Talk:Arab Brazilians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Arab Brazilian)
Jump to: navigation, search


The Portuguese page shows 3 million, the French 928 000 and the English 10 Million, which one is the correct one? Descendents per immigrant 106.58? this is absurd it is not humanly possible, obviously the numbers are inflated for unknown reasons. If Lebanese/Syrian had huge families (15 to 20 kids), then Syria and Lebanon would be overflowing with people. It is impossible to give an exact number, but it probably should be between 1-2 million at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmv (talkcontribs) 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible that only 100.000 inmigrants become 15 milion people in just one century? Can somebody explain it to me?

Obviously they have weapons of mass reproduction, still unknown to the West... Ninguém (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The cause[edit]

"The causes for Arabs to leave their homeland were an accelerated increase in population in Lebanon and the persecution by the Ottoman Turk"

I added a [citation needed] tag to this, please someone verify this sentence.

Niyeti bozuk http nesnesi (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. One of the salient features of the Ottoman Empire was freedom of religion. See - Reception of Sephardic Jews from intolerant Spain, population exodus of millions of Christians out of Turkey AFTER the Empire was dissolved, not during. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Being an Arab in Brazil: What does it mean?[edit]

Nothing is said about the language spoken by these so-called 13 million "Arabs". Is Arabic still spoken by at least part of these, and if so how many?? Otherwise, if all these "Arabs" have shifted their language to Portuguese (as I suspect), this should also be mentioned in the article. Same question about cultural traits: what has been preserved of their Arabic origins until today? Also, are there really 13 million people who recognise themselves as Arabs in Brazil, even when some of these families were there for 2 centuries (with probably a lot of blood mix since then)? Isn't the title "Arab Brazilian" problematic on this regard? I doubt the figure of 10/13 million is accurate; yet it is used also on the page Arab, although 'being an Arab' has a different meaning when it's used in this article about Brasil, and when it's used about true Arabic-speaking populations. Womtelo 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The accurate number is 11 million. Arab population in Brazil keeps growing with a large number of recent immigrants. They are seen as Arabs due the Arab blood and Arab culture. Arabs in Brazil maintain a close relation with their native land. That's way the CIA and Bush claim Brazil is a hiden place for Muslim terrorists.

== I'm confused about the numbers Under the article about arabic christianity, there is said to be 12 million arabic christians in brazil. How does this fit with the total number of arabic brazilians in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are complete fantasies. By no means there are ten, twelve of fifteen million "Arab Brazilians" (or "Lebanese Brazilians"). In fact, there aren't more than one million people of Arab/Syrian/Lebanese/Iraqi/Palestinian descent in Brazil. I don't know why people feel the need to inflate those numbers, but that's what happens. Ninguém (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a huge conspiracy based on "facts" and "records".Missionary (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The only fact here is that only some 200 thousand Arabs immigrated to Brazil. Ninguém (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned comment:

That's way the CIA and Bush claim Brazil is a hiden place for Muslim terrorists

Yeah. And as we know, there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ninguém (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A question for Opinoso about numbers, quotients, and FACT tags[edit]

Opinoso, some questions about this edit of yours. After it, the article tells us:

According to the IBGE[3][4], about 100,000 Arab immigrants came to Brazil from the late 19th Century on, but they have managed to multiply by a factor of 100 in about one century. To compare, here are the IBGE figures for immigrants of various nationalities to Brazil, and the estimates of the population of their descendants.[citation needed]

Let's look at the first part of this.

According to the IBGE[3][4], about 100,000 Arab immigrants came to Brazil from the late 19th Century on, but they have managed to multiply by a factor of 100 in about one century.

This is a rare sentence in the article in that nobody has slapped a FACT tag on it. May I infer that you agree that IBGE documents the assertions about number and multiplication for Arab and other immigrants/descendants?

If you disagree with this, say so clearly.

If you concede that the numbers for Arab immigrants are as presented in the table, and likewise for other immigrants, I'd like to know just where the problem lies. Is it really in the quotient? I mean, would you like a carefully specified, reliable source for each assertion that, dividing X by Y, the resulting quotient is Z?

I am probably not alone in looking forward to your reply here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

IBGE only gives the figure about how many people of a certain nationality immigrated to Brazil during a certain period of time. IBGE does not say anything about their descendants. The figures about the descendants of immigrants come from other sources, not linked to IBGE.

About the Mathematic calculations, besides they are not sourced, they are wrong, because it assumes that all immigrants left descendants in Brazil (in fact many immigrants did not leave any descendant in Brazil, since many of them returned to their homelands or simply did not had children) and it also assumes that all immigrants arrived together (like if all those 100,000 Arabs arrived together to Brazilian ports) when the figures includes immigrants arriving during a long period of time.

The Matemathic "conclusions" are unsourced and wrong. Opinoso (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • IBGE gives the figures for immigration. So the figures for immigration are sourced, and must stay.
  • Other sources give the (often unreliable) figures for the number of descendants. So either they are sourced, and must stay, or, if you agree that the sources are unreliable, the information about descendants should be erased (and not only from here, but from any article in which they are cited).
  • Mathematic calculations cannot be sourced. What do you want, a source for 2+2=4?
  • The calculations don't assume anything. They merely show the correlation between the number of immigrants and the purported number of descendants. Nowhere it is said that all of them had descendants. Nowhere it is said that they all arrived at the same time. But if you want we can add this information. The contrast would be even greater: Arab immigrants had a higher rate of return than those of most other nationalities; in average, Arab immigrants arrived later than immigrants of other nationalities, exception made for the Japanese. Ninguém (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Your Mathematic calcucations are controversal. Do you have sources for all those figures? Unless you do, it seems they come from nowhere and make no sense.Opinoso (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The source for the number of immigrants is the IBGE, which is cited in the article. The sources for the number of descendants are not my responsibility, but these informations are everywhere in Wikipedia, with sources of varied (but usually low) quality. So what exactly is the problem? The calculations show figures you don't like? Why? Ninguém (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The calculations are unsourced. If you have sources from them, include them. Opinoso (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So Opinoso, am I right in understanding that for each calculation, you have no objection to the dividend or the divisor, but want a source for the assertion that the quotient of the dividend and the divisor is what Ninguém (or his pocket calculator) says it is? Or are you dissatisfied with the dividend? -- Hoary (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The table is not a mere 2+2=4 calculation. It needs sources, because the figures sell the idea that all immigrants left descendants in Brazil, which is wrong. It also compares the multiplication of Germans, who started arriving in Brazil as early as 1824, with Japanese, who only started arriving in Brazil in 1908. It makes no sense. Of course that Germans left more descendants in Brazil given it was an old immigration. There's no reason to compare them. The table is only trying to sell the personal opinion of an user who thinks that every non-Portuguese influence in Brazil is "exaggerate". Opinoso (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures don't "sell" the idea that all immigrants left descendants in Brazil (can you please stop accusing others of "selling" things?). It presents an average. If there are two immigrants, and one has five descendants and the other has none, in average they have 2.5 descendants. What's so difficult to understand here?

The date of arrival may be included, if you wish. It will only make the prolificity of Arab Brazilians look even more awesome, because they arrived, in the average, much later than the Germans and considerably later than the Italians and Spaniards, so their descendant/immigrant ratio should be intermediate between the Spaniards' and the Japanese's. As you say, "of course that Germans left more descendants in Brazil given it was an old immigration". The question is, how did the Arabs, who were a comparatively recent immigration, have more descendants than the older German immigration? Ninguém (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the sources for "your" calculations? Opinoso (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not "my" calculations. The dividends are sourced (even if badly). The divisors are sourced (and well). There is no way to "source" a mathematical operation. Ninguém (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You have assumed the existence of "10 million Arab Brazilians" and then, you have tried to mix this with sourced information (95000 Arab and Turk immigrants in early 20th century) and reach conclusions based on some calculations. However, others usually reach another conclusion when they look at both numbers: the first number is simply wrong. Alefbe (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite. I perfectly know the 10,000,000 figure is a gross fantasy. I have many times argued against this absurd; unhappily, it seems to be a taboo in Wikipedia. The only way I found to oppose this ridiculous exaggeration was to show, by comparing it to reliable figures, that it leads to the most fantastic conclusions. Ninguém (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Ninguém[edit]

What Ninguem has added to this page [1] is essencially a mixture of a non-reliable number (10 million Arab Brazilians) and a bizarre form of original research to relate this number to sourced numbers and reaching strange conclusions (like more than hundred descendants per immigrant, or saying that Arab Brazilians live mostly in rural area, not in the 5 big metropolitans). Alefbe (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And the solution is to revert to a version that sticks to the fantasy of the non-reliable number?
I have removed the fantastic figure. I hope it isn't reinserted, as usual, with shouts of "but it's sourced!" and "it's official!" Ninguém (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

twelve million Arab Brazilians (or not)[edit]

In this edit, some IP adds:

12 million <ref></ref>

Let's consider this It appears to be written by "Larry Luxner (", a free-lance journalist and publisher of the business newsletter CubaNews in Washington, D.C. But if you go to you see that Luxner is selling photographs, not text. So there's no indication of who wrote this piece.

Whoever wrote this piece, there's no indication of where the facts within it come from.

It appears in Saudi Aramco World, which is neither demographic nor peer-reviewed.

And although I can't claim to have read it carefully, I'm not certain that it talks of there being 12 million Arab Brazilians (whatever is meant by "Arab Brazilian").

If I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong. Unless I see convincing rational argument for the reinsertion of this factoid, I'll treat its reinsertion as disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Toffik Karam's Another arabesque: Syrian-Lebanese ethnicity in neoliberal Brazil debunks this myth (pages 10-11). Ninguém (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Lebanese Brazilian and List of Lebanese people in Brazil[edit]

Hello, Shouldn't List of Lebanese people in Brazil be merged to Lebanese Brazilian, or simply deleted ? Shouldn't Lebanese Brazilian, be merged to Arab Brazilian ? --JackAttackFR (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The list should be maintained as it deals with a list of personalities with a specific series on the Lebanese diaspora. What should be done is all names on the Lebanese Brazilian article be transferred to the List and then a link be added to the former article. This will resolve any problems.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Have merged both lists and now article for List of Lebanese people in Brazil is now a lin on Lebanese Brazilian page. For merging of articles, I don't support it. While Lebanese have Arab ancestry, they have an independent identity and don't want to be lumped together with Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians, etc.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab 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.

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

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

IBGE research - removal[edit]

Sarah Canbel, why are you removing the sourced information I included in the article? It's from the IBGE, the official organ for demographics in Brazil. Only 0.9% of white Brazilians claimed any Middle-Eastern ancestry. This is less than 1 million Brazilians. It is relevant. Xuxo (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the problem is the word "claim", the Arab peoples are divided into nationalities such as Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, etc. There are also geographical divisions, such as the Middle Eastern, Levantine, North African, all these classifications are classified by the Arabs. I can get you a lot of reliable sources about the number of Arabs in Brazil but a source from the government itself is very sufficient and reliable so there is no need for other sources.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The source from IBGE does not say "Arab" ancestry, but "Middle-Eastern" in general, so your argument about nationalities does not make sense. Can you read Portuguese at least? Moreover, "so there is no need for other sources", this is your opinion. Wikipedia does not put limits to the number of sources. The IBGE source is very reliable, and what people claim to be is much more important than sources that only cite a "12 million" figure but fail to explain how they got such figure. I am from Brazil and 12 million is not realistic. Less than 150,000 Arabs immigrated to Brazil last century. Humans are not rabbits. Xuxo (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
From 1880 to 1969, only 140,464 "Middle-Easterns" immigrated to Brazil, as you can see here [2]. How can 140,000 people produce 12 million descendants? Even the Japanese came in larger numbers, and the number of Japanese descendants in Brazil is estimated at about 1 million (see Japanese Brazilians). The 12 million figure for Arabs is not realistic at all. Xuxo (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not speak Portuguese so I translate it from google translation:
  • Table 3 - Ratio of the distribution of combinations of declaration of family origin, of the sample, according to the complexity of the answers and Rationale for the distribution of origin declaration combinations family, by Residence Federation units surveyed.
Analysis of the answers to question 3.11 on family origin combined with the answers to question 3.07 about color or race
  • Table 4 shows the distribution of the declaration of origin combinations according to the declared color or race. The single declaration of origin is the most for those who declared origin, among all groups of color or race, being greater among those who declared themselves as yellow (amarelo)? (81.5%), followed by those who declared themselves white (78.6%).

The Lebanese-Syrian-Brazilian governments know the fate of their people, especially since more than half of the Lebanese people are outside their homeland, since the Arabs are also white, they may have known themselves to be white people, and the reason for their involvement with the Brazilian cultures and the Portuguese language. Intermarriage between Brazilians of Arab descent and other Brazilians, regardless of ethnicity or religious affiliation, is very high. As a result of this, the new generations of Brazilians of Arab descent show marked language shift away from Arabic. Only a few speak any Arabic, and such knowledge is often limited to a few basic words. Instead the majority, especially those of younger generations, speak Portuguese as a first language.. As I said earlier you are looking for a "claim".--Sarah Canbel (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are very poor and make no sense at all to justify your removal of the source. 140,000 Middle-Eastern immigrants to Brazil in the past 130 years cannot produce 12 million descendants. This is beyond human capacity for reproduction. Humans are not rabbits. The source from IBGE must go back to the article. Only 0;9% of Brazilians claim family ties to the Middle-East. You cannot remove a source because you "do not like it" or because it does not fit your agenda.Xuxo (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Xuxo, the content removed was WP:UNDUE and breached WP:NOR... just as your arguments on this talk page are your personal interpretation of how many people of Arabic descent may or may not exist in Brazil. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, I have been engaged in a similar discussion with you in another article, and you are not helpful, since you barely know Brazil. I asked someone else, a third more helpful part to join the discussion. This is a case of article ownership and an attempt to decide what sources fit or not a certain agenda. Xuxo (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
In the box now there is all information is available to both parties. As Iryna Harpy said: your personal interpretation of how many people of Arabic descent may or may not exist in Brazil 123456789. You've noticed me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which I should have notified you on your misleading contributions in Wikipedia.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm here because someone asked for help from native Portuguese speakers at the WikiProject Brazil talk page. Can someone provide a diff from the disputed content? Is it this? If so, whoever added the reference, can you point out the pages where you obtained the information so that it can be verified? Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Saturnalia0. Thank you very much for taking time out to check this for us. Yes, that is the reference invoked, and the PDF can be downloaded here. Page 197 was cited. I think the content added needs to be assessed within the context of the number of federal regions used as sample groups, the definition of 'Arab'/'Arabic', and the number of respondents (in terms of the overall ratio of 'X' number of people who were involved in the study) who did not respond to the question of ethnicity. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy Actually it was page 127, but I just noticed the pages are not numbered... Assuming it's the 127th page in the document, that's clearly not a nationwide sample, there are results for 6 states only. But let's ignore that for now. Since the only tables which combine answers about race and ancestry are Tables 4 through 6 of the same chapter, I'm assuming that's where he got the numbers from. But... It's not there. There is no 0.9% in the "Oriente médio" (middle east) x "Branca" (white) cell. The only 0.9% in that table is the "Extremo oriente" (asian) x "Preta" (black) cell. I'm also curious to see where the user mentioning "less than a million" got that number from, as the paper does not mention sample size. I noticed that Sarah Canbel looked at tables 3 and 4 in the discussion above. Table 3 shows the same data as Table 2, which shows results about ancestry only, without considering the answers about race. Unlike Table 2, Table 3 shows data proportional to the probability distribution or something like that. Table 1 is an aggregate of Table 2, showing only which answers pointed out a single, multiple, or no declared ancestry. Now, Tables 4, 5, and 6 are just like Tables 1, 2, and 3 - the first is an aggregate of ancestry x race declarations, showing only the % of answers declaring single, multiple, or no ancestry, Table 5 shows the full ancestry x race answers, and Table 6 is the same thing but with some statistical mumble jumbo. Now as I mentioned before I don't see anything in Table 5 that would support Xuxo's numbers, so... Could you Xuxo help us understand where you got that number from? Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Saturnalia0: My apologies for the erroneous transposition of the page number. I'm grateful that you had the good sense to check the linked diff and double-check the page number! I've also understood the page number to mean the physical page number of the PDF, although I checked some of the surrounding pages for anything suggesting the content introduced. Thank you for confirming what Sarah Canbel established (and what I, in my clumsy way by using Google translate, understood to be the case). Unknown quantity sample groups from only 6 federal regions with options of one or two ethnic backgrounds, and a large proportion of the sample group choosing not to respond doesn't make for reliable research into the salient content. As to where the 'percentage' was elicited, I, too, am at a loss. Xuxo, it would be appreciated if you would join in on this discussion and clarify your WP:CALC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)