Talk:Northeast Region, Brazil

untitled

Since no one objected, I am now merging Northeastern Brazil into this article. Travelbird 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Northeastern Brazilian Portuguese

There should a (language-related) article on the Northeastern Brazilian Portuguese dialect, similar to the article e.g. on Southern American English. 201.52.32.9 11:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I should like to see one as well. —— 71.235.66.254 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Where are they for this article??Kemet 02:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism

There is indeed some prejudice in Brazil against northeasterners, namely in São Paulo. The slangs "paraíba" and "baiano" are often taken as prejudicial slur. This prejudice is not properly "racism" as it is not directed towards either blacks or whites, but against people born in the North-East, regardless of skin color. Sometimes this racism surfaces even in the media:

http://www.180graus.com/home/materia.asp?id=84104

This article is about an infamous article published by O Estado do Paraná, a Brazilian newspaper from Curitiba, Paraná in which journalist Alex Gutenberg profusely attacks the roots of Northeastern culture and the region's stronger miscigenation.

http://www.igeduca.com.br/antenado/checktemplate.cfm?action=view&sec_id=89&mat_id=4734

This article goes further, analysing the characteristics of racism towards northeasterners. It starts with the infamous quote by Edmundo, the famous Brazilian footballer who once said "A gente vem jogar na Paraíba e colocam um paraíba para apitar, só podia dar nisso" ("We come to play Paraíba and they choose a Paraiban as a referee, that is what could happen") after being sent off in a match between Vasco da Gama and ABC for the 1997 Copa do Brasil (note: neither ABC nor the referees were from Paraíba. ABC is from Natal, Rio Grande do Norte and the referee was from Ceará).

edmundo is a mullatoe of rio and envy the mestizos of northeast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.197.250 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edmundo is not a mulatto, though he probably has mixed ancestry (as most Brazilians do have). In a Brazilian perspective, he is "white" (though in the United States it wouldn't be accepted). But what matters here is that being considered so in his cultural context enables him to act as such. Nevertheless, prejudice against northeasterners is not at all related to skin color, but to the mixed ancestry reflected in their general appearance. As an interesting side note, the Northeast was the first region of Brazil settled by Italian and German colonists. The first have left the surname "Cavalcanti" (very common in the N.E.) and the German/Dutch brought during the Dutch lef surnames like "Vanderlei" (van der Ley). The blue eyes often seen in the North East trace their origins back then. jggouvea (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RIO DE JANEIRO = ONLY HAVE N1GGG3RS WITH ENVY AGAINST HISPANICS OF REST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.6.32 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Social Problems

Moving this section to here until reliable source is added to it. --ClaudioMB (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Northeast is the poorest region of Brazil, with the worst Human Development Index rates of the country, mainly in the rural areas, which suffer from long periods without rain. This is somewhat ironic since the Northeast, during Brazil's colonial era when sugar production was higher, was the most prosperous region in all of South America. Public education and health care are problematic, malnutrition is a reality for some people living in these areas, literacy is about 78% and child labor is a concern, as is child prostitution in major cities. Prostitution in the major cities has become an enormous problem, caused largely by the low Brazilian minimum wage as well as sexual tourism. In contrast to the situation occurring in the other Brazilian regions where social problems are worse in bigger cities, social problems in the Northeast regions are worse in the rural and small communities of the interior, lessening in bigger cities near the coast. Some diseases are still common such as tuberculosis and yellow fever and there have been several recent outbreaks of widespread dengue fever especially along the eastern seaboard and otherwise near watery areas where the Aedes aegypti mosquito breeds. Brazil's Ministry of Health, with limited resources, has tried to combat these outbreaks.

Caatinga biome?

How can an article on northeastern Brazil fail to mention even once, the Caatinga biome?? It gets as close as Sertao (backlands), but that describes their accessibility (water is a long way away), not the nature of the biome. Surely, we could at least add Caatinga to the See Also links! Sbalfour (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

JA VI PAISAGENS DO KANSAS E ARIZONA PARECIDAS COM ESSE BIOMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.6.32 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities section cleanup

I don't know whether to flag this whole section for cleanup, or do something at once. It's a matter of proportion: the list is exhaustive rather than exemplary. It's everybody who's anybody (errrrrr... maybe that should be everybody who's nobody?) from the northeast. I can immediately think of several alternatives: move the whole list except for a handful (that's 5 or fewer) into a footnote; move the whole list into another article (would that article be justified on its own?); put the list into a collapsible box. Sorting the list into sublists by what they're famous for (like Arts, Sciences, Media, Politics, Business) would help make sense of this random data. One way or another, it needs to be winnowed down - it's of marginal value to the article. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. Sbalfour (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For now, I've divided this list into a handful of categories like Arts & Letters, Science and Math, etc. and regularized the format of the items to be <name>, <profession>, <description>. I've shortened descriptions to no more than 2 lines and deleted "Brazilian" from the description - they're all from Brazil. I've also deleted annotations like "famous", "notable", "important", "brilliant", etc (WP:editorializing), because in general, that's why they're on this list.Sbalfour (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I should note that none of the other Brazil top level articles: Brazil, regions, states, municipalities have sections of Celebrities. Neither do other countries or their political subdivisions articles have such sections. It's a list of trivia, like an almanac. It doesn't belong here, or anywhere. Sbalfour (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to define a Celebrity for this purpose as having at least 1,000,000 Google hits on the quoted name on Jan.16, 2014. I doubt many of these persons will survive the cut. For comparison, "John Kasich", U.S. governor of Ohio in 2014, a minor political figure not generally known outside the U.S. midwest, has 1.25 million hits. If 5 or fewer persons remain on the list following the cut, I'll select the ten persons with the highest number of hits to remain on the list.Sbalfour (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There were 12 names from the original list of celebrities that made the 1,000,000 Google hits cutoff, and one that was so close that I included him. I also mentioned 6 previous presidents of Brazil, but referred to the relevant section of another article. This list is a list of exemplars, i.e. examples to show that the region is big enough or well enough developed to have some people known outside of Brazil, or outside South America. I doubt that the persons left on the list even make that criteria. I'm going to police this list; if it grows beyond 15 persons, I'm going to cut it back to a handful again. The list really belongs in an article Celebrities of Brazil section Celebrities from the Northeast, but I'm not going to create that article because WP: wikipedia is not an almanac.Sbalfour (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Northeast livestock section data

A table of data like that presented is out of date the day it's copied into the wiki. It's certainly out of date today (Jan. 11, 2014). A wiki article is a concise summary of its subject, not exhaustive detail. The table is already summarized in the text; cite the source and let the reader read the study for further info. This is just padding the article. Sbalfour (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to vanish the livestock table for these reasons:

1) almanac (datedness) - the data is from 2007; some of the studies supporting the data go as far back as 2002. This is Jan. 2014, and the data is already 7 years out of date and bad enough to be seriously misleading. This is exactly thin kind of data we don't want here (WP:wikipedia is not an almanac);

2) level of detail - we don't need a breakdown by state here, nor by animal; we'd like to know something about the proportional contribution of ranching to the economic output of the region, and that info is not given;

3) proportion - the relative size of this section is huge, and the relative importance of the information negligible. The data needs to be summarized and placed into perspective versus other economic production. Sbalfour (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this section. A one-sentence summary of ranch production would be plausable, with figures for meat, diary, eggs, and other (leather, etc); it can be added later. Even that would be of negligible importance, of interest only to ranchers and economists, considering that figures for coffee, sugar, cotton, oil, hydroelectric power, produce, manufactured goods and the value of labor, services and information processing are not mentioned at all.Sbalfour (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

History section chronology inverted

The opening paragraph talks about the sugar mills (that would be 17th and 18th centuries), but the second paragraph takes us back to 1500, and the third paragraph goes back to 1493. Maybe the first paragraph can just be deleted? It's kind of out of place, like it just got left there when somebody else wrote the rest of the section. Sbalfour (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Demographics section (Largest cities table moved)

I've moved the largest cities table under the Political Subdivisions section leaving Demographics section empty. That section should have info like:

• how many people are employed/unempoyed/on welfare or other assistance
• how many are rich/poor/middle class
• how many have a high school diploma/college degree/post-grad degrees
• how many families own cars/TVs/cellphones
• how many live in urban/suburban/rural areas
• how many are in farming/ranching/business/politics/professions/armed forces
• how many are Indian/Portuguese/Spanish/other descent?
• how many are under 18/18-25/25-55/55 and older
• how many own their homes/rent/homeless
• how many are of Catholic/protestant/other faith

etc.

It's supposed to answer the question, what are the people like? Sbalfour (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition subsection

This section essentially copied the text of a study into the wiki. It might even be copyvio. It contains text like "we analyzed the information content of 28 ancestry-informative SNPs into multiplexed panels..." Can somebody tell me in English what that means? If we must, the entire study should be moved into a footnote, and a concise summary paragraph inserted into the article. Better yet, summarize the study, cite it, and let the reader follow the reference for further info. 184.76.111.134 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the Ethnics Groups and Ethnic Composition (sub)sections to be under Demographics, because that's where they belong.Sbalfour (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to move the Ethnic Composition subsection to article Regions of Brazil article for the following reasons:

1) 80% of the data isn't relevant to this article about one region

2) almanac - data out of date

3) level of detail - needs understandable suummary, move detail into footnote, or leave out completely

4) technical level - needs to be rewritten in vernacular English, and summarized

Sbalfour (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Infrastructure section

Do I really want to know that some airport has a coffee shop on the second level? What happens when the shop closes? We give minute details of three airports, but say nothing about:

• trains & train stations, buses & bus terminals, streetcars
• oil refineries and oil wells
• bridges, tunnels and highways
• dams
• electrical generating stations
• natural gas production, storage facilities and pipelines
• ships and seaports
• navigable rivers, river ports, barges and river boats
• armed forces bases (air, naval, army)
• water and sewage processing plants
• landfills
• mines
• steel mills/sugar mills/etc
• television stations/newspapers/radio stations

etc. I think the section needs to be re-drafted. Sbalfour (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Urban areas and Rural areas -> orphaned section

This section isn't big enough to stand alone - it could be part of Geography, Demographics or even Infrastructure, and needs to be merged in somewhere. Sbalfour (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this into a subsection under Demographics, since urban vs rural is fundamentally a demographic metric.Sbalfour (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Education section

This section is one sentence and a list of universities. The list of universities is more like Infrastructure. The one sentence about Portuguese probably belongs in the intro; even uneducated people speak the language, often more than one language. So this section evaporates unless there's something more to say.Sbalfour (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

intro

It may be sufficient for a Brazilian or South American to define a region of the country in terms of its political subdivisions (i.e. states), but if you're from United States like me, I have no idea where those states are. The region should be defined by the geography, so anyone unfamiliar with the country knows immediately what the boundaries are. I would suggest an opening statement something like: The Northeast region of Brazil is one of five geographic regions of Brazil extending from the Atlantic coast on the northeast and southeast, northwest and west to the Amazon basin and southwest to the highlands of the Serra de Espinhaco mountains. Moreover, this is only one of several possible definitions, all of which are relevant: hydrological (drainage basins of Parnaiba and Sao Francisco Rivers), geological (the Eastern Brazilian Shield formed by an old basement of Precambrian crystalline rocks), ecological (Caatinga, with a bit of Cerrado and Atlantic forest) and geophysical (east and west longitudes, north and south latitudes). Climatological and topographical definitions are also possible, and should be covered either in the intro or elsewhere. Sbalfour (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Keeping information arbitrarily removed

I have made some edits so as to keep the article as it was. The detailed genetic info on Northeast Brazil was moved out of the article, and no source was left. The Northeast of Brazil is often misrepresented, so the detailed information is relevant.

The pics should not have been arbitrary removed, since they are also representative of Northeast Brazil.

And the list of the many notable Brazilians is important, not to be reduced to a few numbers. Northeast Brazil is an outstanding region, and the complete list gives testimony to it.Grenzer22 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ACHO QUE SÓ O ULTIMO TESTE AUTOSSOMICO CONFERE COM A AUTO DECLARAÇÃO DO IBGE EM QUE 75% DOS ESTADOS DA ZONA CAFEEIRA APARECEM MAIS NEGROS E SÓ O RECONCAVO NO NE APARECE NO TOP 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.6.32 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

MESMO SP QUE É O MENOS NEGRO EM PROPORÇÃO TEM MAIS NEGROS EM NUMEROS ABSOLUCTOS E ENEGRIZANTES QUE O GROSSO DOS ESTADOS DO BRASIL A PROPRIA REGIÃO SUL NOS ESTADOS COM MAIS NEGROS APARECEM NA FRENTE DE VARIOS ESTADOS TIPO AMAZONAS CUJO DNA É MAIS PARECIDO COM O DE PAÍSES VIZINHOS TIPO BOLIVIA COM MAIS COMPONENTE NATIVO E MENOS COMPONENTE NEGRO E-OR OCIDENTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.6.32 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction of the HDI?

Please correct the HDI information for the region, the current HDI of the region is 0.710 considered high. See the page of the same in the article in Portuguese. Barkins17 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't "Northeastern Brazil" a better name (like [[Midwestern United States)?

Vandergay (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Cangaceiros section

This article is constantly attacked by residents of this region who do not know how to edit Wikipedia. The "cangaceiros" section has no sources and is unnecessary, leaving the "history" section gigantic. The article works as a general summary and if anyone wants more details, they should go to the corresponding sub-articles. Other bad users tend to place unnecessary political advertisements and try to maintain praise on a page that should try to remain neutral. I ask that you do not "watch" articles from the Northeast Region of Brazil and the Northeast states as if they were your property, this is also against Wikipedia rules. You have been on top of these articles since 2020, under clear "vigilance". 2804:14D:5C87:8E8C:40EC:184E:9175:38E1 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Couple things to note:

1. As per WP:NOCITE, unless it's a biography or just blatantly absurd, you should not be deleting entire sections just because they are unsourced. I agree that the lack of sources is a problem in this section, but it should be dealt with by adding an {{unreferenced section}} template or by finding sources yourself. See also the guidelines on content removal, which state: When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information [not our situation], it can be boldly removed.
2. I also agree that the section is too detailed for an article like this and should be both copy edited for tone/grammar and pared down; it definitely takes up way too much space in the History section. Again, this does not entail deleting it altogether, as some of the information is still valuable.
3. I appreciate the ad hominem attack but I do not live in this region, nor have I ever even visited it. I was born and raised in Canada.
4. You are correct in stating that I keep vigilance over this page and other pages related to the Northeast region, but the reason I do so is because they are often the target of discriminatory vandalism and there aren't a lot of other people paying attention to them.

--Nsophiay (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea, actually. What would you say about me trying to improve the Cangaceiros section in my Sandbox or something, and then once I'm done, you and other editors (I will post it on the article talk page) can take a look and see if it's satisfactory? If, on the other hand, we conclude that even with improvements, the section is not worth salvaging, we can keep your edits. --Nsophiay (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Better not, leave it as it is. I'll explain what happens: Bahia and the Northeast Region are the equivalent for the rest of Brazil, in a light version, from the South of Italy to the North of Italy; or, from Palestine to Israel. It's Brazilian Afghanistan. The population there is the least literate in the country, the one that receives the worst education, the one that acts in the most violent way (there is the 'fish knife culture' in Alagoas and this topic about Cangaceiros is also a reflection of this, Cangaceiros were basically bandits) which produces less, has a bad economy, but paradoxically the population there thinks their region is the most impressive thing in the world (they are almost xenophobic, no one can say anything negative about their region or they become violent), they think they live in paradise and that the rest of the country has to bow to their wishes. And to top it off, they have caused problems in the last elections by voting in the opposite way to what the rest of the country votes. The rest of the country is organizing boycotts of tourism in the region and there are people talking about separating the Northeast and letting them fend for themselves. On Wikipedia, several people from the Northeast pay off-color praise for their region and describe it as if their region were Dubai, when it looks like Africa in economic and cultural terms. They exaggerate too much. There has already been users blocked from the Portuguese Wiki because of this xenophobia. So I don't understand that anyone deserves to protect articles from Bahia and the Northeast, we have to make sure it doesn't become something unrealistic.2804:14D:5C87:8E8C:2810:B157:91DF:6EB1 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the actual content of the article, I'm all ears; there are many ways to improve it, and I'd be glad to hear your suggestions (apart from straight-up deleting it). But if all you want to do is air out your grievances and prejudices about a certain group of people you don't like, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. I'd like to reach a consensus with you on the content of the article, so that we don't have to take any further steps in the dispute resolution process (see WP:NEGOTIATE).

Also, these discussions should happen on the article talk page, not my user talk page. --Nsophiay (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)