Talk:Portuguese Brazilians

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


Finally, it should be noted that most of the Brazilian elite up to very recently was mostly descended for Portuguese immigrants. One only needs to note that most of the surnames in the Presidents of Brazil are Portuguese, for instance. Another example of this clear domination of Brazil's politics, economy, and culture by Portuguese descendants is the fact that up until recently the Portuguese were the only foreign citizens in Brazil that could run for Presidency, provided only that they would acquire Brazilian citizenship tag

This is very relevant -- (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced informations. Please, read: No original research. Opinoso (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not unsourced just read the Brazilian constitution before the last major changes. As to the portuguese and portuguese descendents making up for most of the Brazilian elite just look at a list of Brazilian ministers and presidents. It's self-evident —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Most of these Portuguese were men. The number of Portuguese women in Brazil during the colonial period was low. For that reason, many Portuguese men had relationships with Amerindian women and, later, with female African slaves, which then resulted in racial miscegenation. Please show valid sources for this claim. Thank you, Paulista01

[1] [2]

Do not remove informations before using the talk page. Opinoso (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How about using Please! Is it hard? And the data you posted are not valid historical references, they are very doubtful secondary sources. Thank you. Paulista01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulista01 (talkcontribs) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these Portuguese were men. The number of Portuguese women in Brazil during the colonial period was low. For that reason, many Portuguese men had relationships with Amerindian women and, later, with female African slaves, which then resulted in racial miscegenation. The information can not be confirmed, no historical data or documents can confirm this claim. It can not be stated as a fact. Thank you, Paulista01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulista01 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Opinoso (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you clearly can not tell a good primary source from a bad secondary source. May I ask, are you a professional historian? Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulista01 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue if a source is reliable or not. And this is not the place to ask if other users are professional historians or not. All the sources there are reliables and if you do not agree with them, there are special parts of Wikipedia to discuss the accuracy of a source.

Moreover, what's your point? You cannot deny the fact that Portuguese colonial settlers were mostly men, and Portuguese women were a minority, and that Portuguese had a huge process of intermarriage with African and Amerindian women. Brazil is not the United States, where entire families moved to colonize it. Brazil was a colony of exploration, like the rest of Latin America, and it was largely conducted by European men, which led a process of integration with locals and overseas slaves.

This is basic History that everybody knows (or, at least, should know). Have you ever heard about Casa-Grande & Senzala or any other huge book about this subject? Anyway, to remove sourced informations is vandalism, so is edit-warring. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not the fact that I cannot deny, the burden is with you, you cannot show any valid evidence for your statement. This is a childish game, sad. You want to leave the article wrong, fine. I am losing any hope that Wikipedia works. No wonder my professors at university never allowed students to use it. I worked with history professionally and most of the information in this article would never be accepted as good for an academic environment. Regarding Freyre and his racial democracy theory, I am very familiar with his work, I read both the Interpretation and Casa Grande e Senzala, I don’t know if you have been informed but his work is highly controversial, Florestan Fernandes, famous USP professor always mentioned that his work was very representative of the North and Northeast of Brazil but not the South and Southeast. Well, have a good life!! Paulista01 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese Dialects Map[edit]

Suggest deletion of the dialects map. It doesn't seem to illustrate anything in the text, and without a key it doesn't convey any useful information. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing informations[edit]

I noticed Ninguém removed several informations from this article after several days of heavy and absurd over-editing this article. He actually "disappeared" with over half of the content of this article, particularly the parts about the Portuguese presence in colonial Brazil. I wonder why he did that? Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For a very simple and logic reason. Portuguese presence in colonial Brazil has nothing to do with "Portuguese Brazilians". Indeed, it seems you actually know that; for instance, you have removed Getúlio Vargas from this article, with an edit summary that says So what? He had nothing to do with Portugal. Why would the article on "Portuguese Brazilians" then discuss people who, like Getúlio Vargas, have "nothing to do with Portugal"? Ninguém (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not you who decides what is considered "Portuguese Brazilian" or not or what stays or not in an article. Stop removing informations now. Opinoso (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ninguem, what makes you believe that the Portuguese settlement during colonial Brazil was less important than the more recent Portuguese immigration and that these informations should be deleted? This is an ecyclopedia, and the more informations, the best. Stop removing informations. If you can't write an artciel, and least don't destroy them. Opinoso (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Article ownership again[edit]

Here, (You discuss why you are removing informations. I am free to add informations in Wikipedia, but you are not free to remove them.), Opinoso reverts several edits, and invents some new, unheard of rules. Everybody is free to add information, as long as it is sourced (properly sourced, with reliable sources that actually support the added information) and actually related to the article's topic. Everybody is free to remove information that is unsourced, missourced, or even properly sourced but unrelated to the article's topic. Nobody is "free" from having their additions or removals checked, discussed, and reverted. Opinoso has no actual reasons for reverting the edits he reverted, except tradition (it was like that so it should continue to be like that), which isn't an actual argument in Wikipedia. He complains that the edits weren't discussed. This is a half truth; all or almost all of them had proper summary edits that actually give the reason for the changes.

So, Opinoso, what are your reasons to revert those changes? Ninguém (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The original article had a good number of sources (36 sources), so you cannot say they were not sourced. You removed the informations, including several sourced informations and included unsourced ones (your personal opinions) in their place. Yes, I am free to re-add the informations you erased. You are not free to remove the good work of other editors. Opinoso (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourced? Yes, with your usual standard for sourcing: sources that don't support the text, unscholarly sources, etc. You are as free to remove the good work of other users as I am free to remove you inexpert ramblings about a subject about which you don't have any solid knowledge. Ninguém (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But let's see; I am in the mood to give you a proper intellectual beating. Let's look through your "reinserted information" and see if any of it stands minimal criticism.

Let's start with this: "No available figures. The vast majority of Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry". So, are you claiming that "the vast majority of Brazilians" are Portuguese Brazilians? Where is your source for such idea? Do you have any source that says "the vast majority of Brazilians are Portuguese Brazilians" or "a grande maioria dos brasileiros são luso-brasileiros"?

(And we already see that your statement that I "removed the informations, including several sourced informations and included" "personal opinions in their place" isn't excessively true: in this case at least, I removed an unsourced (and indeed absurd) "information" and included a quite sourced "personal opinion"...) Ninguém (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to prove who knows more or less about a subject. I'm not a child who wants to prove my little friends that I am smarter. Only a dumb person who has nothing else to do with his-her life would lose his-her time on the Internet competing to prove who is smarter. What a waste of time. A person proves he-she is smart in day-life, not on the Internet with strangers...
By the way, where does this article claim that the vast majority of Brazilians are "Portuguese Brazilians"? It only claimed that most Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry. You already claimed that in the past, why are you discussing it? Stop rising discussions about things that do not even exist.
I noticed you have some personal problem with the "Portuguese Brazilian", "Italian Brazilian" or "German Brazilian" article names. They are just copies of the names of the articles Portuguese American, Italian American and German American. And the English American article, for example, cities informations about the English settlement in the United States prior to the American independence. It does not only cities informations about post-independence settlement. WHy do you seem to anger with informations about Portuguese settlement in colonial Brazil, to the point that you want to remove them? Opinoso (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This article says that "Portuguese-Brazilian (Portuguese: luso-brasileiro) is a Portuguese born citizen with Brazilian citizenship or a Brazilian born citizen of Portuguese ancestry or citizenship." Evidently, if the vast majority of Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry, it follows that most of them are "Portuguese Brazilians". Which is, evidently, false; hence this article is misleading the reader. On the other hand, if being "Portuguese Brazilian" and "having Portuguese ancestry" are different things, what is the information that "the vast majority of Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry" doing in an article about "Portuguese Brazilians"? And why doesn't the lead explain such difference, instead of inducing the reader in error?

And I see that the names of these articles are copies of the names of the articles on "hyphenated Americans". The problem starts there, since there is no comparable "hyphenated" phenomenon in Brazil. Brazil is not a copy of the United States.

So, are the vast majority of Brazilians "Portuguese Brazilians", yes or not? And, if not, why do you want to keep this unrelated piece of misinformation in this article? Ninguém (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the Anglo Encyclopedia, not the Portuguese one. If Anglo people use the term "English American" to describe Americans of English ancestry, not matter how distant this ancestry is, the same can be applied to Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry. And nobody is even looking at the title of this article, they are looking to its content. You don't want to associate Brazilians with a Portuguese ancestry, but you already claimed to be of "colonial Portuguese" ancestry, when nobody asked you that. So you want to be associate with Portuguese people, but you don't want Brazilians to be associate with it. Why only you can claim Portuguese ancestry (a not real ancestry, because you already claimed that you have only hints about your ancestry, and Gaúchos like you are not of Portuguese ancestry, so you claim something unreal).
This is the Anglo Encyclopedia, and we must follow their perspective of the subject, and not try to make them follow your own perspective of this subject, that you claim that is a Brazilian one, which is one, you are not the spokeman for all Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that say that all Brazilians of Portuguese descent are "Portuguese Brazilians"? Still no sources?

Without sources, your conclusion that "if Anglo people use the term "English American" to describe Americans of English ancestry, not matter how distant this ancestry is, the same can be applied to Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry" is mere original research.

My ancestry is not under discussion here. Ninguém (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have seen that I removed unsourced misinformation on that subject, let's look at something more.

You have reinserted this:

"[Brazil]] has long been a melting pot for a wide range of cultures. From colonial times Portuguese Brazilians have favoured assimilation for other peoples, and intermarriage was more acceptable in Brazil than in most other European colonies. Portuguese are the main European ethnic group in Brazil, and most Brazilians can trace their ancestry to an ethnic Portuguese or a mixed-race Portuguese. Portuguese Brazilians first appeared in the colonial period, in the 16th century, as settlers and colonists, though most arrived in the early 20th century, as immigrants. Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking nation in the Americas, and the largest in the world."

So let's look at your (re)additions, none of which are sourced.

[Brazil]] has long been a melting pot for a wide range of cultures. From colonial times Portuguese Brazilians have favoured assimilation for other peoples, and intermarriage was more acceptable in Brazil than in most other European colonies.

Unsourced ideological statements, related to the myths of the three races and of racial democracy. Badly written, by the way. You keep confusing "interbreeding" with "intermarriage"; but there were actually laws against marriages between Whites and Blacks in colonial Brazil, so it is simply not true that "intermarriage was more acceptable". "Melting pot" is an ideological construction, that tends to imply that Portuguese, African and Amerindian contributions were on the same standing, pretending that Brazilian history was not a history of slavery, genocide, and Portuguese domination over the other "cultures".

Most Brazilians can trace their ancestry to an ethnic Portuguese or a mixed-race Portuguese.

Unsourced nonsence. Most Brazilians can't "trace" their ancestry anywhere.

Portuguese Brazilians first appeared in the colonial period, in the 16th century, as settlers and colonists, though most arrived in the early 20th century, as immigrants

Unsourced. Who says that these people were ever called "luso-brasileiros"? And, if "Portuguese Brazilians" are all Brazilians with any Portuguese ancestry, how did most of them arrive as immigrants in the early 20th century? Seems that, on the contrary, most of them were born in Brazil. Let's see: 1.6 million Portuguese immigrants arrived in Brazil in the early 20th century (and in the late 19th, and in the not so early 20th century). There are about 190 million Brazilians now; if the "vast majority" of them are "Portuguese Brazilians", I suppose that more (vastly more, perhaps) than 95 million Brazilians are "Portuguese Brazilians". In my mathematics, 95 million is more than 1.6 million. But perhaps I need a source to prove that 95 million is more than 1.6 million?

And, finally,

Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking nation in the Americas, and the largest in the world.

Well, yes. What does have that to do with this article? Portuguese is spoken in Brazil by everybody, not just by "Portuguese Brazilians", and this information is already in Brazil; do we have to replicate it in all articles that have to do with Brazil? Ninguém (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Some notable Portuguese-Brazilians"[edit]

Many of the people so listed are redlinked. I propose the removal to this talk page of anyone who's redlinked; such people can be readded if and when their links turn blue. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PS here are the redlinks:




Popular music[edit]



Fine arts[edit]

Government and politics[edit]

"Portuguese-Brazilian flag"[edit]

The "Portuguese-Brazilian flag" (this) is shown. Is this used to any significant extent? Its uploader (and creator?) simply describes it as "Flags of Brazil and Portugal overlapped". I rather suspect that it's not used at all, and that it is being used here for merely decorative purposes. If so, it should go (however amicably intended its addition was), because it doesn't tell us anything and its appearance here implies a real-world significance that simply doesn't exist. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I have just now removed this invention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese terms[edit]

Until a few minutes ago, we read:

A Portuguese-Brazilian (Portuguese: luso-brasileiro) is a Portuguese born person Brazilian citizen or a Brazilian of recent immigrant Portuguese ancestry, who keeps cultural ties to modern Portugal. [... O]nly people of recent Portuguese origin are actually considered descendentes de portugueses. (The expression luso-brasileiro is awkward and should not be employed except in formal context.)

I have no knowledge of the facts here, but was struck by the awkwardness of the exposition. I therefore attempted to rearrange all this for the better. If in doing so I altered the import of what's said, this was not intended. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jews, etc.[edit]

The following message was posted to my Talk Page, but I believe it belongs here.Ninguém (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, regarding your query, "Is this a joke? If they [the Jews] were expelled from Portugal by the Inquisition (in 1496), how would they come from... Portugal... to Brazil... after 1500?", I would like to respond by pointing out a few facts. First, the "expulsion" of the Jews from Portugal in 1496-97 was not as complete as one might be led to believe. To the contrary, many remained in the country, often staying as ostensible converts or New Christians. Some even continued to practice their religion as crypto-Jews. However, since the Inquisition, which lasted until 1821 in Portugal, continued its persecutory activities, significant numbers of individuals of Jewish background emigrated to other parts of the Portuguese Empire, including Brazil, long after the date you referred to. Second, as a result of the Dutch conquest of parts of northeastern Brazil (1630-1654), there was also an influx of Sephardi Jews to "New Holland", especially in and around Recife. -- Dpecego (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So, what you want to say is that they were not actually expelled from Portugal. In which case, that should be said, something like, "Jews that had escaped from expulsion from Portugal, but still felt threatened by the Inquisition", or, "Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianism," etc. Definitely, not "Jews who had been expelled from Portugal".
The arrival of Jewish settlers under Dutch domination of Northeastern Brazil is a different subject, if for no other reason, because most of them were expelled when the Portuguese reconquered the region.
Most importantly, however, what has all this to do with the subject of the article, namely "Portuguese Brazilians"? Ninguém (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Weren't Jews Portuguese? Why would they be part of an article about Portuguese people in Brazil? And why does Ninguem seem to try to remote any information about 3 centuries of portuguese colonization?

Welcome back, Opinoso. I see that you are still interested in discussing my person instead of the subject of the articles. Now, why would this article include people from four centuries ago, when Getúlio Vargas is removed with the argument that he has "nothing to do with Portugal"? Ninguém (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The very first paragraph[edit]

I don't know if the first paragraph was good a few days ago --

A Portuguese-Brazilian (Portuguese: luso-brasileiro*) is a Portuguese born Brazilian citizen or a Brazilian of recent immigrant Portuguese ancestry who keeps cultural ties to modern Portugal.
* Luso-brasileiro is an awkward expression little used outside formal contexts; descendentes de portugueses (descendants of Portuguese) is used in preference for people of recent Portuguese descent.

(certainly the use of a footnote was rather awkward) -- but I'm certain that it's not good now. Here it is:

Portuguese Brazilians (occasionally known as Luso-Brazilians, although this may have a wider linguistic meaning) are citizens of Brazil whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in Portugal. Nevertheless, it should be noted that when translated literally into Brazilian Portuguese, the term is often considered to refer exclusively to those of more recent Portuguese background. (my emphases)
  1. What's the meaning of linguistic meaning?
  2. it should be noted that is mere padding.
  3. Why not add the literal translation into Brazilian Portuguese of the term "Portuguese Brazilians" instead of just providing the gloss (when translated literally into Brazilian Portuguese, the term)?

More broadly, I infer that there is some Brazilian concept of Brazilians of a recent Portuguese background. I'd wildly guess that as this population has a social reality in Brazil it might merit an article in en:WP. By contrast, I'm given no hint that "Portuguese Brazilian", as it's used here, is anything more than a nonce alternative to "Brazilians of Portuguese descent". As an alternative, it's certainly shorter and in this way superior, but I wonder if it is not misleading. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem with this formula: Portuguese Brazilians (occasionally known as Luso-Brazilians. As we are informed in the infobox, "Portuguese Brazilian" is translated into "luso-brasileiro". Which seems the same thing as "Luso-Brazilians". And certainly "Portuguese Brazilian" cannot be translated into "Português brasileiro" or "Brasileiro português", two expressions that don't make sence at all in Portuguese. So, actually, both "Portuguese Brazilian" and "Luso-Brazilians" correspond to only one Portuguese expression, "luso-brasileiro", and the formula cannot refer to the ways Brazilians call these people. So I suppose that the sentence is talking about two different expressions in English. Does the English language actually have two different expressions to refer to them? Do English speakers actually feel the need to make such distinctions about Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry? Or is this a mere acritical copy from English American (and are really "English American" and "Anglo-American" two expressions that refer to the same thing though the second may have a wider meaning)? Or are those, including "English American" and "Anglo-American" all baseless inventions, as the lack of sources for those usages seems to imply? Ninguém (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If I google for "Portuguese Brazilian" -wiki, I obtain this, which seems to not link to this subject at all. So I fear this isn't a widely used expression in English. Ninguém (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As a native speaker of English with no particular connexion with the Americas -- other than interest (in the North, sometimes a horrified fascination) -- I'd say that "English American" means nothing to me, and so I'm untroubled when an article starts by saying what the term means in the article and then uses it for the concept so tersely described, as long as it doesn't pretend that the term is well established. To me, "Anglo-American" means something else entirely. I don't know if "Anglo-American" is also used for (real) demographics, but surely in pop demographics, politics and so on the (slightly pejorative?) term is plain "Anglo". ¶ I'd have thought that (a) the Portuguese contribution to the Brazilian population could be a legitimate subject, (b) the subpopulation of Brazilians who consider themselves Portuguese could be one too, (c) the former two would be related but also clearly distinguishable, and (d) a single article might beneficially discuss both but it should not confuse them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The Portuguese contribution to the Brazilian population seems to me to fit better in articles like History of Brazil or Colonial Brazil on one hand, and Demographics of Brazil or Race in Brazil on the other. Of course, we could try to change this article into "Brazilians of Portuguese descent", and include both this subject and that of Brazilians who consider themselves "luso-brasileiros", striving to explain that these are different things and come in different numbers (perhaps 140 to 160 million Brazilians of Portuguese descent, and about 1.2 million members of the "colonia portuguesa"). An article or section about these 1.2 million people should be centered on their particular identity and organisations, not in underlining "influences" that for the most part relate to the other, much bigger, demographics). Ninguém (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reintroduced pictures, and their captions[edit]

First, this:

The first Portuguese settlers celebrating the first Mass in Brazil among the Indigenous.

These are supposed to be sailors of Cabral's expedition, as they were imagined by Victor Meirelles. Now, Cabral's expedition left two degredados in Brazil. Two sailors deserted. No settlers at all. Indeed, they spent a few days in Brazil and sailed back to their main mission, which was to India. How are those the "first Portuguese settlers celebrating the first Mass"? Ninguém (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Second picture:

This is a picture by Frans Post, Dutch painter who came to Brazil in 1637, with Nassau, and returned to the Netherlands in 1644. So this picture is of Recife as a city in Dutch Brazil. Why is it in an article about "Portuguese Brazilians"? Ninguém (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


This text was recently reintroduced:

By the mid-16th century, Portuguese colonists were already settling in significant numbers, mainly along the coastal regions of Brazil. Numerous cities were established, including Salvador (1549), São Paulo (1554) and Rio de Janeiro (1565). While some Portuguese settlers came willingly, many were degredados. Nevertheless, these deported convicts were not thieves and murderers, as is often believed, but rather tended to be people guilty of committing "crimes" against religion or morality. Thus, they were primarily New Christians, individuals accused of witchcraft or sorcery, reprobate priests, blasphemers, homosexuals and adulturers. In other words, these exiles were condemned for "criminal" behavior that would not be considered illegal by modern standards.

Before any othe considerations, I remain convinced that this, as anything else regarding the colonial period, has nothing to do with any population that may be considered "Portuguese Brazilian". Nobody descended from these settlers call themselves "Portuguese Brazilians". As such, this is a fantasy, and should be removed from here, unless we make clear that this article has a different subject.

Besides that, every single line in this paragraph is unsourced.

Then this: While some Portuguese settlers came willingly, many were degredados. Yes, the Portuguese Crown sent people to Brazil as a punishment for things that were considered crime at that time. How many? Were they in significant numbers? I don't believe so. They were "many" during the 1500-1530 period, when very few people came. After that, most people would either come "willingly" or in official mission (soldiers, bureaucrats). The "degredados" are an important part of Brazilian mythology (especially when it comes to our persistent self-deprecating tradition), but historically their importance was close to null.

And: Nevertheless, these deported convicts were not thieves and murderers, as is often believed, but rather tended to be people guilty of committing "crimes" against religion or morality. This seems to mix some actual facts (Portugal's mediaeval laws did consider crime many behaviours that are nowadays considered commonplace) related to the 1500-1530 period, and outright fantasies.

Here we can distinguish these: Thus, they were primarily New Christians, individuals accused of witchcraft or sorcery, reprobate priests, blasphemers, homosexuals and adulturers. This is, of course, absurd. Individuals accused of (what was thought at the time as) serious crimes against religion would not be purposefully sent to a whole "new world" where they could propagate their views. "New Christians" were never sent here for the crime of being New Christians (which, by the way, was not a crime by itself even then); they came as settlers like any others. People accused of reinciding in Judaism were not sent abroad; they were tortured until confession, repentance, and acceptance of Christian sacraments, or, if nothing of this happened, sentenced to death by fire, and publicly burnt in autos-de-fé. Adulterers and other "sex-offenders" by the criteria of the times might have been sent here and might have been numerically important in the previous period, as noted above; but homosexuals were burnt to death (and their ashes spread, so that they would not have a grave). About they not being thieves or murderers, quite certainly they were not the latter (who would be punished by death, not by degredo), but most certainly many of them were thieves. Afonso Ribeiro, one of the two first degredados, who was left here by Cabral's 1500 expedition, was quite probably convicted of theft. Ninguém (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, your observations were undoubtedly relevant and, therefore, require action. Thus, bearing in mind the grievous errors/inconsistencies concerning the paragraph on degredados in colonial Brazil, and in light of your evident knowledge of the topic, why don't you rewrite the short paragraph yourself?
With respect to your belief that the title of the article "...has nothing to do with any population that may be considered 'Portuguese Brazilian', based on the undeniable reality that "...nobody descended from these settlers call themselves 'Portuguese Brazilians'" IN PORTUGUESE, I would rather continue that discussion on your talk page. However, as I've already mentioned before, notwithstanding the cultural sensitivities and lingusitic nuances that permeate the subject matter, I still am convinced that the adjective-noun combination "Portuguese Brazilian" means the same thing as "Brazilians of Portuguese descent/ancestry". The points you raised are valid, i.e. that Brazilians would most likely not refer to themselves as such, but isn't the article written in English? In addition, during the section on the colonial period, someone must also state that, in Portuguese, settlers of Portuguese origins were called "mazombos" (residents of Portuguese descent) and "reinóis" (Portuguese-born).-- (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph should be removed - and, so, I won't "improve" it, because it would only add credibility to something I believe is fundamentally flawed. As long as it isn't removed, it should be sourced. Where are the sources? Ninguém (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, I have to say that removal is not the solution. Improvement is, and that is what I've attempted to do with the paragraph concerning degredados. Check out the following source, please. It sheds new light on the issue. For instance, I learned that there were approximately 90 different crimes for which individuals could be condemned to exile, mainly to Brazil. These included crimes against the king (e.g. "...falsificar ou mandar falsificar o sinal de algum desembargador, ouvidor, corregedor ou qualquer outro julgador, ou algum selo autêntico que faça fé, com propósito e intenção de causar dano ou de colher proveito..."), crimes against morality (e.g. rape, adultery, sodomy ["...teoricamente, a pena para a sodomia era muito severa, mas, na prática penal, constatamos que os sodomitas eram quase todos condenados ao degredo...Poucos dentre eles foram condenados à fogueira."]), and crimes against 'the person' (e.g. perjury, attempted murder).

Thus, the revised information is now correct and duly sourced. So, what else needs fixing? My hope is that, if we keep this healthy dialectic between us going on, the final article will end up being, if not respectable, at least acceptable. -- Dpecego (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated answer. From the computer I am using now, I cannot access the source you give. I will try it again later, from another computer. I see however that it is something by BBC, which means, far from academic or peer-reviewed. The proper source for a discussion on who could or could not be sentenced to degredo in Brazil would be these: Ordenações Afonsinas (up to 1521), Ordenações Manuelinas (from 1521 to 1603), Ordenações Filipinas (from 1603 up to the second half of the 18th century, when they were radically reformed by Pombal). Evidently, as you point, there could be, and most probably were, differences between what the legal text prescribed and what was actually enforced, but I wouldn't take the word of what is essentially a news outlet for it. Proper sources for this discussion would be, for instance, Vadios e ciganos, heréticos e bruxas: os degredados no Brasil colônia by Gilberto Pieroni, or Primeiros povoadores do Brasil by Emília Viotti da Costa. I haven't read either, nor do I own a hard copy of them, nor they seem to be available online.
Another problem: Some were New Christians or crypto-Jews that had fled from Portugal in order to escape the Inquisition. Is this intended to mean that "New Christians" and "crypto-Jews" are synonims, and can be used interchangeably? If so, it has to be changed, because it is false; if not, it has to be reworded, because it seems to imply that. Ninguém (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, in case you haven't noticed, I sometimes commit careless typographical mistakes such as the one involving the source in question or the one I made yesterday when I wrote "Portuguese Portuguese". In any case, I accidentally misplaced a link to a useless BBC article. However, the one I provide in the main article (and in this paragraph) is OK. The text is called "A Pena do Degredo Nas Ordenações do Reino", by Geraldo Pieroni, Ph.D in History (História pela Université Paris-Sorbonne).

With respect to the poor wording in the sentence concerning "New Christians" and "crypto-Jews", good observation. I'll try to make it less ambiguous. Thanks. -- Dpecego (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes; only idiots will use typos, accidental unloggings, etc., to attack good faith editors.
Pieroni's article seems to be a good source, even though his quotations from the Ordenações are sometimes confusing. Particularly, he makes a claim (that "morra por ello" or "morra por isso" don't necessarily mean physical death) that I find hard to consubstantiate. Nothing in the actual text of the Ordenações that I have read so far implies or even suggests that. Apparently Pieroni followed Silva Jardim, who I was not able yet to find online, in such matter.
I see that you have corrected the text, taking off some terms that are not supported by the source. Thanks for that. The sentence about "crimes against religion" is still ambiguous. As far as I know, serious crimes, such as heresy, were punished by death, and never by degredo (which would indeed be a weird thing, giving a heretic a whole new continent to spread his/her ideas). Lesser crimes, and particularly sorcery, were certainly punishable with degredo. Your editing of the sentence about New Christians is also good, helping to eliminate the conflation and the obscene assumption that Inquisitional pro(or rather per)secutions were always, or mostly, based on actual "deviations" from Catholic orthodoxy. When Pombal finally repealed all discriminatory legislation against both Jews and "New Christians", what followed was not a resurgence of Judaism, but the complete vanishing of "New Christians" among the general populace.
The significance of degredo to the demographics of Brazil remains unaddressed. Pieroni ends his article by stating that (...) centenas de pessoas foram enviadas ao Brasil durante os três séculos do período colonial, isto é, desde a chegada dos portugueses em 1500 até a independência em 1822 ("hundreds of people were sent to Brazil during the three centuries of the colonial period, i.e., since the arrival of the Portuguese in 1500 until independence in 1822"). "Hundreds of people" doesn't seem impressive, considering the total arrivals of Portuguese are to be measured in hundreds of thousands. Yet this particular demographic still receives disproportional attention regarding the much more important masses of other colonists. Ninguém (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguem, thanks for the helpful input. Indeed, since crimes against religion were often punishable by death, I'll remove that clause.

With respect to the number of degredados who, according to Pieroni, entered Brazil during the colonial era, I actually thought the same way you did, i.e. a disproportionate amount of text is dedicated to a relatively small demographic, as per Pieroni. Thus, the paragraph(s) focusing on the mass of Portuguese settlers need(s) to be expanded. Nevertheless, at least regarding the sources I've found/consulted so far, little is said about the profile of other Portuguese settlers, except for their region(s) of origin (e.g. Minho) and overall emigration estimates. Even so, I'll try to find more data in order to improve the section.

Thanks again. -- (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there better examples?[edit]

Are Marília Pêra and Daniela Mercury the best examples of Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry? What about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, or José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, or Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, or José Bonifácio de Andrada? --Lecen (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They are fairly good examples for me because they are immediately recognizable by many users. I think 19th century Brazilian nobility images, wouldn't be so useful for that purpose. Smsagro (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading lead[edit]

The article starts with this gem:

Portuguese Brazilians (or Luso-brasileiros) are Brazilian citizens whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in Portugal

Which is evidently false. Most Brazilians have wholly or partly Portuguese descent; that does not make them "Portuguese Brazilians" or "Luso-Brazilians", or even, in proper Brazilian usage, "descendentes de portugueses". Indeed, if we look at the section about "Some notable Portuguese Brazilians", we see what are actually considered "Portuguese Brazilians" in Brazil: all of the persons listed are either born in Portugal or have Portuguese parents or grand-parents. Except for a few historic figures, there is no one there whose "partly" Portuguese descent dates from the 19th - not to even talk about the 16th! - century.

Why are such absurds allowed in Wikipedia? Ninguém (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps absurdities arise, at least in part, for innocent reasons: people with limited time and effort (and for whom English may not necessarily be a first language) try to make articles such as this (which are arguably about silly non-subjects) slightly less horrible. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. (As an analogy, today I removed some very bizarre content from the article Panasonic bicycles, but I'm painfully aware that after my intervention the article is still a very poor quality, unsourced stub.)
How about this as a first stab at improving it:
Portuguese Brazilians (or Luso-Brazilians) are Brazilian citizens whose ancestry is thought of as originating wholly or partly in Portugal. The notion is close to the Brazilian term descendentes de portugueses.
Note my addition of "thought of". ("Brazilian citizens", or simply "Brazilians"?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. Glad to meet you again.

I am sorry, but I don't think your suggestion can actually improve the article other than in style. First, there would be the problem that "thought of" could be seen as a weasel expression ("thought of, by whom?"). Second, it really depends on what it is meant by "thought". Most Brazilians (when they stop to think about such issues, which is not often) assume, rightly or wrongly, and particularly when they do not know what such ancestry actually is, that their ancestry originates partially in Portugal - and, even while doing such, do not think of themselves as "Portuguese Brazilians". If asked about what is a "descendente de portugueses", they would point to someone who has a recent and easily identifiable Portuguese ancestry - someone who is the child or grandchild of a Portuguese immigrant.

Perhaps a parallel would help to clarify what I am trying (with not much success, it seems) to say. Suppose, for absurd, that there was an article about the French English, conflating Anglo-Normans, Huguenot refugees, and people of African or Arabic origins that came to England via France, or just from former French colonies, as well as the modern descendants of Anglo Normans and Huguenot refugees. Oh, there is such an article, it is just called "French Briton" (or rather French migration to the United Kingdom, into which French Briton redirects. It's lead is awful:

French migration to the United Kingdom is a phenomenon that has occurred at various points in history. Today, many British people have French ancestry. French remains the foreign language most learned by Britons mostly because England and France are so close and the languages are quite similar.

What French migration to the UK has to do with French being the most learned second language in Britain is a mystery, and more so the "similarity" between a Romance and a Germanic language. But at least it does not say that "French Britons are British citizens whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in France.

Or perhaps more to the point, imagine an article about German Britons that told us that the Anglo-Saxon populace of Britain are "German Britons" because the Saxons invaded the islands from Germany?

Now, I don't know how the British manage this. Perhaps a person called Montagu will consider him or herself "Franco British"; perhaps a person called Smith will consider him or herself "German British". And perhaps there is a "French British" community in which the offspring of Anglo Normans and Huguenot refugees fraternises with Blacks from Martinique and immigrants from Lebanon. But in Brazil that is not the case. People who can actually trace their ancestry to Portuguese colonists consider themselves an elite, but by no means "Portuguese Brazilians" (a phrase they would associate with "poor and ignorant" Portuguese immigrants and their offspring). People with Portuguese surnames but neither recent, identifiable Portuguese ancestry nor obvious sign of considerable Black or Amerindian descent will assume they descend from Portuguese colonists (or remote, 19th century, immigrants, or both), but will not consider themselves "Portuguese Brazilians" or "descendentes de portugueses", a phrase that they associate with people of obvious - second or third generation - Portuguese ancestry.

Mark Rosenfeld writes in his report on his trip to Brazil:

You don't make Polish jokes here, of course. You make Portuguese jokes. (Shades of Hawaii.) The Portuguese, as the ruling class, earned much resentment, understandably, but the stereotype is that they're stupid (even in discovering the country-- they were looking for India). Since many people are of Portuguese descent, this seems to imply a certain doublethink, or at least a long-established sense of identity as Brazilians rather than Portuguese.

That probably nails it. Brazilians have "a long-established sense of identity as Brazilians rather than Portuguese", and do not consider themselves "Portuguese Brazilians" - or an appropriate target for ethnic jokes - for the "mere fact" of being actually descended from the Portuguese... Ninguém (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Table of DNA data[edit]

I removed this new edit for two reasons, firstly, I find it very odd stating that French immigration accounts for 52% of European DNA in Norte Region; Italy for 61% in Nordeste Region. Second, this is specialised data, at odds with the tone of the article. The editor who introduced this section is new here, started this month, most early edits (or a similar nature) have been reverted, but yet, despite messages on his/ her talk page, simply reverted, resinstating the content, without any edit summary and obviously ignoring messages on talk page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the table is WP:UNDUE. The study is a highly specialised one examining Y-SNPs and, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in a genetic studies article explicitly. If the user wishes to discuss their additions to the content, please follow the bold → revert → discuss process as has been asked of you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)