Talk:Spanish Brazilians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

(no header)

Wouldn't somebody born in Brazil be a Brazilian? A Spaniard would be somebody born in Spain. RickK 08:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that's just one of the many problems with this article. Actually, I think the article may even be deserving of deletion. The concept of "Spanish Brazilian" is pretty much useless, as far as I can see; I don't think there is a large enough number of recent Spanish immigrants to warrant such a classification. The descendants of the Spanish immigrants of yesteryear have fully integrated in Brazilian society, and are not seen as a separate or distinct group.

Other unfounded remarks are 'They can speak Spanish, in addition to Portuguese and English', the sentence about Portuñol, etc.

There should probably be an article containing some of the information here, something like 'Spanish immigration to Brazil'. But, once again, this article should probably be deleted, or at least heavily reworked. --Cotoco 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not supposed to mean they are not integrated into the society...but just as a group of people that immigrated there like the porutugese and italians...its just ancestry...

Given the widespread easy travel of today, I doubt that articles of subject "<ancestral nationality> <current nationality>" are of any notablity or use.

Besides which, seeing the title of this article makes me think "...and introducing acoustic Brazilian". :-) -- 217.171.129.79 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cotoco: I'd have to say you are basically right; there are serious problems with this article but before reaching the deletion stage or option perhaps some explanations and subsequent editing will solve most of the problems with this article. Let's begin with this: someone wrote, «Unlike other ethnic groups in Brazil, such as Germans, Japanese and Italians, Spaniards were integrated so fast in the Brazilian society that have barely managed to leave an imprint of their national characteristics. Today it is even difficult to discern the origin of many Hispanic surnames in Brazilians, since many have Galician origins or had their Spanish family names changed to the Portuguese ...». Facts will help us; first of all using the terminology spanish (spaniard should be for old spanish people, let's say before 1800's) must be done carefully, at least with explanations in parenthesis. Those spanish who migrated to Brazil in the late 1800's and turn of the century were mostly if not all, Galicians, from Galicia, which is nowadays an autonomous region of Spain. Not by choice, by force. When articles dealing with Brazil, focus on Portuguese, German, and Italian, and also Japanese, it's more than a question of the country where they come from, it's actually about their ethnic group, and thus, their culture, their language; in order to make easier, we shall call these ethnic/cultural groups. The ethnic/cultural group mentioned in this article are the Galicians, from Galicia, very close to Portugal and Portuguese culture, in fact, Galicia has claimed and announced publicly that Galego is a dialect of the Portuguese language. When the Galicans migrated to Brazil they would almost certainly have passports or spanish documents because Galicia was (and is )officially within the spanish nation; they spoke Galego (only nowadays are they bi-lingual, though many of the elder only speak Galego, as in the 1800's when they went to Brazil) and they felt close to the portuguese. There shouldn't be any surprise about this. They easily blended and mixed and intermarried with the 'native' brazilians, like the Portuguese, and the Italians (who also speak a latin language-and this made all the difference- in their integration). 2nd'Explanation': The spanish kept within their 'empire' while there was one and later migrated to their old colonies, and the Portuguese did likewise with their old colonies; rarely a spanish went to the former portuguese territories. So it would have been unusual to witness mass migration at the turn of the century from Spain to Brazil. Someone included Andaluzia in the text but failed to associate this with any statistical source. Please do and then we'll re-edit according to such data.If there is such data.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Pedro I of Brazil a Spanish Brazilian?????

Why D. Pedro I of Brazil is a Spanish Brazilian????? This page requires urgent help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.93.97 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

~No, you require urgent help, in history... Pedros mother was Carlota of Spain, daughter of Carlos IV, the Spanish King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.218.170 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is you who require urgent help in history. He was the heir of the Portuguese throne and later king of Portugal. Kings with mothers of other ruling houses of Europe was very common. It did not make him Spanish unless the Spanish Cortes declared him so. Go learn some history. In your line of thought this would make him : Austrian, French, Italian and German from his great-grand parents. The only nationalities he had was Portuguese and Brazilian. Don't go messing with the rest because intermarriage among royal families was very common and we can find him a long list of European ancestries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.17.226 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

D.Pedro

Precisely; D.Pedro was born a portuguese (and then a brazilian-portuguese citizen until 1822). Pedro I would not be a spanish then or now, anymore than a brazilian child, born in Brazil, would be swedish /or something just because his parents were swedish/something else and settled in Brazil.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

José de Anchieta

Also José de Anchieta was a Castillian (not Spanish), he never had Brazilian ancestry, the most it could have happened was the Portuguese king giving him Portuguese nationality which I never read about. Working for the Portuguese king could only make him Portuguese but there are no evidences that the nationality change ever happened.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.17.226 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anchieta

I can't confirm he was granted portuguese nationality, but for practical purposes he had become (culturally if you will) a portuguese citizen, to be specific, a brazilian-portuguese citizen living and contributing to the unfolding of events in the nation that was maturing.GFlusitania (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resident

Since when a a Spanish-born person residing in Brazil is a Brazilian? A Spanish Brazilian? You mean it is only necessary to live in Brazil to be a Brazilian? He, he, what a great country.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.17.226 (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Spanish-Brazilian

There are many people in this page who are considered Spanish-Brazilian even thought they have no Spanish blood. Some of them are soccer players who play in Spain, but they are not Spanish-Brazilian. There are people of Portuguese descent that are considered Spanish-Brazilian, but they have surnames similar to Spaniards (Both Portuguese and Spanish Surnames are quite similar but there are execptions like patronymic surnames, Spanish: -ez Portuguese: -es, and some spellings, ex. Spanish: Carvallo - Portguese: Carvalho or Spanish: Olivera - Portuguese: Oliveira), and surnames from the Basque country or Catalunya show they have Spanish Ancestry.

Álvaro Luiz Maior de Aquino, Daniel Alves, Marcos Assunção, Roberto Carlos da Silva, Adriano Correia Claro, Denílson de Oliveira Araújo, Djalminha, Milene Domingues, Júlio César Santos Correa, Anderson Luiz de Carvalho, Cristiano Marques Gomes, Diego Ribas da Cunha, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Márcio dos Santos Gaia, Anderson Silva de França, Mauro Silva, Tiago Splitter, and Sylvinho are Brazilians playing in Spain but they are not Spanish Brazilians because they have no Spanish blood. There is no mention of Spanish blood on Fabricio Werdum (surname sound German not Spanish). The person who put Rafaela Zanella in this page is a moron because in her page it say she has Italian and German ancestry not Spanish, or that person who put her in this page is a troll.

These people aren't Spanish Brazilians so I am removing them. Lehoiberri 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedro I

I know his mother was a Spanish princess, but declaring a heir of the throne of Portugal who was born in Portugal and who died in Portugal as former King of Portugal and father of the Queen of Portugal a Spanish-Brazilian is, to say the least, ridiculous! Maybe Elisabeth II of England is a german-british, what do you think? Maybe we should change her page, lol.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.16.239 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Assimilation

Spanish immigrnats in Brazil assimilated at a high speed almost as much as the Portuguese. The fact that most were from Galicia and spoke a similar language as Brazilian Portuguese (galego) made that assimilation easier. And the last names of Galicians integrated soon in Brazil as they are usually similar to Portuguese. That is why today descendants of Spanish immigrants are not "visible", because they have been always considered as the same culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.54 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

They are not considered as members of the same cultural group, one can only claim that they belong to the same civilization- European- and share cultural traits. They were mostly Galicians/Galegos and they felt more connected to the Portuguese. If they were old-caste spanish-castillian- or other groups outside but who already called themselves spanish, they would not have set foot in Brazil. Likewise, you may search the statistics and you will not find any mass migration from Portugal to Hispanic South-America.GFlusitania (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong: in Sao Paulo most were Spanish speaking immigrants from Andalusia, and they assimilated very soon too, and much more than Italians or Germans.--88.18.151.26 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish in Brazil

Someone wrote: «In fact Spain claimed more than half of what is present day Brazil. The expansion of Portuguese-Brazilian settlements into these Spanish territories was a long and gradual process which began during the time of the Iberian Union (1580 - 1640) when the borders between the South American territorial possessions of Spain and Portugal were ignored. When the union broke it continued in the form of a defacto low intensity guerrilla war of creeping occupation led by the Bandeirantes. By the 18th century most of the Spanish territories that now lie within today's Brazil were effectively under Portuguese occupation; a fact recognised in 1750, when formal sovereignty over a vast area was transferred from Spain to Portugal by the Treaty of Madrid.» Facts: 1-The borders were not ignored. 2-Land explored and settled by Bandeirantes was within what is now Brazil, and the peoples they found and sometimes warred with or enslaved were Amerindians not Spanish. 3-The first claim about half of Brazil is completely false. GFlusitania (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

«Starting in the early 20th century, most Spanish immigrants were Andalusian peasants who worked in the coffee plantations, mainly in rural areas of São Paulo State.» Andalusia?? Do you have a reference source for this claim?? GFlusitania (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have: [1][2]. Opinoso (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"A maior parte dos imigrantes espanhóis se instalaram em São Paulo, onde predominaram os andaluzes (60%), seguidos pelos galegos (20%)." "(...)cabe assinalar que a partir de 1890, frente à tendência a ocuparem ofícios do setor primário que caracterizou os imigrantes da Andaluzia"(...) Opinoso (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Can you explain why you removed sourced information for "Notable Spanish Brazilians", Opinoso? 200.198.196.129 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilian people are the fourth largest immigrant group in Brazil, not the fifth as it is said on this article

There are not that many Indigenous Americans as Spanish Brazilian people in Brazil, the official statistics counts 500,000 - 800,000 indigenous Americans in Brazil. And Spaniards could be between 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 millions. Jaume87 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpreted source

In the subsection "The Gaúchos", the article states that

The Brazilian Gaúchos, the inhabitants of the Pampa region in Southern Brazil next to Argentina and Uruguay, were largely influenced by the Spanish migration to this area in colonial times. The Spaniards influenced the language and economy of this area.

It gives this as a source: RS VIRTUAL.

Now, this source does definitely not say that the Spaniards influenced the language of the area. It says that "coutries of hispanic language" (which is not the same as "Spaniards") played an "important role in our century" (and our century - or the century of the source, anyway - is not colonial times).

It also does not say that the Spaniards influenced the economy of the area. It says that Spanish Jesuits introduced cattle in the area, that such cattle went feral when the Jesuits were expelled, which provided a starting point to husbandry in the region. Husbandry that was developed by "bandeirantes and lagunenses", i.e. people in the Portuguese colony.

Nowhere this source talks about Spanish settlements in Rio Grande do Sul. Jesuits established towns populated by Guarani indians, not by Spanish settlers. Jesuits didn't mate with Guarani women in any significant scale. They didn't even introduce Spanish as a language; rather they studied and codified Guarani. Ninguém (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Readding what you admit is dubious

Here's an odd set of edits by some IP, (re)adding unsourced stuff with "citation needed" flags. Bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A different discussion

Ninguém doesn't want to admit that Brazilians of recent immigrant origin have a special relation with the country of their ancestors. He wants to sell the wrong idea that everybody in Brazil is the same, that when you are born in Brazil you loose your family memory and become "100% Brazilian". Brazil is a very diverse country, and Brazilians who have recent immigrant ancestors (or not so recent) do have a special conection with the country from where their relatives come from.

I'm not 100% Italian, I only have a single Italian great-grandmother, but I feel conected to Italy, because since I was a little boy I heard my grandmother speaking about her Italian roots. Most Brazilians who have a recent immigrant element in their families are used to hear about their ancestors since they are children, and we create some admiration for that country. My mother cannot speak a word of Italian, I'm the only person in my family who speaks some Italian, because I studied it. Nevessless, during World Cup we like when the Italian team wins and when we traveled abroad for the first time, we choose to go to Italy. It's not because we don't speak Italian anymore or we are not "aware of and connected to Italian culture" that we do not have a special connection to Italy. We have, and even if that "connection" did not exist anymore, the Italian ancestry will still be there and I will pass it down to my descendants.

I also have Portuguese, African and Native American ancestries. They are even more remote than my Italian one, but I'm equally connected to Portugal and Africa. I don't look to Portugal with the same eyes I look to Sweden or Japan. I feel more connected to Portugal and Africa and I dream to travel to both places. And even if I didn't care about both, the ancestry will be with me forever.

I know some Brazilians who hate Brazil and wish they could leave the country. They are not "connected" to Brazil, or at least pretend not to be. So aren't they Brazilians because they cut the connection?

Funny that Ninguém already reported to be of "colonial Portuguese descent", and now he is saying that Brazilians of 18th-century Spanish descent are not "Spanish Brazilians" anymore! So Ninguém can be of colonial Portuguese descent, but other people cannot be of colonial Spanish descent! I can't understand this person.

So, Ninguém, stop selling the idea that Brazilians cut their "cultural" and "spiritual" relations with the country from where their relatives come from, because we don't. When Brazil is out of World Cup, people of Italian descent wants Italy to wint it, people of German descent wants Germany to win it, and so on. The Italian "nonne" (grandmas) still cook pasta for us on sundays, the cake recipe from the German great-grandmother is still being used, the Japanese traditions are part of the day-life of the community, people have memories of their Portuguese grandmas singing fado and the stories of slavery told by old black grandfathers are still alive in people's memory.

You like it or not, Brazil is a country of immigrants, with the exception of the few Indians, we are a mix of people who came from all around the world (and not exclusevily from colonial Portugal, don't forget that) and we keep the memory and traditions of our ancestors. This is what makes us "Brazilians", we are not a copy, but a mix. Opinoso (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And about Brazilians of Spanish descent, they don't speak Spanish, many of them can't list Spanish cities. Most of them have memories of their Spanish grandparents, they hear the family stories from their parents, they see pictures of their ancestors. They don't need to love Spain to be somehow connected to that country. And even if 0% of that connection lasted, which is rare, because there's always a memory and admiration alive, they still have Spanish ancestor, recent or remote. I know a few people of Spanish descent here in Brazil, a friend of mine has a grandfather from Spain, she doesn't speak a word of Spanish, but she is proud of her Spanish roots, like the majority.

I think Ninguém should leave the Internet and talk to real-life Brazilians. It's incredible how he spends a whole day at Wikipedia and how much free time he has to spend here. I wish I had it to. We all did, I think.Opinoso (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém doesn't want to admit [...] He wants to sell [...] Spare everyone the mindreading stunts, Opinoso. And the personal advice too. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Opinoso, welcome back. Hello, Hoary.

Excellent comment, Opinoso, especially the point about Ninguém and his colonial ancestry. SamEV (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What does my ancestry have to do with this? Ninguém (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps SamEV could answer that question on your talk page, Ninguém. This talk page is for discussion of the article Spanish Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, Hoary. But there seems to be a general principle involved in this: that the ancestry of people shape their perceptions of the world, in a way that makes any edit about, say, "Spanish Brazilians" unreliable if the editor is of, say, Portuguese ancestry. Is this in any way expressed in Wikipedia rules or guidelines? If not, can we please put a definite end to such speculations and the associated schoolyard bullying, and send appropriate warnings to editors who insist on them? Ninguém (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody who wishes to appeal to the authority of a WP policy or guideline should cite that policy or guideline so that others can read it for themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate reference here is WP:Discrimination. It states that "Wikipedia and English Wikipedia should not give privilege in writing and freedom of speech, and expression, scientific inclusion, etc. to some in expense of others", which is the issue here, at it seems users Opinoso and SamEV are trying to establish a privilege for users of some ancestries at the expense of users of other ancestries. Ninguém (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém, I openly challenge you to produce any proof of what you've just said about me. SamEV (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere else, please. -- Hoary (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém, what are you doing?

Can't you understand the concepts of original research and neutral point of view? You're committing the former and failing to observe the latter. We have to present what the sources say, and we have to do so dispassionately. There's room in the article for both estimates. That accords with, in fact obeys, WP:NPOV. SamEV (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC); 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sir. One estimate is based on actual research. The other isn't based on anything: no research, no verifiable calculations, nothing. One is an actual demographic source; the other is a paper on Spanish-Brazilian diplomatic relations - reliable as a source on such subject, not on demography.

The data from the 1998 PME survey are compatible with the data about Spanish immigration to Brazil; the "data" in Ayllón's paper are not. Ayllón's figure would imply an abnormal fertility of Spanish immigrants in Brazil, that is not hinted anywhere in the literature. Ayllón's figure would imply that, while most Spanish immigrants in Brazil came to São Paulo - as the data on immigration tell us - and albeit the 20th century saw strong internal migration to São Paulo but practically none from São Paulo, their descendants would overwhelmingly live in other states. Again a phenomenon that is not mentioned anywhere in the literature. Ninguém (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ayllón credits the Spanish embassy in Brazil for his figures.

"Ayllón's figure would imply an abnormal fertility of Spanish immigrants in Brazil"

Per whom? Per you? That's what I'm calling original research. SamEV (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And the Spanish embassy in Brazil... does it conduct demographic research? Does it even says it does? Does it provide actual calculations, if it is an estimate? If so, this must be sourced. If not, then the Spanish embassy, sorry, isn't a verifiable source.

An abnormal fertility, per any person that stops to check the figures. Listen, if you believe this factoid is accurate, you certainly don't object placing here a table showing the number of immigrants of the various nationalities to Brazil, the alleged number of their descendants, and the numbers of the pre-immigration and nowadays populations of Brazil, with a collumn showing how many descendants per person there are in each case, and allowing the reader to take his/her own conclusions, do you? Ninguém (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG... What in the world makes you think I would object!? Just please keep it free of your personal observations. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Opinoso, for instance, has removed such tables from other articles.

Tomorrow, the tables. Ninguém (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which tables? Those you made without a single source, as usual? lol Opinoso (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Those I made with your fantasist figures and the IBGE data about immigration to Brazil. Those on which you wanted a source about a mathematical operation. Ninguém (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the table does have to be sourced, Ninguém.

OK, I may not comment the rest of this evening, because I'm going to be editing a different article. SamEV (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More comments on User:Ninguém

Wasn't Ninguem the one claiming that the "vast majority" of the 90 million "White" Brazilians are descended from those few 500,000-700,000 Portuguese who settled in Brazil in colonial times (most of whom arrived in the 18th century alone)? Why couldn't there be 15 million people of Spanish descent, descended from the 700,000 Spaniards who arrived from the 19th century? According to Ninguem the Portuguese were abnormal rabbits, because 500,000 Portuguese were able to produce the "vast majority" of 90 million Whites, and they were also magics, since they had virtually no Portuguese women to have children. And more abnominal is that those 500,000 were also able to produce a mixed non-White population composed of over 100 million people. So, accoding to expert Ninguem the 500,000 Portuguese produced 100 million non-Whites and the vast majority of 90 million White Brazilians.

Compared to Portuguese, those Spaniards were loosers. Opinoso (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Ayllon isn't a reliable source in this context

The "15 million Brazilians of Spanish descent" factoid is systematically reinserted into this page. The source is <ref name=Ayllon>{{cite web |url=http://www.hispanista.com.br/revista/artigo45esp.htm |title=Brasil – España: Una Relación Consolidada Pero Incompleta |first=Bruno |last=Ayllón |accessdate=2010-06-28 |work=Hispanista}}</ref>.

Ayllon, however, is a expert on Diplomatics, or International Relations, not on Demography. Accordingly, he must take his demographic data from other sources. In this case, he choose to trust figures from the Spanish embassy to Brazil. But this was evidently a poor choice; the Spanish embassy to Brazil does not conduct demographic research, nor does it have experts in Demography to make accurate calculations from primary sources. Besides, it is a political entity, whose job is not to research truth, but to politically represent the interests of the Spanish State and of Spanish citizens in Brazil. Consequently, all this amounts to sheer speculation. No actual expert sources in the field of Demography support the 15 million figure. Ninguém (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Most recently, it has been reinserted in this edit, with the extraordinary summary Ninguém, please stop your childish behavior. The necessity of retaining this info has been explained to you.

Where is this explanation of the need to retain this information?

Let's look at what the article says. (Despite my inability in Portuguese, I like to delude myself that much of it is sufficiently close to French to be comprehensible. Feel free to correct me where I get it wrong.) The author describes himself, or is described, as Doctorando en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid e investigador visitante en el Núcleo de Pesquisas em Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil. No sign there of a background in demographics. If I'm right, then this doesn't mean that he's incapable of handling demographic information, but it does mean that this isn't his standard stock in trade. His section "BRASIL – ESPAÑA EN CIFRAS" starts with the preambulatory Más de 15 millones de brasileños son descendientes directos de españoles before he jumps out of demographics and gets down to recent figures in dólares. It's a pleasant way to grab the attention of his Brazilian readers but he cites no source. How is he credible? Oh: Datos de la Embajada de España en Brasilia. Now, I don't want to ascribe their figures to this or that motivation, but how are they authoritative?

Or is it just that we should unquestioningly swallow anything that embassies deign to tell us? -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"the Spanish embassy to Brazil does not conduct demographic research, nor does it have experts in Demography to make accurate calculations from primary sources."

And you know that how, Ninguém?

"Where is this explanation of the need to retain this information?"

See above, where I explained to you (or tried to) that we have a policy called neutral point of view and what it requires.

"Or is it just that we should unquestioningly swallow anything that embassies deign to tell us?"

Couldn't that be said of any source? Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us? SamEV (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so first "The necessity of retaining this info has been explained to you" actually meant "I [SamEV] have explained the necessity of retaining this info to you". And the reasoning for this was that (a) Ninguém offered no evidence for his assertion that an embassy neither conducted research nor reanalysed others' research, and that (b) a "neutral point of view" requires that we "present what the sources say, and we have to do so dispassionately. There's room in the article for both estimates. That accords with, in fact obeys, WP:NPOV."

Of course I'd seen that stuff above, but it was so unconvincing that I'd assumed that there'd been some other explanation. But all right, here goes.

It's plausible that some nations conduct demographic research on some others, and involve their embassies in this. For example, the Israel/Islam-obsessed USA may want to estimate the relative importances, now and in the estimable future, of voting-age secularists and Islamists in Turkey, and it may involve its embassy in this. (Indeed it has its optimistically named "Central Intelligence Agency" do just this kind of thing.) So it's indeed possible that the Spanish are conducting or coordinating demographic research in Brazil. What is the evidence that they are doing so? If we have none, then we apply Occam's razor and assume that they are not.

WP:NPOV, cited above, says that Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Within that, "reliable sources" links to "WP:V", which tells us to use reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available [...].

I fail to see that this figure either (a) is from a source that's appropriate in this context or (b) represents a prominent viewpoint.

Now the last, curious question: "Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us?" No, we can express our doubts about any source right here, presenting our reasoning for the doubts (and avoiding accusations such as that of "childish behavior" where these are not clearly warranted). If we are persuasive, then the article is reedited accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And you know that how, Ninguém?

I have never seen, or heard, or read about any foreign embassy to Brazil doing this. I have never seen any paper by them giving any reasoning to support their statements in this issue. They say, "there are X people of such descent in Brazil", but they never say, "we know because we counted them, using this or that method, covering this or that territory, in this or that date"; they never say, "we know because we took this or that ancient data, applied this or that extrapolation method, and found the figures we are reporting". Indeed, what they usually say is, "it is estimated". By whom, we have to wonder. And, since they don't say that they do it, I assume that they don't. The burden of the proof lies with those who make the claim, and that the Spanish embassy is a reliable source on issues of Brazilian demography is your claim; you have to support it.

Couldn't that be said of any source? Do we have to unquestioningly swallow what Ninguém's source deigns to tell us?

Of course, it applies to any source. So, if you wish, you are perfectly within what is reasonable to explain why the 1998 PME is unreliable. But it was an actual survey; IBGE employees went from house to house, knocking at the door, and asking actual questions to actual people, so you will have to find its supposed unreliability elsewhere.

Your understanding of Wikipedia policies, as Hoary demonstrated above, is defective. They explain what reliability, verifiability, and neutrality mean; according to their standards, the Spanish Embassy is not neutral, is not reliable within this subject, and their purported information is not verifiable. According to the same standards, Ayllon's article is a reliable source within his field of expertise - International Relations - not on Demography. You will notice that his paper, indeed, is not about demography; it is a paper about International Relations, in which this demographic remark is an aside, indeed quite irrelevant to the points he raises: he could still say the exact same things about Spanish-Brazilian relations whether there were 50,000,000 or 50,000 Brazilians of Spanish descent. Ayllon's statement about the number of Brazilians of Spanish descent, moreover, is certainly unverifiable; we can verify only whether the Spanish embassy said what he reports, but not whether the Spanish embassy is correct in saying it.

Wikipedia's rules should not be taken as encouraging solipsism. Ninguém (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendship with an administrator

Why is user Ninguém removing several sourced informations from this article? Why does he add tags to sourced informations, or say that a source is not saying something, when it is? And why does Admnistrator Hoary is always defending Ninguém. Is it fair to have a friend as administrator and let an user free to do whatever he wants? Opinoso (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since administrator Hoary is a "cyber-friend" of Ninguém, he should at least not become part of discussions and troubles that Ninguém is always causing everywhere, because since Hoary started to protect Ninguém, this user is feeling free to do whatever he wants in Wikipedia, because he knows nothing will happen to him. Ninguém spends nearly 24 hours a day connected to Wikipedia, he usually over-edits articles and nobody really knows that he is doing here. But since he has an administrator friend, he feels free to do whatever he wants. Ninguém writes good English and he has enough free time to make friends, probably sending them private e-mails to convince them he is right, so he can persuade people.

And then people will start to believe that most Brazilians are Whites and direct descendants of 500,000 "colonial Portuguese" who had no Portuguese women to have children, but they were magics who had children with the Mother-Nature. Opinoso (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the subject of this talk page is the article "Brazilians of Spanish descent" and not me, I have responded elsewhere to remarks about my terrible self. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not call you a "terrible" person, Hoary. You are just being "too much friend" that does not work with your administrator condition. You should ne neutral. Opinoso (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether I'm fullblown terrible or merely biased and/or obnoxious, this isn't the place to discuss me. Or you. Or Ninguém. Wikipedia offers plenty of other places for such discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

More misinterpretation of sources

A "verification failed" tag was removed from this paragraph:

The Brazilian Gaúchos, the inhabitants of the Pampa region in Southern Brazil next to Argentina and Uruguay, were largely influenced by the Spanish migration to this area in colonial times. The Spaniards influenced the language and economy of this area.

The given source, in Portuguese, is non-academic, unsigned, and cites no references. So, for starters, it is a poor source, and should be replaced, as soon as possible, by an academic, peer-reviewed source.

But this is a comparatively minor problem. The biggest problem is, it does not say what is reported in this article.

What does it say?

Spanish influence was felt in Rio Grande do Sul, since its beginnings. It can even be said that, without Spanish participation, husbandry - which would be the basis of the Gaúcha economy during the 19th and early 20th century - would not exist without its actual importance. But not only that: in the border speech, in cultural influences, countries of hispanic language had an important role in our century.

As we see, the linguistic, cultural, influence, here, does not refer to "Spaniards", but to "countries of hispanic language" - Uruguay and Argentina. And not in colonial times, but in "our" century - probably, the 20th century.

So we are left only with the "economic" influence represented by the husbandry. But the source further explains what it means by without Spanish participation, husbandry would not exist without its actual importance:

... the biggest Spanish contribution, in economic terms, can be considered the introduction of bovines to Rio Grande do Sul. During the 16th Century, when the Jesuits formed their "reductions" with Guarani Indians, they were concerned about creating huge herds to warrant their protegees' nutrition. Thanks to that, and threats of divine vengeance, they were able to keep the Indians reunited. When the Jesuits were expelled, the cattle stayed and proliferated, becoming an attractive to Portuguese and Spaniards. Paulista bandeirantes and Lagunenses who first penetrated the Gaúcho territory did it in search of cattle.

So the "Spanish economic influence" is very precise: Spanish Jesuits introduced cattle in order to feed (and gather) Guarani Indians; when they were expelled, the cattle remained. In no way this implies any Spanish settling of the territory, or the existence of a population of Spaniards or descendants of Spaniards in this territory.

The the source says the following:

Also in cultural terms Spanish influence was present, specially in the region of the Campanha. There, living similar situations and with identic economic activities, gaúchos in both sides developed extremely similar dresses. Also alimentary habits are quite similar: meat is the alimentary basis in all the Pampa.

Here the source indeed talks of "Spanish influence", but an accurate reading shows a few problems. First, the "cultural terms" seem to be simply costumes and alimentary habits; needless to say, a region where the predominant economic activity is cattleherding will have a diet based on meat; no "influences" are needed to explain this. And this "influence", on the other hand, in no way implies a Spanish demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul any more than a Portuguese demographic presence in Uruguay or Argentina. Costumes can be copied, without need of immigration (the typical Gaúcho attire, for instance, includes the Turkish pants called "bombachas", even though there was no Turkish demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul or Uruguay or Argentina). More: the typical Gaúcho costume, or "pilcha" isn't a typical Spanish costume: not only bombachas, but xiripás, guaiacas, chapéus de barbicacho, ponchos and palas, etc., are unknown in Spain.

The source then expands about "Platine" influence in the township of Santa Vitória do Palmar. But this is about the 20th century and Uruguay, not about Spain and colonial times. Playing soccer (an English game; one wonders about an English demographic presence in Rio Grande do Sul...) with Uruguayan teams, listening to Uruguayan radio, etc.

The source also says some different things, which were not cited in this article:

In Rio Grande do Sul there is no city, not even a neighbourhood, that can be considered Spanish. And, if any, very few families speak only Spanish at home.

Then the source indulges in some confuse examples of Spanish linguistic influence in Rio Grande do Sul. An example is the name of the sparrow in Santa Vitória do Palmar, which isn't "pardal" as in most of Brazil, but "corrião". A Spanish borrowing, certalinly. But the Spanish name of the sparrow is "gorrión", and the nasal diphtong "ão" is typically Portuguese and unpronounceable to Spanish speakers... and the source ends such digressions by concluding: But, of course, this is not Spanish language.

The source then comes to what it considers an undeniable Spanish influence in Rio Grande do Sul: the tradition of flying kites in Good Friday. Anyone can, of course, base a whole theory of Spanish demographic presence on this tradition, but, without any corroboration from other evidence, it remains, how may I say it, a quite improbable theory.

Then the source veers into something different - the presence of Spanish immigrants in Rio Grande do Sul - which I hope people are able to realise is clearly not related to any supposed colonial times Spanish demographic presence.

Then the source talks about something interesting:

"califórnias" were the punitive expeditions that Brazilian chieftains made against Uruguayan territory in reprisal of abuse committed against Brasilians that lived there.

In older times, those who weren't able to say "pauzito" pronouncing the "z" was subjected to the "degola", since Castillians pronounce it "c" instead of "z"

For those who don't know, the "degola", also known as "corbata colorada" ("red tie") is a typical method of murder, caracterised by cutting the throat of the victim from one side to the other. So, according to this source, these Brazilians so proud of their Spanish descent, had the curious habit of asking prisoners to say "pauzito", and if they unfortunately pronounced it in the Spanish way ("paucito"), these Brazilians so proud of their Spanish descent would kill them in this way.

So I am reinstating the "verification failed" tag, as the source does not support the text in the article. Ninguém (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You write too much to persuade people, but it doesn't work. The source claims there was Spanish linguistic and economic influence in Rio Grande. No matter how much you want them to be "Portuguese", they will never be. If you want to see real people of Portuguese descent in Brazil, go to Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo. In Wester Rio Grande do Sul you will only find a Brazilian copy of countryside Argentina or Uruguay. Opinoso (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And "bombachas, xiripás, guaiacas, chapéus de barbicacho, ponchos and palas" are not known in Portugal as well, but you claim that Gaúchos are direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese". So what? Opinoso (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The source "claims" there is Spanish linguistic and economic influence in Rio Grande do Sul, but then explains this linguistic influence in a way that it makes clear it is talking about the linguistic influence of Spanish as spoken in modern Uruguay and Argentina, and explains the economic influence in a way it makes clear it has nothing to do with a Spanish population.

Gaúchos descend from Portuguese, but it doesn't mean their traditional dresses are derived from Portuguese traditional dresses. It is the source you quote that confuses things, talking about the similarity between the costumes and diets of gauchos and gaúchos in the context of ill-explained "influences". Ninguém (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

lol, and the Spanish spoken in modern Uruguay and Argentina was brought by who? The Japanese? Of course that the Spanish influence in Rio Grande came via Uruguay and Argentina, not straight from Spain, so it has the peculiarities of the culture of both countries.

And Gauchos are descended from Portuguese? Where's the source? Opinoso (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And more distortions of sources

Another removed "verification failed" tag was removed from this statement:

A genetic research conducted by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) on Southern Brazilian Gaúchos revealed that they are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese.

The source given is an article about a genetic study by Andrea Rita Marrero, which improperly summarises the findings of the actual study, that can be found here: História Genética dos Gaúchos. It does not conclude what is reported in the article. It says, textually, However, differently from what was seen for other Brazilian populations, it seem that Spanish contribution was more important, which is in agreement with historic data, that point to the "mobility" of borders in the edge of the Portuguese Empire. As we see, the source talks about a possibility, which is misreported in the article as a "revelation" of a fact.

Reinstating the "verification failed" tag, as this is more an instance of improper reading and improper reporting of a source. Ninguém (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the world is a "possibility". We are not sure about anything. As long as human knowledge envolves, we discover new things and discover that other things is wrong. The genetic study found that Gaúchos are closer to Spaniards than they are to Portuguese. It destroys what you were repeating everywhere, that "Gaúchos are direct descendants of colonial Portuguese". They are not, and everybody knew that, you were the only one living in that fantasy.

Gaúchos are less Portuguese than Black people from Pelourinho in Bahia. Black people in Bahia do have Portuguese admixture, since Bahia was a main destination for Portuguese colonization, but Western Rio Grande do Sul was never a place of Portuguese migratory movement. Salvador da Bahia, with all those Portuguese churches and architecture, is definetly more Portuguese than any Gaúcho pampa.

There was never any known Portuguese migratory movement to Wester Rio Grande do Sul. A poor area was not attractive for Europeans. The people who settled there came mostly from neighbor Hispanic colonies, so they brought their Spanish ancestry and left their descendants there, who were mixed with the Amerindians. Nobody is gonna find anything similar to Portugal in Wester Rio Grande, I do not know from where you took this ridiculous and pathetic idea. Western Rio Grande is just another Brazilian copy of countryside Argentina. If you change the languages, nobody will notice the different (unless because of Black presence in Rio Grande, which is almost absent in Argentina...)And countryside Argentina is mostly Mestizo, because the influx of Italian and Spaniards immigrants did not reach there with significant numbers. Wester Rio Grande is not different. It looks nothing like Portugal, neither their people. Opinoso (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The genetic study does not say it found "Gaúchos are closer to Spaniards than they are to Portuguese". It says that this is possible. It cannot be misquoted as saying what it does not say.

I don't thik I ever used the ridiculous expression "direct descendants". There is no such thing as "indirect descendency".

On the contrary to what you say, the historiography points to a Portuguese origin of people in Rio Grande do Sul, including Western Rio Grande do Sul. Which cities have been founded by Spaniards in Rio Grande do Sul? When? On the contrary, Colônia do Sacramento and San Carlos, both in Uruguay, have been notoriously founded by Portuguese.

You talk a lot about what people migrated and what people did not migrate to Rio Grande do Sul. As usual, there is no source. Ridiculous and pathetic as it looks to you, people in Western Rio Grande do Sul speak Portuguese, so it is not true that you cannot find anything similar between this region and Portugal. Who said Western Rio Grande do Sul is a copy of countryside Argentina? What author subscribes such thesis?

People in Rio Grande do Sul used to live in permanent conflict with people in Uruguay and Argentina in the 19th century. If they are so proud of their common Spanish ancestry, what motivated Brazilian gaúchos to fight so violently against their Uruguayan bretrhen, on behalf of complete strangers from Brazil? Ninguém (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

lol, stop with theories. Ancestry does not unify a population. Look at North and South Korea, or Ireland. Spaniards did not need to found cities to leave descendants there. Which city in Bahia was founded by Black slaves? All the cities there were founded by Portuguese, but don't ever think that when you go around Salvador you will find a bunch of Portuguese-looking people....

Stop with theories and bring sources saying that Gaúchos are of Portuguese descent. Opinoso (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet more distortion of sources

I am also restoring a "clarify" tag on this sentence:

The genetic resource also detected a very high degree of Amerindian admixture in Brazilian Gaúchos (52% of Amerindian mtDNA

MtDNA is a very smallish part of human genome. It is impossible to determine a "very high degree" of genetic admixture based on MtDNA. So the sentence should be rewritten, to express something compatible with what we know about MtDNA, or removed, because it is false. Ninguém (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

52% of Amerindian mtDNA indicates that MOST Gaúchos have at least one Amerindian ancestor. It destroys your theory that Gaúchos are direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese people" (and even the European side there is Spanish, not Portuguese). That's why you seem to hate this genetic study so much and is always trying to remove it from everywhere. Opinoso (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It indicates that most gaúchos have at least one Amerindian ancestor... in 512 or 1024. Nothing more than that. And you don't understand anything about genetics, as proved by your above statement, and the ridiculous claim that "when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate", that you can't corroborate... Ninguém (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The source shows that 52% of Gaúchos have one female Amerindian ancestor. It shows that they are far from being full-blooded Portuguese, because nobody in Portugal has Amerindian mtDNA. And the European ancestry of Gaúchos os closer to Spaniards. They are just a copy of countryside Argentina, not of Portugal. You don't have sources showing Portuguese origin of Gaúchos, so stop with theories. Opinoso (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"I already discussed it, and you gave no reason to remove it"

In this latest edit to the article, Opinoso reverts (changing "significant" to "significatn" etc etc), with the edit summary I already discussed it, and you gave no reason to remove it.

What's this "it"? Various things. Conspicuously first among them is a figure of 15 million, given by and attributed to Ayllón.

"You gave no reason to remove it." Really, Opinoso, have you already forgotten this section, close above? Within it, Ninguém and I give reasons to remove it. SamEV and you argued for its retention. Now, I find his and your arguments utterly unconvincing, mostly because of your (plural) failure (in my eyes) to discuss. (In the place of discussion, what we see is more like "If Ninguém can get one PoV in, then Opinoso should be able to get the other PoV in"; which would indeed be a good point if the two points of view had roughly comparable backing, but they do not.)

After that both Opinoso and Ninguém went off into calculations and extrapolations that seemed irrelevant to the authority of the single preambulatory sentence by Ayllón that Opinoso and SamEV are so keen to have cited, and so I lost interest.

Incidentally, Opinoso, with your edits of 02:43, 18:59, 22:30, you've made three reverts within 24 hours. Perhaps some admin will now protect the wrong version. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The prolificity of Portuguese colonists

So, Ninguém, how can you explain that only 500,000 Portuguese males were able to produce a population with over 120 million people alone? Magic? Opinoso (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the size of the White Brazilian population in 1872? 500,000?

Geometric progressions are geometric progressions, and they progress... geometrically. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So according to you geometric progressions only work for Portuguese, not for Italians, Germans or Spaniards? Opinoso (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the 15 million figure. Why? Because according to Ninguém, the 500,000 Portuguese males who settled in colonial Brazil left as descendants the "vast majority" of 90 million White Brazilians, let's say about 70 million people. Moreover, they also left about 100 million non-White descendants (Mulattoes, Caboclos, and so on). So, according to Ninguém, the 500,000 Portuguese left about 170 million descendants. Notice that most of those 500,000 Portuguese arrived in the 17th-century alone. The Spaniards started arriving in the late 19th century, and about 700,000 of them settled in Brazil.

Ninguém told us that 500,000 Portuguese had 170 million descendants in about 5 centuries (3 centuries, if we consider that most of them only arrived in the 17 century). Not forgeting that mortality rate was a thousand times higher in the 17th century than it was in the 20th century. So why couldn't 700,000 Spaniards had left 15 million descendants in Brazil in 130 years, in the same period that the fertility rate in Brazil was on top (women having 8 children and mortality rate much lower)?

500,000 Portuguese having 170 million descendants during 5 centuries, with all that high mortality rate and lack of women seems compatible with 700,000 Spaniards having 15 million descendants in 130 years, during the period that the Brazilian population grew most (from 10 million inhabitants in the lat 19th century to nearly 200 million nowadays). Remember that Spanish immigrants brought Spanish women to marry them, the colonial Portuguese did not, they had to desperatly seek Black women, whose children had outrageous high mortality rates. Opinoso (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So let's see how your blind belief fares when plotted against reality.

700 thousand Spaniards left 15 million descendents in 130 years (that's already absurd; most Spaniards only came in the early 20th century, 80 or 90 years ago - but let's ignore this for a moment). Should we then, proportionally, believe that 1.6 million Italians had 34 million descendants, and 1.6 million Portuguese immigrants had another 34 million descendants? And, so, that the descendants of Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish immigrants, together, make 83 million people? In this case, should we also believe, in keeping proportions, that the 3,5 million White Brazilians of 1872 - previous to all Spanish or Italian, and most Portuguese immigration, left us 80 million descendants, for a total White population of 163 million people, to be added to the 137 million descendants of the 6 million non-White Brazilians of 1872, to a total Brazilian population of 300 million?

Now lets look at those 3.5 million White Brazilians of 1872, overwhelmingly composed of descendants of Portuguese colonists. During the 1872 - 2000 period, the total population of Brazil increased from 9,930,000 people to 169,872,000 people (which is to say, it was multiplied by a factor of 17.11). But, of course, part of this increase was due to immigration. We can have a better notion of what part of this growth is due to endogenous growth if we look at the non-White population, that grew from 6,140,000 in 1872 to 78,574,00 in 2000, which is to say, it was multiplied by a factor of 12.79 during this period. If the endogenous growth of the White population was equivalent, we would expect the 3,500,000 Whites of 1872 to have multiplied into about 48.4 million people, which would be the majority of the 91,298,000 Brazilian Whites of 2000 (the remaining 42.9 million would be the result of immigration). Now, we perfectly know, as the whole literature tells us, that the fertility of White women in Brazil was higher than that of non-White women for most of the period, from 1872 to fifties or sixties of the 20th century. So we should know that this proportion (48 million Whites with no immigrant descent against 43 million Whites of immigrant descent) is an absolute minimum, the actual proportion being quite probably considerably higher.

So there is nothing extraordinary, up to now, with the 3.5 million Whites of 1872, overwhelmingly of old Portuguese descent, originating the majority of nowadays Brazilian Whites. To make it otherwise, it would be necessary that the fertility of White women of non-immigrant descent was consistently lower, during this period, than the fertility of non-White women - something all authorities in the field deny.

But perhaps the problem is in the 3.5 million Whites of 1872? Perhaps this figure is absurd, and incompatible with your deflated figure of 500,000 Portuguese colonial settlers to Brazil?

We have three estimates of the total population of Brazil in 1776; the lower is given by Daril Auden, at 1,788,480; the higher is Mortara's, at 2.7 million. If we suppose the proportion between Whites and non-Whites the same in 1776 than in 1872 (38.14%), we would have between 680,000 and 1.03 million Whites in 1776. This would mean the White population would have multiplied by some factor between 3.68 and 5.55 during this slightly shorter period. As you point out, this period would have a much slower populational growth than the 1872-2000 period, so these factors don't look particularly incompatible with the 12.79 factor of the later period. Now the point is, would a population of 680 thousand to 1 million Whites in 1776 be incompatible with the arrival of "mere" 500 thousand Portuguese during the 1530-1760 period? I would say, hardly. Indeed, even smaller factors than 368% per century would easily explain such figures.

And, so, here we are: again, you are mistaken. The figures that seem reasonable to you are in fact incompatible with real observations; the figures that keep you baffled in disbelief do quite squarely match available data. Moreover if we look at the data with the necessary attention: 700,000 Spaniards didn't arrive in block in 1872; rather their arrival was distributed between 1880 and 1960, with the highest numbers arriving between 1890 and 1896 and between 1910 and 1913. And, of course, a significant number of these immigrants returned to Spain, so those who actually left descendants in Brazil were not 700 thousand, but a rather smaller number, something around 500 thousand.

Now, I am pretty aware that you don't want to discuss this in a rational way. You will complain that I spend too much time in the internet, make veiled threats about what will happen to me when I leave it, complain that I write too much, that I have an excessively good English, that I am able to make friends, tell me that I am not of Portuguese descent, etc. But, unhappily for you, I don't care about it. This is a place for rational discussion, and I will try to discuss these issues rationally here. If you don't want to, that's your problem. Ninguém (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

500,000 Portuguese men could not produce the majority of nowadays White Brazilians, because they virtually had no Portuguese women to have children, so their "White" descendants were the result of sex with Black and Amerindian women, and it would take many generations to produce a notable "White" population. Look at Northeastern Brazil. The areas heavily settled by Portuguese colonizers can barely show a significant White population. They are dominated by Blacks, Mulattoes, Caboclos and their internal mixed. The small White population is usually the local elite, and even in those cases many of them are very mixed, but are still "White" because of their social status.

By the way, Brazilian census are not really serious, because most Brazilians (like you) cannot distinguish a White person from a mixed light person, and people tend to whiten themselves. Although you are always denying this fact, everybody knows it. So the 3.5 million Whites found in the 1870s census was only a "gross exxageration" (like you love to say). Most of those 3.5 million Whites were the common mix of Portuguese, Blacks and Amerindians, because of the simple fact that the Portuguese had virtually no Portuguese women to have sex and then have children. Unless you believe in magic or in children who are born out of the ground, Ninguém. Stop watching Rede Globo productions showing colonial Brazil full of rich White women walking on the streets with their fancy dresses. Portuguese women in Brazil were very rare, and most Brazilian women were Blacks and Amerindians who walked on the streets with shabby dresses or virtually naked. (poverty does not have big audience)

I work in the Law area and I have access to police papers, and they have the "race" of the person. I noticed that many people "change" their race as they change their clothes. In a paper a person is decribed as "White", in another paper the same person is described as "Pardo" (brown). Moreover, very few people are described as "Black" (preto) which only shows how fluid and pathetic racial classifications in Brazil are. I also have friends who work in IBGE censuses and they say whiten them.

The Portugues males could not produce many White descendants, because they had no White women to have sex. This is logical. Unless they were having White children who sprouted from the ground, all their descendants were mixed people, wich the exception of a few noble families who were able to import Portuguese women, but these are the rare exceptions. And this includes the Gaúchos, who lived in a poor area serrounded by Amerindian tribes, they had no Portuguese women to marry, forget about it. And you are not of Portuguese descent. You said you have "hints", it is a "possibility" like you love to say. Gaúchos are a mixed people like any other Brazilians. Forget about your folklore. Where's the your source saying Gaúchos are of Portuguese descent? Opinoso (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian censuses are not really serious? Source, please.

Most Brazilians cannot distinguish a White person from a mixed light person? According to whom? Where are the sources for this outrageous idea?

So your argument is that the figure of 3.5 million Whites of the 1872 census are an exaggeration. Fine. Give us an academic source that says that. When, or if, you do that, we can discuss about the reliability of the Brazilian census. But not if the only base for this questioning is your own authority.

It has been already explained to you that Brazilian Whites do have Amerindian and African ancestry. That doesn't mean that they aren't Whites; it is a gross, essentialist misinterpretation of yours.

And I don't watch TV, much less TV Globo. What has this personal attack to do with this article?

You work in the Law area? Poor Brazil. We have people working in the legal area that don't know the difference between jus soli and jus sanguini, and who believe in "illegal penalties". But, since you "work in the legal area", why don't you contribute to Wikipedia articles about Law, instead if trying to contribute to articles on anthropology or demography?

My ancestry is not of your business, and your continued attempt to discuss it here constitutes harassment. Please stop. Ninguém (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with your source claiming that Gaúchos are of Portuguese descent. Where is it? Opinoso (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Try, for instance, República Rio-Grandense: realidade e utopia, by Moacir Flores. It gives a good panoramic view of the demography of Rio Grande do Sul at the time of the transfer of the region of Missões from Spanish to Portuguese domain. Particularly interesting the tables at pages 62 and 67. The later gives you the whole population of the whole Missões region in 1814: about 8,000 people, of which 6,300 Indians and only 824 Whites. Sorry, but Missões had no significant demographic weight in a region of about 60,000 inhabitants at the time, and whatever weight it had was Amerindian, not Spanish. For other regions, Flores analyses data from baptism registers, and finds significant numbers of people from Laguna, Azores, Oporto, Braga, and a few from Sorocaba, Rio de Janeiro, Colônia do Sacramento, Guaratinguetá, Moji das Cruzes, Cuiabá (in Brazil), Viana (in Portugal), and half a dozen Spaniards and from Buenos Aires and Paraguay.

An that is it. If you read actual historians with published works on Rio Grande do Sul's history - Flores, Dacanal, Moysés Vellinho, Dante de Laytano, Riograndino da Costa e Silva, Sandra Pesavento, Arno Kern, etc., this is the predominant view about this issue. I don't think there is even a significant minority defending the idea that Gaúchos are mainly descended from Spaniards, nor that there are any historical events that point in such direction.

Now, for your sources. Ninguém (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Barbosa Lessa, in Rio Grande do Sul, prazer em conhecê-lo (pages 18-19), explains why the Spaniards were unable to settle in Rio Grande do Sul. In pages 27-29, he explains why the Spanish Crown allowed the Jesuits to make the experiment that became known as Missões/Misiones. Ninguém (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And your sources? Ninguém (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reinserting junk

In this edit, Opinoso readds a pile of dubious material with the edit summary Why are you removing sourced informations and contributions from other users? You're not the owner of the article. I think that a good riposte would be Because it's junk, as explained on the talk page. Incidentally, you too are not the owner of the article. Let's have rational argument here, Opinoso.

You may wish to start by explaining how a prefatory sentence by Ayllón is credible or merits recycling. An entire section above of this very talk page is devoted to this. Three people contributed, and although I disagree with SamEV I respect his point of view and his willingness to discuss. I think that what he says has been refuted. You're free to disagree. If you disagree, then what rational argument do you have for disagreeing? -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What's dubious about that genetic study? Is it dubious because user Ninguém told you it is dubious, or is it dubious because you have other genetic studies showing the opposite, that Spaniards did not have any genetic impact in the composition of people in Rio Grande do Sul?

And blame Ninguém. He over-edits articles, removing so many informations that when one revertes him, it is possible that the few informations that really should be removed (what you call junk) comes back. Opinoso (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I had been talking about a sentence written by Ayllón, perhaps based on data from an embassy. Which genetic study are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The genetic study that user Ninguém is despairingly removing from different articles of Wikipedia. The genetic studies concluded that Gaúchos are genetically closer to Spaniards than they are to Portuguese people. This study is not alone, there are other studies with the same conclusion. in English;

In the middle of all those waves of over-editions, Ninguém always removes this study. According to Ninguém (and only Ninguém), Gaúchos (like he claimed to be) were direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese". Opinoso (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice that, in the article before he decided to remove the information, he added fake "tags" as if the informations were not in the article. Opinoso (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The "information" is not in the paper, Opinoso. The paper talks about possibilities, you report it "revealing" things.

You should try to read what the sources have to say, instead of reading your own opinions into them. Ninguém (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The souce says nothing about "possibility". It said it found that Gaúchos are closer to Spaniards. And this is obvious, everybody knows that Western Rio Grande is a copy of countryside Argentina, with the exception of the language. You seem desperate because no sources claim that Gaúchos are direct descendants of "colonial Portuguese", like you were claiming everywhere. Why not admit that you were wrong? Opinoso (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And, Ninguém, you said you have "hints" that you are of Portuguese descent....that's why you seem so desperate, because as long as you are a Gaúcho, your ancestry will take you to a Spanish-Amerindian couple, not to Portuguese nobles...sorry to tell you that. Embrace what you really are, man, and forget folklore about Portuguese origin. Opinoso (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Western Rio Grande do Sul is a copy of countryside Argentina, there is nothing that I can do for you. It is dellusional beyond redemption.

You keep inventing things. I am pretty sure I have no noble ancestry, this is yet another of your weird fantasies. You were not invited to discuss my ancestry, and anyway this isn't the place to do it. I am formally asking you to stop trying to do so; your actions here constitute harassment, and are strictly forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Ninguém (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not the one indicated to discuss about Wikipedia rules, because all you do here is ownership of article, to remove sourced informations, over-editions and edit-warring, and you have virtually zero contributions for Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And Gaúchos are not of Portuguese descent, sorry to tell you that. I know you lived for several years believing in this fantasy. It's like when a Christian discovers that Jesus did not exist, for example. It hurts, but it's the reality. If you want to know where the Gaúchos came from, look to Spain and to an Amerindian tribe, with a predominance of Spain with some Africa in the mix. It's just a copy of countryside Argentina. If you want to see people of actual Portuguese descent, go to Rio de Janeiro.= or even Bahia. The Black people from Bahia are more Portuguese than those Gaúchos who are just an extension of Argentina. Opinoso (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So bring sources that support that view. Academic sources, historians or demographers, please. And stop your personal attacks, they are useless in this discussion. Ninguém (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to bring a source to support another source. Stop creating new rules for Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you do. See WP:V:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

So your sources need to be reliable. How do you establish their reliability? Through a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Where do you find such "reputation"? In other sources. Now understand this: no other source is going to cite Ayllon as an authority in demographics, because... he is not an authority in demographics. And so, there goes the reliability of your source. The opposite is the case of the 1998 July PME: it has been discussed by authorities in the area of demographics - Clevelário, Schwartzman, Petrucelli, Miranda-Ribeiro, etc. - because it is a relevant source in demographic studies. This is the difference. Ninguém (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article's title

It seems that renaming the article to "Brazilians of Spanish descent" was not a good idea, after all. Immediately after it was done, edit wars irrupted, in the intent to inflate figures and importance of the subject of the article, and, even, to reinstate the conflation between "Brazilians of Spanish descent" and "Spanish Brazilians", by stating that the former are "also known" as the latter (which is false and unsupported by any source).

So I am proposing to move it back to "Spanish Brazilians" and keep it exclusively about people who do have actual connections to Spanish culture. Ninguém (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You were the one who changed this article's name, and now you want to move it back to its original name? Stop playing games. And stop deciding which informations belong or not to this article. You're not the one who decides it. Opinoso (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it per discussion with user SamEV, who was the one who proposed it. I have now concluded that the change made it easier for you to create disruptions here. The permanent conflation between Brazilians of Spanish descent and "Spanish Brazilians" continues. Ninguém (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the disruptive user here. Opinoso (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose no one opposes moving it back to "Spanish Brazilian"? Ninguém (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The real history of the Gaúchos

Historically, the colonization of Rio Grande do Sul began effectively with Azorean couples. Before that there was no substantial European presence either Spanish or Portuguese (except for the Jesuits and sporadic incursions of the Bandeirantes). Genetically, I think it is not possible to differentiate paternal Spanish and Portuguese lineages, as they are practically the same. The mtDNA of the Gaúchos surprised me, as it is lower than that of Argentina (a common given figure is 56%), and lower than that of the interior of Uruguay (about 60%). Getúlio Vargas, João Goulart, Luís Carlos Prestes, Érico Veríssimo, the Baron of Mauá, and Borges do Canto (the Gaúcho hero of Rio Grande do Sul), just to mention a few, had Azorean ancestry, which was the starting point of European colonization in that region. European heritage, without a doubt, which is responsible for the largest share of the genetic heritage of the people of that region (from the autosomal point of view). The Jesuits may have left descendants. As the Bandeirantes left. But Rio Grande do Sul was basically empty. The occupation of Uruguay came before, and there a dispute between the Portuguese and the Spaniards for the dominion of that region, and it lasted a long time. Colônia do Sacramento was founded by the Portuguese already at the XVII century, and the Spaniards founded Montevideo. The occupation of Rio Grande do Sul came later, mostly done by Azorean couples, what was standard for border regions in the colony of Brazil (it was done also in Santa Cantarina, and before in Maranhão and Pará). As for Spanish ancestry it is present in other regions of Brazil, not being a distinctive characteristic of Rio Grande do Sul then. After all, the Bueno, the Camargo, the Godoy, and so many other Bandeirante branches trace their origin to Spanish settlers who went to São Paulo in the centuries XVI and XVII. On the other hand, over 700000 Spaniards immigrated to Brazil after our independence, and most of them went to São Paulo, not to Southern Brazil.Grenzer22 23:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. All historic knowledge points to a predominance of Portuguese presence in the region, be it Azorean or lagunista. This is well supported by linguistic data: the region speaks Portuguese, and has spoken Portuguese from the 18th century, when this language superceded, not Castillian, but Guarani and other Amerindian languages. Andrea Rita Marrero's paper goes against this mainstream view and seems unsupported by any other sources. Moreover, when she discusses European vs Amerindian genetic ancestry, she gives details about what haplogroups support her findings, with tables, percents, and detailed discussion. When she discusses Portuguese vs Spanish genetic ancestry, there is nothing similar, just guesses and possibilities; no haplogroups are named and discussed, there are no tables, no percents, no verifiable discussion.

Indeed, I would like to know what haplogroups can be considered reliable markers of Spanish vs Portuguese ancestry; after all, the historic origin of both (Spanish and Portuguese) population is similar. The first actual noticeable separation between Portugal and Spain dates from 409-585 AD (the Swabian and Visigoth realms in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire); but it is well know that both Swabians and Visigoths left smallish imprints in the demographic of the region. During the Reconquista, Portugal was indeed a feud of Castille up to 1139 (I wonder when this will be brought into discussion, to prove that all Brazilians - as well as all Portuguese - are of Spanish descent). Is there any user with actual knowledge in the field of genetics that can help us with that?

I suppose when you say that the "mtDNA of the Gaúchos surprised me, as it is lower than that of Argentina (which is 56%), and lower than that of the interior of Uruguay (about 60%)" you are refering to Amerindian MtDNA? Do you have cites for those figures? This would be very interesting. Ninguém (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your post. The study is not conclusive at all (clearly wrong in my view, at it is not possible distinguish Portuguese from Spanish paternal lineages - yDNA), and historically Rio Grande do Sul effectively began to be colonized by the Portuguese, nobody else. That's why Portuguese language is so overwhelming there, and Spanish never was. Yes, I was referring to amerindian mtDNA, which is lower among the Gaúchos of Rio Grande do Sul than it is in Argentina or the interior of Uruguay:

"De esta manera, considerando los resultados en su conjunto se ha podido comprobar que en la muestra considerada más del cincuenta por ciento de las muestras exhiben haplogrupos mitocondriales característicos de las poblaciones originarias, 52% en la muestra de la región Centro, 56% en la muestra del Sur-SurOeste y 66% en la región Nor-NoeEste. En promedio, menos del 40% (36.4%) de la población exhibe ambos linajes no amerindios, pudiendo ser europeo, asiático o africano".

http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html

Substantial native American female contribution to the population of Tacuarembóó, Uruguay, reveals past episodes of sex-biased gene flow

For many years it has been assumed that the population of Uruguay is almost exclusively European-derived and that the biological contribution of the native population as well as of individuals of African descent is negligible. Several recent studies based on a variety of genetic markers, mostly morphological and serological markers, have produced quite a different picture of the constitution of the Uruguayan population. The Native American contribution varies from 1-20%, while the African contribution ranges from 7-15%, in different regions of the country. In the present study we examine the way the admixture process took place in Uruguay by analyzing the ancestry of maternal lineages in a sample from the northern city of Tacuarembóó. To accomplish this goal we typed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers of Native American, African, and European origin and estimated the proportions of each parental group in the admixed population. We found that 62% of all mtDNA haplogroups were of Native American descent, a surprising figure considering the European roots of the country. Consequently, this result assimilates Uruguay to the rest of Latin American populations where sex-biased gene flow between European men and Native American women has been the rule. We further analyzed the distribution of the four major founding mitochondrial lineages in Tacuarembóó and compared it to other South American populations. We discuss our findings in the light of historical records and assess the need for additional genetic studies. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:289-297, 2004. ©© 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/108068634/abstract Grenzer22 (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. Specially because it again shows how irrelevant MtDNA is to the overall genome: a population in which 62% has Amerindian MtDNA displays only 1-20% Amerindian autosomal markers. It shows what sex-biased gene flow is able to do in a few generations. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, mtDNA is not useful to quantify the total genetic contribution, for this one needs the autosomal studies (the yDNA and mtDNA are useful to trace sex biased patterns and the history of conquest, but NOT to quantify or establish the real amount of genetic contribution to a given population). This study from Argentina highlights it very well:

"Regarding autosomal evidence of admixture, the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively. In this study we analyzed a sample of the urban population of La Plata, Argentina, using 17 mtDNA haplogroups, the DYS 199 Y-chromosome polymorphism, and 5 autosomal population-associated alleles (PAAs). The contribution of native American maternal lineages to the population of La Plata was estimated as 45.6%, whereas the paternal contribution was much lower (10.6%), clearly indicating directional mating. When admixture was calculated at the individual level, we found a low correlation between the ancestral contribution estimated with uniparental lineages and autosomal markers. Most of the individuals from La Plata with a native American mtDNA haplogroup or the DYS199*T native American allele show a genetic contribution at the autosomal level that can be traced primarily to Europe. The results of this study emphasize the need to use both uniparentally and biparentally inherited genetic markers to understand the history of admixed populations”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15754971 Grenzer22 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any user with actual knowledge in the field of genetics that can help us with that? I'd hope that some of the denizens of this talk page would understand the subject. I strongly advise you not to name names in (or otherwise personalize) any discussion of the edit warring that's been going on: (i) if you did so, it might look as if you were canvassing for support for yourselves (whereas of course what you're after is an accurate summary of the facts as published in reliable sources); (ii) people keen on the thoughtful editing of informative articles tend not to want to get embroiled in edit wars between camps. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)