This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
A member of the
Guild of Copy Editors,
Pax85, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 30 June 2015. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{
copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our
project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: various cleanup issues, especially citations, prose, and possible merges |
This page ,though it has some information already posted on another page for Pernambuco, is specific to the history of the state of Pernambuco and provides more details to the reader, to learn more. It also provides connections to other pages for more detailed accounts of historic events in Pernambuco as they pertain to that subject.
Sincerely, Joseph Corno— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcorno ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 October 2010
deciding whether to split off this material depends on how extensive it is, and how long the main article is. In my personal opinion, either way would be appropriate, & you need to discuss it, preferably on the main article talk p., which will get the more attention. But I have som suggestions, at least for now: First, The part on the colonial history is already covered in the main article about as well as here. Why not just supplement it a little. Second, the part on the Revolution in the main article is inadequate. Why not turn the section here into a separate article about it (it can be easily done by retitling this page--I can do it for you if you have difficulties--ask on my talk page).There is good precedent for separating out pages dealing with specific wars and revolutions. And I note the history after incorporation into Brazil is not really covered at all. And, most important, there's one thing missing from this article: References. I'd suggest starting with the most widely available English language book about the history, and adding whatever are the most authoritative Spanish ones. However you do it, good luck with it. ~
I can see no justification for having material on this topic in tow places. If any of the content of this article can be properly sourced it should be merged into the other article, if not it should be removed, and in either case this article should be deleted. Rather than nominate the article for deletion now I will leave it for a short while to allow time for sourcing/merging if appropriate.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The History of Pernambuco has now gotten scattered among about 25 articles, most of them smacking of history buff trivia ( Recapture of Recife, for example). This article, supposedly the lead article, is in need of rewrite. One section appears to be a hoax. Three other sections don't belong here, but somewhere else. The things that matter, economics and politics, are barely covered. This article has been written from pieces cut and pasted from a Google book preview and a recent movie about Lampião, (i.e. the Brazilian equivalent of a U.S. western), among others. There's probably enough to constitute a separate article - Pernambuco is a big place, with an interesting history - if we could bring the scattered pieces back into a cohesive whole. Nothing here being referenced suggests a less-than-serious approach by the previous editors. I'm going to do some major surgery, then see what the article looks like. Sbalfour ( talk) 06:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the section 'Jews in Pernambuco', I believe this should be merged into the article 'History of the Jews of Brazil'. There is simply no reason to bifurcate this history into two articles. One article on the subject is a greater convenience for readers and editors alike. American In Brazil ( talk) 21:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to list all the tags so as to discuss them. I've gone through half the article so far looking for them. This article has an absurd number of tags.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Lead/entire article
Section Discovery and precolonial
Section Colonial period: the Captaincy of Pernambuco
Section Dutch Rule
Section Revolt against the Dutch
Section Jews in Pernambuco (Stopped listing here -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC))
Continuation of listing Section Jews in Pernambuco
Section Pernambucano revolt
Section Empire of Brazil
Section Brazilian Independence
Section 20th century
Section Cangaceiros
Section The Modern state
Altother 27 tags on one page, nearly all of them from January of 2014, almost exactly 3 years ago. I'm wondering whether they were all put by the same person. hehehehe-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Once again, I'm new and not entirely certain how to proceed, but in several months of editing no one is yelling at me yet. I have been staying away from this section on "Prehistory....". It seems well enough as it is but for one sentence that needs a citation. I am now going to change the sentence by deleting the part about the Tabajaras and the Caetes being extinct. I have only a few books that mention Tabajaras and the Caetes and none mention that they are extinct. They probably are extinct, but I doubt that there is anyone who has documented their extinction. So I will (essentially) truncate the sentence and provide a citation documenting that they were there when the Portuguese arrived. (And, since these were the peoples most often mentioned in history, I will leave alone the certainty that there were other indigenous peoples also present when the Portuguese began settling in Pernambuco.) P2dwight ( talk) 18:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Well, actually, I added the Tupinamba as well, but Pernambuco was much bigger in colonial days and there were lots of indigenous tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know there was no gold rush in Pernambuco at all. So that is a mistake in the tag, no missing information, there is no information to be had. I am not so sure about the other two matters though. The portuguese language article lacks information about either of these, or both of these, it mentions neither of them at all. Comments? @ Prburley:? -It is in this way that I would like to tackle these, is the answer to your previous question, and if you feel like commenting regarding this particular tag please do.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Tagging @ Giso6150: of the brazil wikiproject, brazilian history taskforce. As well as the author of the tag @ Sbalfour:.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a couple of related tags
I want to quote the main comments from the past here so.
"With respect to the section 'Jews in Pernambuco', I believe this should be merged into the article 'History of the Jews of Brazil'. There is simply no reason to bifurcate this history into two articles. One article on the subject is a greater convenience for readers and editors alike." {was said by} American In Brazil ( talk) 21:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Jewish history just isn't terribly important - why not the Italian, Dutch, German, etc, histories? I've noticed in other history articles detailed scenarios of trivial Jewish influence/immigration that are better collected into articles about Jews, not articles where Jewish influence is negligible (argument from Jews relative to that, of course)." {was said by} Sbalfour ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
With that it seems the discussion is up to date.
@ American In Brazil: and @ Sbalfour: I thought to deal with this tag later, but I think this can be discussed now since quite a bit of your comment was on this very strange section. I personally don't feel like the Italian, Dutch, German histories would be inappropriate. The "history of native americans in pernambuco" specifically I find would be of relatively strong importance, and maybe not related or in tune with the history of the state as a whole, therefore needing it's own subsection. The first synagogue of the Americas is a relatively significant fact, the rest I believe it would be okay to cut. But it seems we have a pretty strong consensus then to greatly diminish the subsection. 2 opinions for total removal and 1 for greatly diminishing, I think is reasonable to understand as a consensus to "remove most". I wonder if the author of the Jews in Pernambuco section would object. (maybe I'll do a little search in the article's history for the author(s) ) -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 22:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I'm regretful, that the article is in a shambles partly because of me. I'd not complain if you simply removed them all, and perhaps replaced them all with an article tag 'cleanup rewrite'. It'd certainly make the article read cleaner for our users. The tags aren't for readers, but editors, and we're gathered ->here<-. You've already brought the tags here, for discussion. Consider, if this were a college paper on the 'History of Pernambuco' what might happen: the Prof. would mark it, like me, and return it, because it is barely coherent. I'm not the expert you need, to write this essay. I'm afraid of blanking the article, because I've been called on that before - wikipedia may consider it vandalism, and there's salvageable material here. I'm here to help out on specifics, but I'm not going to rewrite this. Cheers, Sbalfour ( talk) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There are two tags for relevance of piracy and/or dispute among European powers of this territory. I find them relevant but I think perhaps some elaboration is required as to why they are relevant. In the context of colonization France disputed the treaty of tordesilhas. This meant that the French had intention of making a colony in what the portuguese considered their territory. Perhaps French guinea comes from this era - a successful case of a french territory on what would perhaps otherwise have been brazilian soil. The territory was in dispute, and I think the tags appropriately signal that this should be made clear, these were not merely isolated instances but part of a larger and significant political reality.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Klbrain:, you made the edit: [6] removing tags and content. I note from your recent contributions that they are all fixes of merge tags. I think the trimming you did was excessive: Now there's only the Dutch conquest but Dutch rule, which seems to have lasted quite some years is missing entirely. A proper removal of the overly detailed tag in particular would have been to summarize, not just delete. I was a bit tempted to revert. I ask you if you agree that there are problems with your edit User:Klbrain?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"By 1654 the captaincy came under the dominion of the West Indies Company" That statement is confusing at best, patently false at worst. By Jan., 1654, the last Dutch Forces had departed the colony. In fact, as early as the first battle of Guarapes in 1648, Dutch autonomy was broken, with the colony in a state of war and in disarray thereafter, with control divided between Dutch military and Portuguese colonial forces. Sbalfour ( talk) 01:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am new. I studied Colonial Brazil, particularly Pernambuco, 40 years ago. I am currently trying to retrace and catch up with more recent work in this area. I consider my area/period Specifically the 1590’s, And generally from Portuguese Settlement up to the Dutch invasion in 1630. I have some knowledge of the Dutch period and will probably do something to that section later. It is not my current intention to get into the time after the Dutch are driven out. There is a goodly amount of literature in English by Historians well respected in Brazil, moreover I have a fair amount of this literature in my personal library. Since we are addressing an English speaking readership, to whatever extent I use the translated Portuguese article, I will generally replace the reference citations in the Portuguese article with English language equivalents. With your advice, oversight, comment, and critique I expect we can improve the article at least up through 1654. One other comment on the article, they drink coffee in Pernambuco, but they don’t grow it there. The growing regions are further South, mostly São Paulo and Minas Gerais. P2dwight ( talk) 02:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Having edited up thru the Portuguese arrival and precolonial section with no one making any comments on this talk page, I conclude that no one is currently following this page, at least not frequently. So it seems good to me to proceed to update the section on the Colonial Period:the Captaincy of Pernambuco. I note that the article on Captaincy of Pernambuco has some good material but only 3 references, so I feel free to treat from 1534 to 1630 as I see fit. I will put a note on the talk page for the main article for the Captaincy of Pernambuco. I have looked at the material that follows and expect that I will proceed later with the Dutch Period. Although since the Dutch Brazil article does have a lot of references, I may proceed somewhat differently, I'm not sure. Past the Dutch Period I consider what little expertise I have exhausted, so I do not intend to go forward, or at least not until I would have done some reading. I am also going to dink a bit with some of the comments. I consider some of them wholly wrong (e.g. the coffee comment) and some less than optimally placed in the article. I will also place a note somewhat like this on the Pernambuco talk page. I will probably do some updates there after I finish whatever I decide to do with the Dutch period. P2dwight ( talk) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
If anyone is watching this article, I am surprised. However, just for the record, I have rewritten most every thing after Prehistory and Antiquity up to, but not including Revolt Against the Dutch. For the most part there was not much to start with and where it seemed possible I retainedwhat I could of what little was there. I now arrive atRevolt Against the Dutch, which does not seem bad as to what is says, but it lacks reference. So I am debating whether to just dive in and rewrite, it would be more of a rewrite than most anything else I have edited. I have looked thru my books and cannot find anything to support the two places where another editor has asked for references. I may just skip over it and come back to it. I haven't decided yet. So if anyone has a comment or suggestion I'd be happy to hear it. Other wise this note is just to make a record. 9/24/20 Further. Noting once again little interest in this page, I have decided to go back an rewrite the "Revolt against the Dutch" section. It has no references, and while I have looked to see if I could find some references, I cannot find anything in my library that supports these specific paragraphs. (Not that I think they are wrong.) However, using the books I have, the section will change somewhat. P2dwight ( talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
So, I have been bold. I've been hacking at this article most days for 6 weeks. Aside from two sections at the beginning and the last section I have almost completely overwritten, revised, deleted, edited, or otherwise gotten rid of what existed before I started. I did leave a couple of sentences that had references. Most of the comments on this talk page now concern things that no longer exist in this article. I have not yet determined at what date I will consider that history has gotten too close to current events and should wait a few years before it is written down. I am thinking perhaps 50 years ago (1970). I have a few books to read before I tackle 20th Century. So I will probably not edit any more for a while. BTW, I managed to publish an article in a journal on Pernambuco some years back. That article went thru 17 rewrites before publication. It is not my objective to revise this article 17 times, but I am fairly certain that the article will merit rewriting before I decide I am done. I intend, however, to get through 1970 or whatever stop-date I decide on before I start rewriting. P2dwight ( talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I seem to be at a mandatory halt, by reason of being out of sources. My personal library, more slanted toward colonial Pernambuco, is devoid of material on Pernambuco after 1970. I do not anticipate getting out of the house to an academic library until after the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic has run its course. To sum up what I have done with this article, The first two sections (Name, and Prehistory and Antiquity) are essential as I found them (I think I made one minor change). The last section (The Modern State) is also as I found it, although I have been tempted to remove it for lack of references. Aside from these, although there have been a few sentences with references that I have retained, essentially the whole of the article is rewritten. I find that I am oblivious to many, particularly minor grammatical and spelling errors when I write, always needed to let any writing rest a bit before errors begin to pop out at me. I have gone back and reread and corrected some of these, but I am sure there are some more. I will at some point come back and do necessary edits or corrections, but I hope someone else will take a look and provide input before I attempt that. This has been a good exercise for me for the last several months, but I need to catch up in some other projects that I have neglected, so it may be some time before I get back to this. P2dwight ( talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I have found that somewhere it says the this article is long enough to be a candidate for splitting, I have looked at another article, The Captaincy of Pernambuco, which covers a substantial portion of the colonial era history I have addressed in this article. So I am considering splitting this article. I expect it will take some work to do the split as there are several noted anomalies with the Capatincy of Pernambuco article, but I would try to keep as much as seems appropriate. Of course, I suppose it may be some years before another editor reads and expresses an opinion here. P2dwight ( talk) 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Did this. likely still needs a bit of clean up. P2dwight ( talk) 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I consider that I have basically finished my work on this article. Of course, I expect that I or others will find places where further editing is needed. Moreover, I am told that the introduction needs to be lengthened. Likewise, I continue to consider how to split the article. My current thought is to take most of the colonial era material and move it to the Captaincy of Pernambuco article, which is sadly deficient in references and while I recognize a lot of the current article is good, the lack of references makes it fundamentally unveifiable. I would then expect to leave this article with a single "paragraph" replacing four to six "paragraphs" from "Portuguese arrival'" to Pernambuco in the late eighteenth century". It seeming that I am the only editor currently interested in Pernambucan history articles. So,despite knowing that I am still a newby editor, I am leaning toward just being "bold" and letting whoever wants to slap me around when I stray to far..22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight ( talk • contribs)
This discussion is in regard to editing which I conclude was done mostly by Fritzmann2002 and Gronk Oz for both of whom I will post a note on their/your talk pages. To state what is probably obvious, this is my first article and there is much I am still unclear about as to style, and other things that I should know but probably don't. So I started to make the recommended changes without realizing quite the extent of the copy editing that had been done. So I have likely complicated matters. I do appreciate that copy editors have looked at the article and made changes to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia standards, which I know I am just learning. In preparing the table below I have tried to ignore two things, obvious errors, such as a couple of places where Pernambuco is misspelled. I can fix that kind of error later, secondly, where my "prose" has merely been revised, I am perfectly willing to stipulate to the idea that you have a better idea of what "style" is suitable on Wikipedia, thus even if I like my phrasing better, I am content to go forward with yours. So, other than a couple of items that I decided to whine about, I tried to confine these items to instances where I think the meaning has been changed, quite possibly because my writing lent itself to misinterpretation. I didn't want to just change things back because I am the inexperienced guy and I think it would be best to discuss it before "reverting" anything. (I note that I don't know how to contol the font in the following table.) So here are my concerns:
my text | revised text | comments |
---|---|---|
Topic Paragraph | Not sure what I should call this introductory paragraph | |
Pernambuco is located in the Northeast region of Brazil near the eastern end of South America. Despite early successes, first as a source of red dye and then as a sugar producer, Pernambuco languished as part of Brazil’s underdeveloped Northeastern region until the close of the 20th century. The latifundia, monoculture, poor communication, poor transportation, and regionalism were among the several impediments to the re-development of Pernambuco after the expulsion of the Dutch in 1654. In the late 20th century, Pernambuco found success as it developed an industrial sector as improved communication and transportation in Brazil has reduced the affects of regionalism and monoculture. | Located in the Northeast Region of Brazil, Pernambuco was economically prosperous during its early history, first as a producer of red dye and then sugar, but languished as a part of Brazil's underdeveloped Northeast Region. Following the expulsion of the Dutch from the region in 1654, there were numerous impediments to the development of the region, including its extensive reliance on a single crop, poor communication and transportation, and intense regionalism. In the late 20th century, the region again became successful as it developed an industrial sector and improved communication and transportation reduced the effects of regionalism. | (1) To say that Pernambuco a “produced” red dye is misleading. The dye was produced in Europe after the trees were harvested and shipped there. My original text could have been more clear by saying that Pernambuco was a “source of dyewood.” (2) Many textbooks identify three problems related to agriculture in Latin American, latifundia, monoculture, and forced labor (commonly slave labor in colonial Brazil and the encomienda system in much of colonial Spanish America), I did not include forced labor in the text because it was in fact largely an enabling factor in the colonial era, whereas latifundia and monoculture both enabled but also impeded (and still continue to impede) development in most of Latin America. I think “latifundia” should remain on the list of impediments. |
Portuguese Arrival | A section heading as locator | |
In turning to the exploitation of Brazilwood, it is a coincidence that modern-day Pernambuco includes the Islands of Fernando de Noronha, which precedes the mainland Pernambuco's history since the islands were granted to Fernão de Loronha by King Manuel in 1502. Moreover, it was Fernão de Loronha to whom King Manuel granted an exclusive license to exploit Brazilwood. | To facilitate the exploitation of Brazilwood, King Manuel I of Portugal granted the Fernando de Noronha islands off the coast of Pernambuco to Fernão de Loronha in 1502. Moreover, de Loronha was granted an exclusive license to exploit Brazilwood in Pernambuco. | Although the islands of Fernando de Noronha are today part of Pernambuco, and while Fernao de Loronha was granted the islands in in 1502 there is nothing in the references I cited (and probably not elsewhere either) to indicate that they were granted to facilitate the exploitation of Brazilwood. The islands are 200 miles off the coast and not located for such a purpose. In fact, as mentioned earlier in the article Fernao de Laronha used a base on the Island of Itamaraca. |
The Dutch Occupation from 1630 to 1654 | ||
From invasion in 1630 to relative pacification about 1636; | six years of pacification from 1630 to 1636 | I don’t think the sources support “pacification” without a qualifier. Yes, Resistance was subdued during the government of Mauritz Nassau. Moreover from 1630 to 1636 the Portuguese resistance was open warfare. |
Early Brazilian Period (1807–1889) | ||
Occupied by Napoleon's army and hosting the royal court, Brazil no longer occupied the role of colony and Portugal was no longer able to function as its metropole. | This seems to say that Brazil was occupied by Napoleans army. It was Portugal that was occupied, that is why the Royal family fled to Brazil. | |
Unlike Spanish American colonies, Brazil would remain territorially intact (save for the loss of what is today Uruguay), and explanations of why are simply speculation. | Unlike the Spanish colonies in America, Brazil would remain territorially static, aside from the loss of what is today Uruguay. | Brazil has not remained territorially static. Both internal boundaries and internationally disputed boundaries have been resolved in Brazil’s favor in fact adding the whole States of Amapa and Acre to Brazil along with some other smaller areas. Although Brazil claimed most of these areas I think few would say that Brazil governed them until after the boundary disputes were settled in Brazil’s favor. |
Pernambuco Revolts | ||
Two meaningful themes explaining events in Pernambuco leading up to, directly relating to, or following on the independence of Brazil were, first, regionalism | Pernambuco was home to intense regionalism | Although one cannot say that there was no regionalism in Pernambuco, it was the regionalism throughout Brazil that disadvantaged Pernambuco, because the more Southern/Western regions were able to monopolize the national government and direct benefits toward, Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Mato Grosso, and the cisplatine states and away from Pernambuco and other Northeast coastal states. |
In 1821 King João acceded to the request of the Portuguese Cortes and returned to Lisbon, leaving his son Pedro as regent in Brazil, but taking all the treasury monies and movable assets with him. In 1822, the Cortes, meeting in Lisbon, imprudently took several actions trying to reduce Brazil to its previous status as a colony and Prince Pedro issued the Grito do Ipiranga, “Independence or death” and the Empire of Brazil was born. | King John eventually returned to Portugal, leaving his son Pedro I as the Brazilian regent. Refusing to become a colony of Portugal again, Prince Pedro established the Empire of Brazil and promulgated a new constitution | I probably don’t understand Wikipedia’s standards on quotations, so I just want to say that while I am not saying that the revised text is wrong, I do want to point out that the Grito do Ipiranga and Independence or Death are to Brazilians about on a par with “Give me liberty or give me death.” Of course, I do understand that the english Wikipedia is not written for a Brazilian audience. |
removing the comarca of São Francisco from Pernambuco and reducing the Sertão (backlands) belonging to Pernambuco. | the size of Pernambuco was substantially reduced, with the comarca of São Francisco and several inland regions being lost. | As I interpret my references, all of the inland regions (the sertao) were within the comarca of Sao Francisco. |
this rebellion was agrarian based―whereas other rebellions were substantially confined to Recife. | In addition, the rebellion was largely agrarian, whereas other rebellions in Pernambuco were restricted to its capital city of Recife. | these rebellion were mostly in Recife/Olinda, however, they were definitely not restricted to to Recife or Recife/Olinda |
There is little historical record of the agreste or the sertão, even in the Nineteenth Century. | The other two areas of the state, the agreste and sertão, have minimal historical records which survive, even into the 19th century. | By my reading of the source material, it is not that the records didn’t survive, rather the vast majority of the small number of people in the agreste and even fewer people of the sertao were illiterate and so there were exceedingly few records made. |
Literacy, education, publishing | ||
Despite the low literacy rate, even among the free population (15%), | and an extremely low literacy rate of 15%. | Brazil’s slaves were freed in 1888. The slaves were almost all illiterate. Thus the free population literacy rate of 15% was undoubtedly much higher than the total population literacy rate, for which there I have not found a source. |
Economy | From the time of Portuguese settlement, the economy in Pernambuco had been based on latifundia (large estates), monoculture (one-crop), and slavery. Now that Pernambuco was no longer a colony, producing for the Portuguese metropole, changes in the economy occurred and new institutions appeared. Some of these had been long available only in Portugal and some were a function of factors such as the Industrial Revolution. However, overall, during the Empire, the economy of Pernambuco was dominated by the decline of sugar production. [1] While for Brazil the decline of sugar was offset by the growth of the coffee, this was not the case for Pernambuco. | omitted) |
In 1871, the legislature enacted the "law of the free womb" making free all children of slaves. | In 1871, the state's legislature enacted a law which made free all children of slaves. | It was the national legislature, not the state legislature. |
The era of Getúlio Vargas | Second Brazilian Republic (1930–1964) | Brazil is currently in its Sixth Republic, few people, I doubt even Brazilian historians, can accurately state when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th began and ended. However, the second Republic did not start in 1930. What started in 1930 was the dictatorhip of Getulio Vargas. Moreover, the logical divides of the 20th century in Brazil’s governance are the 1st republic, the Vargas Era, the military dictatorship, and the 6th republic which started in 1985. So I don’t think the Second Republic is worth a heading even if we correct the dates. Note also, that while there was an interregnum between the Vargas era and the military dictatorship, it was still under the shadow of Vargas and the factions (or parties) were either pro-Vargas or anti-Vargas. |
In contrast to the federalist emphasis of the Old Republic, the Vargas era installed a strong central government. However, Brazil by this time was primarily dominated by São Paulo and Minas Gerais. Pernambuco was still a leading state in the Northeast, but the Northeast as a whole exerted little influence within Brazil. | In contrast to the federal structure of the First Republic, the Vargas Era was embodied by a strong central government. As such, the state of Pernambuco, while still a leading state in the Northeast, exerted minimal influence within Brazil. | The revision is correct, I don’t like the fact that by omitting the states that dominated in this era it downplays the regionalism that played such an important part in Pernambuco’s underdevelopment. I guess it doesn’t need correction, I’m just whining. |
The military governance of Brazil | Brazilian Military Government | Headers included as locator |
some of the affects of the change-oriented movements undoubtedly provided a basis for both development in Pernambuco and betterment of the bulk of the population. For example, a Peace Corps worker recalls attending a meeting in rural Pernambuco in 1967. Of the thirty-five union officers attending thirteen had acquired literacy thru the Popular Culture Movement prior to the military dictatorship. | Specifically, these movements provided a basis for both infrastructural development in Pernambuco and education of the state's population. For example, the Popular Culture Movement was particularly effective at providing literacy education to rural areas. | I don’t think my reference supports the claim that the PCM was “particularly effective”. This was intended rather as an example of a benefit of the PCM that the military dictatorship could not suppress because you cannot make someone illiterate after they have learned to read no matter how much you suppress them. |
The Opposition | Opposition to the Dictatorship | Section headings just included as locator |
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."Archbishop Hélder Câmara | (ommitted) | again, the article can stand without the quote. Nevertheless, this is a famous quote that has a lot to say about that period. I certainly defer to whatever the policy is on quotes |
Pernambuco since 1985 | Modern History (1985– | (header included as a locator) |
Pernambuco was still very much a state where latifundia, monoculture, and a ruling elite controlled, | Pernambuco was still very much a state where latifundia, monoculture, and a ruling elite were in control | I was saying all three elements “controlled”, where as the revision seems to me to say the ruling elite controls, and leaves me wondering what the latifundia and monoculture are doing in the sentence. |
Rural life | Rural life | Header included as locator |
After the military dictatorship during the beginnings of the New Republic MST provides an example of national movement influences in rural Pernambuco. The Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST) was organized in 1984 in the far South of Brazil. | After the military dictatorship, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST) was organized in 1984 in the far South of Brazil. | The revised text says that MST was organized after the military dictatorship in 1984, as the dictatorship ended in 1985 this is not true |
References
If I were to claim any expertise on Pernambuco's history, it would be for the early colonial period from 1580 to 1630. For 20th Century Pernambuco I knew little before I started researching for this article. For the "modern history" section, I am reluctant to say anything more.I do not live in Pernambuco and aside from the sources I have already used I don't know where I would find anything else. I will probably have to leave the "modern history" section for another editor to flesh out. P2dwight ( talk) 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)