Jump to content

Talk:German Brazilians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)


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)

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"[1] [2] (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: [3].

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[citation needed], Novo Hamburgo[citation needed], Nova Petrópolis, São Bento do Sul[citation needed], Blumenau[citation needed], Joinville[citation needed], Santa Isabel[citation needed], Gramado[citation needed], Canela[citation needed], Santa Cruz do Sul[citation needed], Estância Velha[citation needed], Ivoti, Dois Irmãos[citation needed], Morro Reuter[citation needed], Santa Maria do Herval[citation needed], Presidente Lucena, Picada Café, Santo Ângelo[citation needed], Teutônia, Ibirubá, Victor Graeff, Brusque[citation needed] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [6] 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: [7].
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"[8] [9]. 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)

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:
[10]
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[1]. 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[citation needed] that about half of Lutheran ministers in Rio Grande do Sul were affiliated to[vague] 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[2], 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.[3]

  1. ^ Andrea Helena Petry Rahmeier, "Alemanha e Brasil: as relações diplomáticas em 1938" (22 kB PDF file), Vestígios do passado a história e suas fontes.[vague] (in Portuguese)
  2. ^ Silvia Helena Andrade de Brito, "A educação no projeto nacionalista do primeiro governo Vargas (1930–1945" (100 kB PDF file), Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisas "História, Sociedade e Educação no Brasil", Faculdade de Educação - UNICAMP.[vague] (in Portuguese)
  3. ^ Pollianna Milan, "Um processo cultural forçado", Gazeta do Povo, 27 September 2008. (Available here.) (in Portuguese)

Discussion of "Version O"

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[1]. 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.[2]). 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[3], 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[4]. 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[5]. According to the gaúcha police, those companies were involved in an espionage scheme[6]. 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. [7]

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

  1. ^ Rahmeier, Andrea Helena Petry. "Alemanha e Brasil: as relações diplomáticas em 1938" (22 kB PDF file), Vestígios do passado a história e suas fontes. paper presented to the IX Encontro Estadual de História in Rio Grande do Sul
  2. ^ Gertz, René. O Estado Novo no Rio Grande do Sul (Passo Fundo: EdiUPF, 2005); as summarized by Mario Maestri, "A inesperada reabilitação de Getúlio Vargas", Revista Espaço Acadêmico, no. 62 (July 2006; also available here).
  3. ^ Brito, Silvia Helena Andrade de. "A educação no projeto nacionalista do primeiro governo Vargas (1930–1945" (100 kB PDF file), Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisas "História, Sociedade e Educação no Brasil", Faculdade de Educação - UNICAMP.[vague] (in Portuguese)
  4. ^ Seitenfus, Ricardo. A entrada do Brasil na Segunda Guerra. Porto Alegre, EDIPUCRS, 2000. p. 54-55
  5. ^ Ibid., p. 260
  6. ^ Ibid, p. 261
  7. ^ http://www.cce.udesc.br/cem/simposioudesc/anais/st4/st4meri.doc

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)