Talk:German Brazilians

German Brazilians- by VivaLatinAmerica

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

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

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

Even more interesting, Vivalatinamerica's writing style is very similar to Opinoso's - both mangle the English language in a very similar way, and like to accuse others of having an ethnic agenda. I wonder if both post from the same computers, too. Donadio (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did the first German-Brazilians settled?

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

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

Santa Maria de Jetibá

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

Tyrol

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

So, Opinoso, German Swiss or Volga Germans aren't German? They should be counted, respectively, as Swiss and Russians? Donadio (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

No, I'm not the IP user.

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

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

Now, about the substance:

I actually agree that these people are of Austrian, not German, descent. But some kind of consistency is necessary. Your argument that they are "Austrians" because when they came to Brazil there was an Austrian State does not seem to hold, otherwise Volga Germans would have to be considered "Russian-Brazilians", because they came from an established Russian State. So you cannot simply reverse this other editor's contribution, calling it vandalism, just because you disagree with him. So, please, engage in civil discussion about the topic. What is the difference between those people in Treze Tílias and Volga Germans who also immigrated to Brazil and are always counted as "German-Brazilians", and never as "Russian-Brazilians"? Donadio (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Middle class

Sorry, but an information such as "Germans had established the first middle-class population of Brazil, in a country divided between slaves and their masters" absolutely needs to be sourced. Who said such thing? Donadio (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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". Donadio (talk) 14:02, 16 May 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. Donadio (talk) 16:32, 16 May 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. Donadio (talk) 12:00, 18 May 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. Donadio (talk) 14:28, 16 May 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. Donadio (talk) 16:29, 16 May 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. Donadio (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

So your position is that all sourced information is valid and should be included? I am then preparing a small section about Nazism in Brazil and German Brazilians. Would you cooperate? Donadio (talk) 23:35, 17 May 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? Donadio (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. If you believe my edits are not improving the article, please explain why here, before reversing them. Donadio (talk) 19:03, 18 May 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? Donadio (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't any source for these informations, I am going to remove them. Donadio (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the first two. Later I'm going to try to find sources for the third one.Donadio (talk) 02:23, 22 May 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. Donadio (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten. Hope this is acceptable. Donadio (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Santa Maria do Herval

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

It doesn't mention any decree: apparently, there was a verbal orientation to the municipality's teachers, to keep elementary students who expressed themselves during class in Hunsruekisch to teach them Portuguese during breaktime. Probably not the best idea, even if vehemently supported by part of the community of German descent. Far from constituting anything remotely similar to "persecution", though. Donadio (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am rewriting it to fit the source (no decree is mentioned). The relevance of this information is still unproven. Donadio (talk) 12:43, 21 May 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. Donadio (talk) 18:13, 22 May 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. Donadio (talk) 18:56, 22 May 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. Donadio (talk) 22:28, 22 May 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? Donadio (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the tag facts were again removed. Since there are no sources, what's the reason for so doing? Donadio (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Notice that Donadio 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. Donadio (talk) 20:18, 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 have replaced the Fact Tags. I hope they won't be removed except if sources are added. Donadio (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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. Donadio (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to transform this into an issue of ethnic persecution, as this article seems to be intent on, is POV. Donadio (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Establishments registered in foreign names had to be changed" means exactly what? Companies owned by foreign people had to change the names of the proprietors, or companies that had a foreign "fantasy name" had to change their "fantasy names? Both seem unlikely. What seems likely is what the source in fact says, that German businessmen were replaced in company boards, and the administration (not the property) transfered to the Liga de Defesa Nacional. Donadio (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This edit [9] is controversial:

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

They were Brazilian citizens and they fought for their country. There is nothing wrong or especially tragic about that (more than going to war, being exposed to harm, and having to shoot at fellow human beings is tragic for any person of any nationality and descent). Donadio (talk) 16:51, 27 May 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). Donadio (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that sourced information, based on reliable sources (Brazilian decrees and "Decretos-Leis") was removed. Any reason for this? Donadio (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-neutral attitudes.

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

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

Nota bene: I disagree with Ribeiro in this subject, too. Donadio (talk) 21:46, 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? Donadio (talk) 12:23, 28 May 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. Donadio (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The source avaible, from the book Os Soldados Alemães de Vargas reports that people were arrested and tortured for speaking German. Does Donadio 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)

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. Donadio (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

People are tortured in Brazil even today, that we live under a "civilized democracy"[11]. 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)