Dpecego
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Portuguese Brazilian edit
I see you've added a lot of material to Portuguese Brazilian. But as far as I can see, none of it specifies its sources. As "WP:V" and other policy pages explain, material must be "sourced", otherwise readers have no reason to believe it, and it may be removed. So if you believe that this new material is worthwhile, please specify the sources as quickly as possible. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam, notwithstanding a few minor edits, I've actually added little to the page myself, but rather restored it to its original form. You'll notice that another user who goes by the name of "Ninguém" has repeatedly deleted the entire section on early settlement and colonization. In so far as the information contained therein, it is mainly common knowledge. For instance, the fact that some of the early settlers "...were Sephardi Jews who had been expelled from Portugal by the Inquisition" is quite well-known and appears in many other Wikipedia articles (i.e. Inquisition, Sephardi Jews, History of the Jews in Brazil, etc.), likewise unsourced. However, if there are additional details which you feel must be sourced to ensure greater reliability, be so kind as to point them out to me. What should not be allowed, though, is the systematic deletion of over 3 centuries of colonial history vis-a-vis Portuguese immigration to Brazil. One does not observe such selective amnesia in comparable articles, notably English American or Afro-Brazilian. Certainly, the overall quality of this article can be improved, yet erasing the past is not an academically acceptable option, in my view. -- Dpecego (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Anybody editing a Wikipedia article and reminded of its flaws can easily point to one, several, or a great number of inherently comparable articles that are equally or more defective. This is because the level of Wikipedia is low (and notoriously so). There's common knowledge and common knowledge: what's common knowledge among moderately educated people in Brazil may not be common knowledge among moderately well educated people (let alone others) elsewhere. Further, some of what's common knowledge is later shown to be mistaken. So even if all this material is to be found in a recent compact history book, do please cite the history book, complete with page numbers. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the first time that articles like English American have been proposed as an analogy for articles on hyphenated Brazilians (Afro-Brazilian is a different thing, if for no other reason, because "Africa" isn't a country like Portugal, and consequently "African" is not a national identity like "Portuguese" - this of course doesn't prevent the article from being misnamed, which is very well reflected by the fact that no actual source is provided for the claim implied in its title). So let's take a look on English American.
- It starts with this definition: English Americans (occasionally known as Anglo-Americans, although this may have a wider linguistic meaning) are citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England. I doubt very much this definition is even close to anything real, but let's keep with it. The second sentence in the article is According to American Community Survey in 2008 data, Americans reporting English ancestry made up an estimated 9.0% of the total U.S. population. This is an obvious conflation: "Americans reporting English ancestry" is one thing; "citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England" is another. For instance, many, if not most, Black Americans, are "citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England", but I very much doubt they are "Americans reporting English ancestry".
- But let's ignore this lack of precise definition aside; after all, the article itself acknowledges that "However, demographers regard this as an undercount as the index of inconsistency is high, and many, if not most, people from English stock have a tendency to identify simply as Americans or, if of mixed European ancestry, nominate a more recent and differentiated ethnic group". There is one thing that is undeniable here: the United States conduct systematical research on what they call "ancestry" of its citizens, which provides us with data, if not about "English Americans" as defined in the article's first line, at least about "Americans reporting English ancestry". Happily or unhappily, Brazil does not conduct such researchs, and so, we do not have systematically comparable data about either "Portuguese Brazilians" or "Brazilians reporting Portuguese ancestry". Indeed, we only have very fragmentary evidence about this - the 1998 July PME and a few University censuses, like the USP's. So, up to here, we already will find it very difficult to make Portuguese Brazilian a mere transposition of English American to a different couple of countries.
- The following sentences in English American underline its inability to even define what it is talking about: they supposedly were 9% of the American population in 2008, but 26.34% in 1980 - two figures so widely incompatible, that they only show the data are unreliable, at least without a careful explanation of the difference between the 2008 research and the 1980 census.
- Then we have a sentence about people like George Washington being of "English extraction". No doubt they were. Does this imply they were "English Americans"? Did the concept even exist at that time? Or are we simply superimposing ideas that only became popular two centuries later into people who never thought in these terms - an anachronism, in other words?
- After this confuse and confusing lead, English American deals with numbers. It is then able to show us a series of tables and maps of census data, all of which, of course, refer to "Americans who report English (and, for the sake of comparison, non-English) ancestry". That these figures refer to "citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England" remains unproved; that either of these definitions fit the concept of "English American" is still an unsourced claim. "Original research", I think it is called. But, anyway, a similar set of tables or maps is impossible regarding Brazil, as we don't have equivalent data (this is the reason, naturally, that hyphenated Brazilian articles resort to data of the lowest quality, claims by embassies and commercial associations, when not to internet viral memes, instead of census data).
- Then English American has a (completely unsource) section called "History", which is what you feel is lacking in "Portuguese Brazilians". It seems to talk more about Americans who are not of "English extraction" than about "English Americans" themselves; but, in any case, it seems to take for granted that the descendants of English colonists from before 1776 are "English Americans". This may well be true; my own ignorance of the United States precludes me from even questioning this. But what feeble knowledge I have about Brazil allows me to state clearly that, if this is the case, an analogy with Brazil and "Portuguese Brazilians" is completely wrong. People whose ancestors came from Portugal before the 19th century (and, indeed, much later) are not considered "Portuguese Brazilians" in Brazil; indeed, I doubt even children of Portuguese immigrants in Brazil would be considered "Portuguese Brazilians" unless they make a point of it, which most don't. Are we trying to write an article about people who are considered "Portuguese Brazilians", or an article about people who would be considered "Portuguese Brazilians" if Brazilians related to them in the same way Americans relate to their ancestors - which apparently they don't?
- Then there is a (poorly sourced) section about English immigration to the United States. It fails to compare the reported numbers of immigrants with the previously reported proportion of "English Americans" in the American society; it fails to compare both with the reported numbers of non-English immigrants and the reported proportions of non-English Americans. Perhaps this is better developed in other article, such as Immigration to the United States, but then this section also fails to point to any other article as a "main article".
- Then, after a section about "Political involvement" (which includes a subsection on the Founding Fathers, something that has absolutely no equivalent in Brazil), comes a poorly sourced section about "Sense of identity", that, frankly, smells fish. See: Americans of English heritage are often seen as simply "American" due to the many cultural ties between the two countries and their impact on the American population which has hardly disappeared. Or, in other words, many (most?) people that are being reported here as "English Americans" per the lead definition do not consider themselves "English Americans" and are not considered such by anyone else. In what sence, then, are they "English Americans"? What does this category mean? And then: Cultural identity such as being Protestant, having Thanksgiving, playing baseball and speaking the language of their ancestors is celebrated without realising and are taken as American traditions. Well, Baseball may be an English invention, but its popularity is an American phenomenon, in no way matched in England. Thanksgiving seems to be an American tradition with no relation to England (though, of course, this could be another Wikipedia blunder). Protestantism is much wider than either England or the United States, but the importance of denominations is clearly different, with the Church of England representing 20% in the United Kingdom, while in the United States Baptism and Methodism predominate (I doubt Anglicanism would be taken for granted as an "American tradition").
- Then a section about language, that, for the most part, has nothing to do with the subject of the article, followed by "American cultural icons". About this, I will cherrypick this example: Apple pie - New England was the first region to experience large scale colonization in the early 17th century, beginning in 1620, and it was dominated by East Anglian Calvinists, better known as the Puritans. Baking was a particular favorite of the New Englanders and was the origin of dishes today seen as quintessentially "American", such as apple pie and the baked Thanksgiving turkey. "As American As Apple Pie" is a well known phrase used to imply everything that is All-American. I have always assumed, probably mistakenly, that apple pies are a cultural borrowing from Germany. Now, maybe they aren't, but this article doesn't say anything to convince me. It says that New England was first colonised by Puritans (which seems irrelevant to the issue of apple pies, or is there some connection between this religion and apple pies that I am missing?), then that baking was a particular favourite of New Englanders (but many things can be baked, and, frankly, it is difficult to imagine any offshot of European civilisation that doesn't make extensive use of this technique - the Portuguese, for instance, baked many things, but not particularly apple pies). So that it "was the origin of many dishes today seen as quintessentially American" such as apple pies and baked turkeys seems quite a leap.
- There is more, such as Two of the world's most famous soft drinks were invented by Americans of English descent. Pemberton and Alderton are both English surnames, which doesn't even try to make the case that this has anything to do with "English Americans" - (because the surnames are English, is it completely impossible that they were of Scottish or Irish "extraction"?)
- In short, though my knowledge of both United States and England is quite inexistent, this article seems so poor, contradictory, and unsourced, that I doubt very much it should be used as a standard concerning the writing of Portuguese Brazilian (or any other article, for that matter). Ninguém (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hoary, while I appreciate the link you sent me, I firmly believe that, at least as a free source of information, Wikipedia is not so bad. In any case, I have already cited the sentence dealing with Sephardi Jewish settlement in Brazil during the early colonial period, as well as another phrase related to more detailed data on the influx of Azorean colonists in Southern Brazil. That being said, I still would like to know what you feel goes beyond the realm of "common knowledge" and, thus, should be referenced. Collaboration tends to be more fruitful than criticism, however well-intentioned or constructive the latter may be. -- Dpecego (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Portuguese Brazilian edit
Good work at Portuguese Brazilian!!
User Ninguén was trying to ruin that article until you appeared there and fixed the mess he was doing there.
Ninguen ain't serious.
Keep working, don't leave Wikipedia or he will ruin it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.47.10 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions on Africa edit
Hi Smcc1112, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Africa. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)