms with the used questions are not enough? I am confused. Third, I didn't say that the material in question was written by a "middle high school work experience kid", but there is absolutely no proof that the information about 12 milions of German descendants in Brazil is based on some "comprehensive statistical divisions" which are kept by the Brazilian government. This is just your speculation, since the author didn't include any specific source for this claim. On the page 5, there is a link to the website of the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE - Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), which is supposed to include the latest population figures for Brazil, but it's not working. I checked their website and there is a page with information about the ethno-racial characteristics of the Brazilian population, based on a 2008 survey taken in six Brazilian states. According to the survey, only 3,0% of the respondents in the state Rio Grande do Sul and 0,1% in the state Mato Grosso declared their ethnicity as German. In the other states, the number was zero and there is no futher information regarding the number of people of German descent in the results. In the light of these facts, I do believe that the author of that teaching material found the 12 million figure for people of German descent on the internet and simply didn't check its credibility. I do realize that the material in question was published by an agency of the Brazilian government, but that doesn't make it an peer-reviewed academic study. The material refers to the IBGE website, but in their website there is no data supporting the 12 million figure. Wouldn't be better to send an email to the IBGE asking them for clarification or is that teaching material a supreme and authoritative evidence, which nothing can trump? --Ayazid (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ayazid, Iryna is just a foreigner who knows nothing about Brazil trying to keep WRONG information in this article. I don't know what she gets trying to inflate the real figure of people of German descent in Brazil, but it seems it is an obssession for her to keep this untrue figure, despite all the evidences that the figure is wrong. Xuxo (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ayazid, maybe you can bring a serious administrator to this discussion and article, so that they can correct the wrong figure. I tried to bring an user to help, but he or she ignored the discussion, maybe he is a friend of Iryna. Xuxo (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Xuxo: 1. Read WP:SOAP again. 2. WP:NPA: I'm getting fed up with your ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 2000 census did not ask for German ancestry. Most estimates for German Brazilians, as Xuxo pointed out, give a lower figure. Xuxo has made some valid points here, and frankly I do not think they should be ignored.Grenzer22 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the census is no longer the issue. The problem is that reliable sources are quoting the 12 million figure so that basic WP principle of relying on reliable citations needs to be overridden. Wikipedia rules are flexible enough to allow that to happen. This would be more productive than getting embroiled in tit for tat squabble about the survey. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazis after WWII

• http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25815796 Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117093/Secret-files-reveal-9-000-Nazi-war-criminals-fled-South-America-WWII.html Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/3/a-little-piece-ofgermanyintheheartofbrazil.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1127&Itemid=68
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/3/a-little-piece-ofgermanyintheheartofbrazil.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1127&Itemid=68
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/populacao_por_municipio.shtm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.outrostempos.uema.br/curso/poder/42.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040901002136/http://www.histat.gesis.org:80/ to http://www.histat.gesis.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911195444/http://www.ipol.org.br:80/ to http://www.ipol.org.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://images.zeno.org/Brockhaus-1911/I/big/bkklde52.jpgformat%3DJPGF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924032323/http://www.ibero-americana.net/files/ejemplo_por.pdf to http://www.ibero-americana.net/files/ejemplo_por.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.franca.unesp.br/poshistoria/posgraduacao/HIS/teses/marco-baldin/%28Microsoft%20Word%20-%202%20O%20PACIFICADOR%20BELIGERANTE%20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721010838/http://www.unimedpaulistana.com.br/hush/institucional.aspx?id=20 to http://www.unimedpaulistana.com.br/hush/institucional.aspx?id=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150807004225/http://ww2.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/arquivos/subprefeituras/sppa/parelheirosgrajau.pdf to http://ww2.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/arquivos/subprefeituras/sppa/parelheirosgrajau.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816022908/http://fctp.petropolis.rj.gov.br/fctp/modules/xt_conteudo/index.php?id=33 to http://fctp.petropolis.rj.gov.br/fctp/modules/xt_conteudo/index.php?id=33
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.histat.gesis.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipol.org.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://images.zeno.org/Brockhaus-1911/I/big/bkklde52.jpgformat%3DJPGF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924032323/http://www.ibero-americana.net/files/ejemplo_por.pdf to http://www.ibero-americana.net/files/ejemplo_por.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.franca.unesp.br/poshistoria/posgraduacao/HIS/teses/marco-baldin/%28Microsoft%20Word%20-%202%20O%20PACIFICADOR%20BELIGERANTE%20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721010838/http://www.unimedpaulistana.com.br/hush/institucional.aspx?id=20 to http://www.unimedpaulistana.com.br/hush/institucional.aspx?id=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150807004225/http://ww2.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/arquivos/subprefeituras/sppa/parelheirosgrajau.pdf to http://ww2.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/arquivos/subprefeituras/sppa/parelheirosgrajau.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816022908/http://fctp.petropolis.rj.gov.br/fctp/modules/xt_conteudo/index.php?id=33 to http://fctp.petropolis.rj.gov.br/fctp/modules/xt_conteudo/index.php?id=33
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.histat.gesis.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipol.org.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

German? Brazilians

Not to sound racist, but overall, I disagree with the notion of people of Northern European descent coming down to an exotic and not-particularly democratic country like Brazil, especially Germans (having said that, of course, I have no admiration or respect for the Nazis whatsoever and condemn everything they stood for, so I am not coming from that place). So even though people like Gisele Bündchen are actually from Brazil, I like to think of her as a full-fledged German national. Australia and New Zealand (even Argentina to some extent) make sense as places that would attract Germans, but in all honesty, Brazil is somewhat puzzling. Maybe some (or even a sizable percentage of) German-Brazilians should go back to Angela Merkel's super-successful, democratic Germany, and get away from the violence and corruption that plagues Brazil today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiscipidier (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on German Brazilians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304061512/http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.htm to http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220638/http://www.ceaee.ibmecmg.br/wp/wp11.pdf to http://www.ceaee.ibmecmg.br/wp/wp11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221183001/http://www.prefeituraespigao.com.br/noticias/sessao-solene-em-homenagem-a-comunidade-pomerana,941 to http://www.prefeituraespigao.com.br/noticias/sessao-solene-em-homenagem-a-comunidade-pomerana,941

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this a blog?

This article is composed mostly by opinions. The word “myth” is used a lot of times, even in the phrase “The myth of the Brazilian nation (Historically) composed by Portuguese, Africans and Ameríndians”. Yeah, I’m sure it’s a “myth”. This is at most a generalization, but generally that was exactly the case in the first 350 years of the country. The other minorities were too small. So if you say that Athens was composed by Greeks you would be telling a myth just because some Persian dissidents lived there too? This article affirms too much disputed opinions.

It’s not such an absurd calling the racial composition of Brazil “Amerindian, Portuguese and African”. Or telling that France was composed by the French.

Hunsrik Language on German Brazilians Reply

Hi, thanks for your comments. Hunsrik is considered as a separate language by Ethnologue, Glottolog and also by the local governments. Some sources:

Ethnologue (ISO):

• https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/hrx

Language Standardization:

• https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_407538
• https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/194384

Official Recognition:

• http://www.al.rs.gov.br/legis/M010/M0100099.ASP?Hid_Tipo=TEXTO&Hid_TodasNormas=58094&hTexto=&Hid_IDNorma=58094
• https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/rs/s/santa-maria-do-herval/decreto/2009/1/5/decreto-n-5-2009-dispoe-sobre-a-comunicacao-em-hunsrik-nas-escolas-da-rede-municipal-de-ensino-em-santa-maria-do-herval?q=005
• https://www.pmspa.sc.gov.br/noticias/index/ver/codMapaItem/33907/codNoticia/330955

I am going to include them there, thanks for pointing it to me. Imperadors (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Imperadors. I hope you don't mind my having moved this discussion from my talk page. I'll revert if you have any objections. Ultimately, I have only a passing knowledge of Germanic languages. What I do know after years on Wikipedia is that "Ethnologue" has a fairly poor reputation in the linguistic community, whereas "Glottolog" has a much stronger standing. Seeing as you are relatively new to Wikipedia, perhaps you might want to involve yourself in the Ethnic group project, even only if to the extent of your own specific interests. I see you've already been welcomed aboard Wikipedia by our excellent editor, Paine Ellsworth. Follow the links and familiarise yourself with our ideology, don't let yourself be bullied, but try not to be an inadvertent bully yourself; we've all been there when we've been around for too long and feel too confident. Asking is a good thing. Best of all, happy editing! The more the merrier... well, the more, the more intelligent scrutiny of text and quality information for the reader, at the least. If you're not entirely convinced that your sources are good, try out the Neutral point of view noticeboard for community opinions. Happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Exaggerated numbers

I don't understand why some of these pages on different communities in Brazil have such exaggerated numbers, avoiding using more official and reputable sources when those show more reasonable figures, and prefer to cite articles that have themselves no sources. For example, this claim that the Brazilian National Census in 2000 counted any amount of people of German descent is absurd, as the Brazilian National Census has not recorded questions on ethnicity or ancestry since 1940. Other information like the "exceptional" fertility of German women also contradict the data and seem to come mostly from anecdotes, as sources show that the group with the highest fertility rate was, unsurprisingly, Brazilian women, not any immigrant group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C70:970E:6D94:BBF9:454B:6B71 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Brazil - Proibido falar alemão 1.jpg
• Brazil - Proibido falar alemão 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eric Leme Walther.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)