This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Use sources, not theories. Opinoso (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No source, then? 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)
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)
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'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:
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).
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)
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)
"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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
In preparation for the next section, dumping any footnote:
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)
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]
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
An image used in this article, File:Saoleopoldo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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":
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)
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 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
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
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
((dead link))
tag to http://images.zeno.org/Brockhaus-1911/I/big/bkklde52.jpgformat%3DJPGFWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
((dead link))
tag to http://images.zeno.org/Brockhaus-1911/I/big/bkklde52.jpgformat%3DJPGFWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
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.
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):
Language Standardization:
Official Recognition:
I am going to include them there, thanks for pointing it to me. Imperadors (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)