Talk:Brazil

Empire of Brazil

Hello, everyone! I have noticed that the text about the Imperial era in Brazil is quite weak. I would like to know if I could rewrite it and improve it. If that´s ok to everyone, I will start the text at once. - --Lecen (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have completly reworked the text about the Empire. I think is quite good. Any opinions about it, please say so. I will try to work on the text about the Independence and later on in the one about the republic. - --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am doing quite a few important changes in the history text. Anyone has opinions about it, please say so. - --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ended writing the sections "Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers", "Independence and Empire" and "Emperor Pedro II reign". No more additions are necessary, unless to correct grammar or spelling mistakes. I am going to work on the remaining sections. - --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am working now on the text about the territorial expansion of Brazil. Once I finish it, I will begin writing the text about the republican Era. I have removed sourced material indeed, but for two main reasons: or because it was controversial information or even because it was not correct, or because it was based on internet websites, that are not thrustworth. I am using as sources books written by the most famous Brazilian historian such as Oliveira Lima, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, José Murilo de Carvalho and Francisco Doratioto. - --Lecen (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph that explains the Portuguese expansion that resulted in the current national borders. I am working on the remaining text for the section now. - --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done working on all sections about the colonial and imperial period of Brazilian history. I´ll move towards the republican era now. - --Lecen (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks biased to me

In my opinion, these changes are biased. The new changes clearly show a positive view of the user about Monarchy and a negative view about Republic. The sentence about the Empire saying "Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country" largely contrasts with the sentence about the Republic "a little more than a century of existence, the Brazilian Republic faced twelve states of emergency, seventeen institutional acts, the National Congress shut down six times, nineteen military revolutions, two presidential resignations, three presidents hindered from assuming office, four presidents deposed, seven different Constitutions, four dictatorships and nine authoritarian governments”."

No, the new changes are not clearly show a positive of the monarchy as a form of government. Pedro II reign is seen by historians as an exceptional and high succsessful era of the history of Brazil. And Pedro II was a republican himself. About being respected internationaly, that was also true. Why not put it in here?

It actually erases the fact that during the Empire a great portion of the Brazilian population was living under slavery, most of the free population was starving to death and only a small minority of people from the aristocracy had a "prosperous" life. After the end of the Empire, things did not change so much, because the same old aristocracy of the Empire remained on power. This article is trying to sell the idea that the Republic is guilty of the underdevelopment of Brazil, as if the Empire with its slavery, poverty and with its violent repression against popular movements was not guilty as well.

In 1823, 27% of the population was composed of slaves. In 1872, 15% and by 1888, 5%. Yhat is not "a great portion" as you wrote. Most of the Brazilian population was not starving to death. See the article about Pedro II of Brazil and Economy of the Empire of Brazil. The fact that you use the word "guilt" and tries to blame one form of government for Brazil "backwardness" reveals that you are only defending your point of view, not an unbiased view. If you have something against monarchy, that´s up to you. But I am not trying to tell in here that monarchy is better or worse than republic (it is not the forms of government that changes something for a country, but how its political class rules it).

Sentences like "Pedro I was never a tyrant and always respected the constitution" or "The regime that followed the overthrown of the monarchy revealed itself to be highly unstable" are really biased. The Emperor Pedro II reign section is really odd and biased. It only talks about supposed strengths of the government of Pedro II and actually ommits the negative points. At the end of the section, the user attacked the Republic with odd informations. This is not the place to post personal points of view of scholars about which Government was better or worse. This is the place to speak a little about the History of Brazil, not its governments or if Pedro I was a tyrant or not (many people will consider him a tyrant, and we cannot affirm if he was or not). This is really biased. I do not think that Wikipedia allows an user to erase half of a sourced article and replace it with informations in favor of Monarchy and against Republic. All the History part of the article was sourced, there was no need to erase it (in fact, it's not allowed to erase sourced informations). Moreover, the new changes are full of citations, which seem quite odd. This article has been chosen as a good article and deep changes like these may not be good for it. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not being respected here. In my opinion, it should be reversed to its original way. Opinoso (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro I not being a tyrant and always respecting the constitution was taking from two famous Brazilians writers. I do not understand why you say that "we cannot affirm if he was or not". Yes, we can. Simply you have to read a history book. The reasons that made him abdicate are all written in the text, didn´t you read it? I erased the text that or had mistakes (such as saying that Emperor Pedro I obliged Brazilians to accept the constitution when in reality the Municipal Councils voted in favor of its acceptance) or was sourced by websites. And between a website and a book written by a famous historian, we have to stay with the latter one. It is oodd to be full of citations?! What?! That does not make sense! It must have citations! And once and for all: I still did NOT begin to write the text about the Republican era. Let me finish it first. - --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your texts only talk about good points of the Empire, and ommits the negative points. And they only talk about negative points of the Republic, and ommits the positive points. It says, for example, that Pedro II did not own slaves, but it ommits that during his government Brazil imported more slaves than any other period of Brazilian History, for example. And the slave trade was only abolished because England forced Brazil to stop it, because if it was not English pression, the slave trade would continue. Your text tries to sell the idea that Pedro II was some kind of god, and that Republic was a negative change to Brazil, when in fact for most Brazilians, who were starving to death or living under slavery, the change from Empire to Republic did not change their lives in any way, because the same elite of the Empire remained on power (and you ommited that too). The only notable difference was that the Emperor was replaced by a President. The rest, did not change in any way (even though your texts try to sell the idea that when the Republic was proclaimed, Brazil lost a wonderful government led by Pedro II, which was far from being a wonderful government to poors or slaves, who made up the bulk of the Brazilian population).

And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?

You also claim that Pedro II left the government because he wanted to leave, when in fact he was forced to leave because he lost the support of the rural elite that used to feed him. He was taken from his position, he did not want to leave at all.

In fact, you erased the original History part of this article, which was sourced, small, straight and neutral. You replaced a good History part with these Monarchist texts. These non-neutral attitudes only destroy years of work to make this article a good one. To erase sourced informations and replace them with biased ones is not allowed in Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased parts

• Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”. And also of rapid slavery progress. During this period Brazil imported more slaves than any other country in the world.[1] Material progress did not seem to be compatible with human progress in Brazil at that time.

Wrong. The United States had a larger slave population and was richer then Brazil. Having more slaves does not mean that a country could not be rich. And that is a direct quotation from a history book.

• From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government. The economy of the Empire may have grown and the small elite may have enriched, but for the mass of poors and slaves the economic situation did not emprove, but it became even worse. See Darcy Ribeiro] for more details.

Another direct quotation. For example: “In a general way, the 1870s were prosperous for the nation and its monarch. It was a period of social and political progress where the distribution of national wealth began to benefit a greater part of the population”. (Olivieri, p.37) And stop taking in account the slave population. It didn´t matter for a country to be considered rich or not if slaves had or not a good standard of living.

• 1850 there were 50 factories in the country and in 1889 it grew to 636.. It sells the false idea that Brazil became a industrialized nation in the 19th century, when in fact Brazil remained mostly rural and industrialization of Brazil only happened in the 1940s, many decades after the end of the Empire and the Emperor's death. In fact, the Empire wanted to remain agragarin and it prevented the early industrialization of Brazil[2] which is one of the main reasons for Brazil's undervelopment (see Darcy Ribeiro for more details).

I will not discuss as long as you use websites as sources. Between a website information ad another granted by Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Boris Fausto, José Murilo de Carvalho, Hélio Vianna and other famous Brazilian historians, I will keep with the latter. Unless you tell me that they are monarchists! See the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil for more info. And stop usind only Darcy Ribeiro as source. It is the only author you use it as source! The same as in the article Brazilian people. You can not use only one author as source, this is why I have added quotations and citations by several different authors.

• While its neighbors fell into anarchy and dictatorships in Brazil civil liberties were respected along “with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press. I wonder if the millions of slaves had any civil liberty at that time.

Neither they did in any other country at that time as they were considered property and not human beings and even less citizens. You are losing your point.

• The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888.. The Emperor never owned slaves, but he allowed the massive importation of slaves from Africa and Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery, as late as 1888.

He could not hinder importation. There was free market in Brazil, if someone wanted to import slaves, he could do it freely. I can see clearly now t hat you simply dislike the emperor and the monarchical era in Brazil and that´s the only reason you keep complaining. Brazil was not the last country to end slavery. Slavery was still ongoing in african and middle-eastern countries up to the end of the 20th century. You don´t even know history and use only websites as sources, it makes really hard to discuss with you.

• Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country. Maybe the economy was prosperous for the ruling elite of the country, but the mass of poors did not see all that prosperity.

Any country that evolves its economy allows an improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens. But that not the point. That´s simply your opinion, and your opinion does not matter in the article.

• There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.. It tries to sell the false idea that all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule, when in fact the Emperor was forced to leave Brazil when the elite of the country stopped feeding him and decided that the Republic should be proclaimed.

Yes, all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule. Read the article Pedro II of Brazil. You will find all sources and books you need about it. That does not mean, of course, that the Brazilians are nowadays monarchists, which they aren´t.

• Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”. Actually, his overthrown was due to his inability to add the elite of the country, which decided to overthrown him.

That´s your opinion and once again: it does not matter in the article. The quotation comes from the British historian Roderich J. Barman, a famous "Brazilianist".

There are many other biased posts out there. When somebody reads these texts, one may think that Pedro II was some kind of merciful god and that Brazil was some kind of paradise during that time. And when one reads the text about Republic, it seems that Brazil became a terrible place since the departure of the Emperor. In fact, for most the population of Brazil, which is poor and far from living in a paradise, both Monarchy and Republic were terrible governments. These new biased changes must be reversed to the originl, neutral History texts that existed here, before they were erased and replaced by these distorted Monarchist viwes. The history of Brazil has been rewritten from a monarchist perspective here. Opinoso (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have something againt monarchy or republic, that´s your problem. Just don´t come into wikipedia and try to ruin an article for personnal motives, ok? Thank you. - --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't talk about the Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship part because it's not even a historic text, but a text dedicated to point the negative views of the Republic, contrasting with the part about the Emperor, which is also not historic, but enterely dedicated to point the positive views of that Monarchy. Opinoso (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."[3]

An user cannot erase sourced informations, as you did to the entire History part of this article. You may add informations, not erase them and replace them. We took years to make that History part look small, straight and sourced and you are not allowed to erase it. From this perspective, I am reverting to its original History. Opinoso (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Relations

I think this bit on the foreign relations section isn't quite right: "Between World War II and 1990, both democratic and military governments sought to expand Brazil's influence in the world by pursuing a state-led industrial policy and an independent foreign policy.". It's well know that during the first decade of dictorship the general guideline of the foreign relations was the total alignment with the USA. And I wouldn't go as far as saying there were an independent foreign policy in the Geisel and Figueiredo mandates.

It is said (on an UESB lecture) that "Os governos do ciclo ditatorial, de início executam uma política externa de total alinhamento aos Estados Unidos e direcionado pelo conceito de fronteiras ideológicas e da inevitalidade da guerra. (...) O segundo período apresenta uma política externa de maior envolvimento no mundo e é marcada pelo conceito de “pragmatismo responsável”" and . Okay, it's just written on a blog, but what I'm clayming is easily verifiable in any history book.eusourei^(talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased information by user Opinoso

A couple of days ago user Opinoso complained of a supposed partiality in the text written by me in the section “History” (Sections: Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers; Territorial expansion; Independence and Empire; and Emperor Pedro II reign were done by me. I was going to start working on the sections about the Republican Era when this issue appeared). Yesterday night I decided to erase or transfer (to other articles) the controversial passages and thus prevent a greater problem among us. I also considerably diminished the size of the text, leaving it simpler, direct and straightforward. However, user Opinoso added informations that in my opinion are incorrect and are unnecessary. Below I transcribe them followed by my opinion:

1) “but against the uneven social structure that it imposed”

The above phrase would indicate that the rebellions in the regency were caused by unequal social structure imposed by the monarchy. Forms of government cannot be guilty for Brazilian social issues, or else, we should blame the republic for problems that still exist today, which would be unfair. Or we could also blame the republic for many popular rebellions that occurred in the Spanish American countries. None of them would be correct. The Latin American society, no matter under what form of government, has the same social issues, caused by other motives. To blame the monarchy reveals partiality by user Opinoso in simplifying the rebellions causes, that in reality occurred disputes over power between the liberals and conservatives in the provinces. Conclusion: partial passage.

2) “from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed)”

The above phrase of will make the unwarned reader that around 30% or 40% of the population of the province were killed by the government troops in repression for the rebellion. In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse. Conclusion: partial and incorrect passage.

3) War of the Triple Alliance,[120] which left more than 300,000 dead)

This is wrong. 300,000 civilians and military Paraguayans died in the war, not Brazilians. 50,000 Brazilian soldiers died in the war. This information shouldn´t be in here. No reason to add war casualties to this section. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

4) “During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy.”

The above phrase contradicts the remaining of the section that indicates that there was a great prosperity in the country after 1840. The correct information is missing. In the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil there is a highly detailed text about that period. All the regions of the country had a great economic growth, as it can be seen in exports table to the right:

Year	Cacao (tons exported)
1820s	11,000 tons
1880	73,500 tons
Year	Rubber (tons exported)
1827	81 tons
1852	1,632 tons
1900	24,301,452 tons
Year	Coffe (tons exported)
1821-60	3,377,000 tons
1861-89	6,804,000 tons
Year	Sugar (tons exported)
1821-25	41,174 tons
1881-85	238,074 tons

The income per capita in Brazil in 1880, just 9 years before the end of the Empire was similar to the one of the United States. The economy grew to such level that in the 1950s Brazil would have a similar income per capita to Germany, which cannot be described as a stagnated country with a miserable population. Again, read the article about the economy of the Empire. Conclusion: incorrect passage.

5) “Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

6) “The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa”

Slaves were imported during the reign of Pedro II from 1831 up to 1850, when traffic was abolished. Hard to believe that in 19 years more slaves were imported than in 331 years.

According to historian Thomas Skidmore, in his book A history of Brazil (Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do Brasil. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.93) around 50,000 slaves were imported to Brazil between 1500 and 1600. Between 1601 and 1700 more than 560,000 were imported. Between 1701 and 1810 more than 1,891,400 were imported. Total so far: 2,501,400 slaves. Now between 1811 and 1850 around 1,145,400 slaves were imported. Let’s say that half of them were brought between 1831 and 1850, that is, 572,700 slaves. In the period between 1500 and 1831 more than 3,074,100 slaves were imported thus. Still thus, let’s say that it was during the reign of Pedro II the biggest amount of slaves were brought per year (I don´t know, the book doesn’t say anything about it). Even so, it is redundant information in here that should be in the article about slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

7) “and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil.”

In the United States there were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. So what? Why is such information is in here if not even the population is cited at all? Ok, it could be in the demographics or slavery in Brazil articles or in something similar, but not in here. The impression that it gives is that Pedro II was a “bad guy keeping so many in slavery”. That is completely unnecessary, in my opinion. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

8) “Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

I erased information that was much more important, such as the fact that Brazil was the fifth country in the world to have sewers and the amount of factories that were opened. This information is unnecessary, and its true reason is only to create a negative view toward the emperor. If someone considers it important, it could be transferred to the article regarding the slavery in Brazil but it shouldn’t be in here. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

9) “because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

That is a naive simplification of the political issues of that time. It would be the same as to say that Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery because he did want to displease slave owners. The impression that it gives is that the Emperor was against the end of slavery. Just take a look at the link provided by the citation and we can see that the complete passage is “Pedro II was opposed to slavery, but he did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners; accordingly, he felt that the nation should abolish it by degrees.” In the article on Pedro II, in the section Racial thoughts and abolitionism, it can be clearly understood Pedro II’s role on the abolitionist movement. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

10) “By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent.”

Another information that is wrong. Take a look in link in the citation: there were 6 million whites, 2 million blacks and almost 6 million pardos. User Opinoso simply added pardos with blacks and concluded that they were descendants of Africans. That is not correct. The category “pardo” includes mulattoes (descendants of Africans and Europeans) and caboclos (descendants of Indians and Europeans, the vast majority of Brazilian population in the north and northeast). And even if such information was correct (which it is not, at least in the ways he put it), there is no reason to be included in the history section, but instead in an article on demography of Brazil or slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

Conclusion: All passages should be erased or transferred to other more appropriate articles. And if, it is ok to everyone, I would like to continue writing the text about the history of the republican era (I already finished the colonial and imperial era as you can see). --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Debresser

1. POV language.
2. Rephrase to "was killed in the war or feel to famine and illnesses".
3. Should not be here.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept.
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.
10. Incorrect.

Debresser (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After Lecen posted a reply on my talkpage, I'd like to add the following:

2) If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war the remove.

4) This is the correct course of action unless Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would disqualify the source used by Opinoso.

6) Might be of minor importance, but 8) should definitely stay. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Eusourei

Some comments of the things you wrote there, lets see:

“Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

Wouldn't it be important to also cite the very important European mão-de-obra in the Western São Paulo? (damn, forgot the english word for it :~ thankfully you're brazilian)

“Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

This part in my opinion is important, it shows how long it actually did take for the processos to happen here, showing, also, how deeply rooted it was in the society. Maybe American countris, instead of Western countries, would be better.

“because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

This part isn't so wrong, I'd say. With some extra information it is very important to, once again, show how slavery was an important part of the society. Maybe state that Pedro II did want to abolish, but thought it should be done gradually, so that there weren't any anthagonisms with slave owners. --eusourei^(talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Opinoso

It's funny how the negative points of the Empire (large-scale use of slavery, poverty of the majority of the Brazilianm population, Brazilian economy remained agragarian and dependent on coffee exports while the "civilized" countries were going under a process of industrialization) are being removed from the article, while only the supposed positive points are still there.

1)Cabanos war was against the social structure imposed by the Monarchy, which was the same structure imposed in colonial Brazil or in the early Republic: a small minority of the country manipulating its richness, while the vast majority of Brazilians were living under poverty. Darcy Ribeiro described it as "a genocide with the goal of slaughtering the caboclo population". Caboclo were the native inhabitantd of the Amazon. It was against the "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed". Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

2)The deaths were caused directly by the war. The sentence by Lence "In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse" is his unsouced personal opinion. Even if the people died because of illnesses or famine, the deaths were brought by the war. Many Jews died of famine in concentration camps during World War II, but the causes of the death does not erase the fact that it was brought by the war, nothing else caused the deaths. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

3)It does not say that only Brazilians died in the war. During this war, the majority of the Paraguayan population (mostly civilians) was smashed by the Brazilian troops. Some sources claim that 90% of the male population of Paraguay died, another horrible aspect of the Empire as well as thousands of Argentines and Brazilians, which is ommited here (what a surprise). Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

4)Original resources conducted by user Lecen. The fact that the economy of Brazil had a great growth during the Empire was natural, since the population of the Empire increased by millions, and its capacity to produce more and more also grew. This is natural. However, the growth of the economy does not mean anything. The richness remained concentrated in the three richest provinces of the country, due to coffee exports, while the rest of the country had a decadent economy and great poverty. According to Darcy Ribeiro, in the 1890s coffee exports represented 61.5% of Brazilian economy, and all the production was centered in Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The other productions represented together only less than 40% of Brazilian economy. Then, Brazilian economy was based on coffee, since over half of it came from this product. Other products, such as sugar, cacau or cotton had a minor importance in Brazilian economy. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

5) Very important information. This part of the article only talks about the Emperor or the elite of the country. The Emperor was a single person, and the elite were a few thousands. Old conception of History. The modern History talks about the life of ordinary people. The history of the Africans in Brazil, and their importance, is trying to be ommited there. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

6)Yes, it was. The Brazilian History is divided in different periods, such as Capitanias do Mar (1516-1532), Capitanias hereditárias (1532-1549), Governo-Geral (1549-1580) and many others. The period of reign of Pedro II was the period, in all Brazilian History, that imported the largest numbers of slaves and the period that more people were used as slaves in Brazil. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

7) We're talking about Brazil, not the United States. If there were 4 million slaves in the USA this is their problem. The USA is not a model to be followed, and no other country is. We're talking about Brazil, and the figure about the slaves is very important. If there are figures about economy, figures about human being being used as slaves are even more importants. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

8)Brazil was the last Western country. User Lecen replaced "Western" by "American", probably trying to diminish the how latecomer Emperor Pedro II was to abolish slavery. Correct passage changed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

9)The information is sourced (Enciclopedia Britannica), and you cannot make original sources and erase sourced informations. The Emperor was afraid of abolishing slavery, because he did not want to lose the support of the elite of slave owners that fed him and his luxurious way of life, while the majority of Brazilians were starving to death. He could abolish slavery as soon as possible, but he waited until 1888 to abolish it, the last country in the Wester world. Pedro II even decided to take a trip to Europe and sent his daughter, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, to abolish slavery, because he was afraid to do so for fear of reprisals from the elite.

10)Another original resource conducted by Lecen. Where is your resourced to claim the Caboclos are the majority in Northeastern Brazil? The main mixture in Brazil was between Whites and Blacks, and most Pardos were Mulatos (African and European mixture). Caboclos are only found in significant numbers in Northern Brazil, not in Northeastern Brazil. Most people in Northeastern Brazil are either Black or Mulato (where may have some Amerindian mixture). Caboclos in Northeastern Brazil are mostly found in the Sertão, which is not as populate as the coastal region, where the African element in predominant. Why is Lecen trying to remove informations about the history of Black Brazilians? The history of the ordinary people, which includes Black Brazilians, are much more important than details about the personal life of Emperor Pedro II, which was a single person. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

Conclusion: user Lecen is doing original resource with books that are not avaible for us to read. Then, he is choosing to post only the positive points of the Monarchy from these books, while the negative points, which may be listed on those books as well, he choose not to post. Lecen is removing my sourced contributions, because they show that the Monarchy was not so wonderful as he is trying to sell and he is trying, in this talk page, to demoralize my contributions. However, he does not use sources to demoralize my contributions, but his personal opinions and original resourced about History (which is not allowed at all).

It's obvious that user Lecen has some kind of obssession with the Empire of Brazil and with Emperor Pedro II, since all his contributions in Wikipedia are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy of Brazil and his positive points. From this perspective, his contributions are biased, since he has a personal admiration for the monarchy. He should use his knowledge about the subjetc, which he claims to be huge, to post neutral informations about it. However, he choose to post biased informations about the Monarchy (only citing the positive points, and trying to remove the negative ones). On the other, when it comes about the Republic, Lecen choose to list only the negative points of it, and ommited the positive points. This is quite obvious when you read the part about the Emperor (good things only) and when you read the part about Republic (negative points only).

All my contributions are sourced, and I do not use sources from books people cannot read, making it possible to manipulate informations to feed a personal point of view. I won't let user Lecen remove my contributions because he "does not like them". If Lecen wants to remove informations, he is free to remove his own contributions, not from others. In fact, he erased the entire History part of the article, which was already here for months, and replaced them with all these biased changes. I still think that the original History part should come back, and these biased and controversial changes should be removed. Opinoso (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Opinoso's comments by User:Lecen

1) As usual, Opinoso uses as source Darcy Ribeiro. And only him. About the Cabanagem, the details about the war should be handled on its article, not in here. The rebellion was not even important to Brazilian history outcome.

2) To compare the rebellion with the Holocaust is huge mistake. And no, it is not unsourced.

3) Casualties of war should be handled on its respective article, not in the small section about Brazilian history. And no, 300,000 Paraguayans were not killed by Brazilians but instead by famine and diseases. See Doratio, Francisco. Maldita Guerra. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002 (best book about the War of the Triple Alliance in Portuguese). Anyway, you should talk about that on the article about the war.

4) It is not original resources. The work of famous Brazilian and British hitorians such as Roderick J. Barman, Pedro Calmon, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, José Murilo de Carvalho and many others cannot be themed "original resource". Once again, you use Darcy Ribeiro as source. And it's always only him. I cannot believe that this author knows more about Brazilian history then all the historians I have mentioned before.

5) The life of Brazilian slaves should be told in the article Slavery in Brazil, not in here. Why only the slaves are important to Brazilian population? What about the Portuguese? Or the Indians? Or the European Immigrants (that are not even mentioned in the section and you don´t bother to ask for their inclusion!).

6) There is no period called "Capitanias do Mar". That kind of information should, once again, be on the article about slavery in Brazil. Or else, we are going to need to also put the number of how many immigrants came to Brazil. It just doesn´t fit in here!

7) But there are no figures about economy in the section! Why do you inssist so much to make the section about Brazilian history themed only on slavery?

8) No, it wasn´t. There was still salvery in African countries up to the end of the 20th century. And Africa is "Western", not "Eastern". Brazil was, indeed, the last american country to end slavery.

9) He couldn´t abolish slavey anytime he wanted. The country had laws, and lawas were created by a Parliament! My God, it is more than clear that you don´t known absolutly nothing about history of Brazil!

10) They were and still are. I am from the Northeast. I know the region. Large afro-descendant populations can be found in Bahia, Maranhão, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. All the remaining Northern and Northeastern states has a large caboclo population. You don´t even know the demographics of Brazil. Wonderful.

Lecen has some kind of obssession with the Empire of Brazil and with Emperor Pedro II

You were the only one who was against my texts. I was for a whole week changing the texts and no one else complained. All of these is happening now because of you and I trying to make peace in here but you keep attacking me for no reason.

And what obssession is that? Do I have obssession with the colonial era too? Because I wrote about it also. And you are the one who keeps trying to find "downside" opinions about this era of brazilian history at all cost. Why so much trouble?

since he has a personal admiration for the monarchy.

Do you know me to accuse me of such thing?

about the Monarchy (only citing the positive points, and trying to remove the negative ones). On the other, when it comes about the Republic, Lecen choose to list only the negative points of it, and ommited the positive points.

But I still did not begin working on the Republican era texts! I am desperately trying to end this issue on the monarchy era to begin working on the republic era!

All my contributions are sourced, and I do not use sources from books people cannot read, making it possible to manipulate informations to feed a personal point of view.

What? What about your Darcy Ribeiro sources?! You only use a pocketbook that was wrote by this author. Your author is good enough, but all those famous historians that I use aren´t? And I used several author so that I wouldn´t make the same mistake as yours, to use only one. - --Lecen (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Lecen using his personal theories to feed his point of view and claiming that an information should be removed because "they are not important" or because "I don't like them" or because "the author is not big enough". It's not up to you to decide what is important or not, or which author may be used as source or not.

If you have any problem with a source being reliable or not or if an information is not important enough, there are certain places in Wikipedia dedicated to discuss these subjects. You are not allowed to make your own conclusions, and remove (sourced) informations according to your desire. If you have some kind of personal admiration for Monarchy or not, keep it to yourself. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a way to sell the informations you want like, and hide the informations you deslike.

You use reliable sources from books to feed your personal point of view, collecting all the positive informations about Emperor Pedro II that you could find, ommiting the negative points you found there, and trying to remove the sourced (and real) contributions from other users, because they are not compatible with brand new History of Brazil that you are trying to create here.

This article already had a very good and stable History session, which was removed by user Lecen, without any justification. It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people. But I have to tell you: Brazil was, and still is, a country of Blacks and poor, not a country of nobles and Emperors living a luxurious life. These were, and still are, the tiny minority of the population. Their place in Brazilian History is reduced to their percentage small percentage in the population.

And yes, most Brazilians were, and still are, of African descent. According to a genetic study, 86% of Brazilians have DNA indicating African ancestry.[4] Most White Brazilians have African descent, virtually all Pardos and Blacks too. Only the descendants of more recent immigrants may not have African ancestry. When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.

I will conclude my participation on this discussion with the following information, taken from the best-seller book "1808" by author Laurentino Gomes (so I cannot be accused of only using Darcy Ribeiro as a source):

"In 1881, when the so called Saiva Law established for the first time the direct election for some legislative positions, only 1.5% of the population had voting rights. It was just the great merchants and landowners who could vote. Among the enormous mass of excluded people there were women, Blacks, Mulattos, the poor, the illiterate people and the destitute people in general".

Reign of Emperor Pedro II a period of prosperity and economic growth for Brazil? Maybe it was for the 1.5% elite of the country. For the 98.5% mass of poor, Blacks, Mulatos, women or illiterate people (the vast majority of Brazilians) it was a period of poverty and destitution. Opinoso (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Opinoso's comments by User:Lecen, second part

If you have some kind of personal admiration for Monarchy or not, keep it to yourself. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a way to sell the informations you want like, and hide the informations you deslike.

You should stop accusing and attacking me. I have been so far trying to be polite.

You use reliable sources from books to feed your personal point of view.

Oh, really? Let´s see:

Opinoso wrote: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"

According to Opinoso, he got the information from here. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.

Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.

What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery.

Opinoso wrote: "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"

According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an [[5]] version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:

Assim, a luta dos Cabanos, contendo, embora, tensões inter-raciais (brancos versus caboclos), ou classistas (senhores versus serviçais), era, em essência, um conflito interétnico, porque ali uma etnia disputava a hegemonia, querendo dar sua imagem étnica à sociedade.

Translation: "So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants(, it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society."

Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source.

Opinoso wrote: And yes, most Brazilians were, and still are, of African descent. According to a genetic study, 86% of Brazilians have DNA indicating African ancestry.

Genetic studies also confirm the strong Portuguese racial influence in Brazilians. According to a study, at least half of the Brazilian population's Y Chromosome comes from Portugal. Black Brazilians have an average of 48% non-African genes, most of them may come from Portuguese ancestors.

And that´s only the Portuguese blood, I haven´t mentioned other European descandants. So, are we going to put them all on the section about Pedro II reign, too?

Opinoso wrote: "In 1881, when the so called Saiva Law established for the first time the direct election for some legislative positions, only 1.5% of the population had voting rights. It was just the great merchants and landowners who could vote. Among the enormous mass of excluded people there were women, Blacks, Mulattos, the poor, the illiterate people and the destitute people in general".

According to the Constitution of 1824, one of the most liberal of its time, voting was obligatory and elections occurred in two steps: in first phase, voters chose Electors. The Electors then chose senators (members of the upper house), deputies (members of the lower house), provincial deputies (members of the Provincial Assemblies) and councilmen (members of the town´s assembly). All the men 25 years of age or older could vote in the first phase with an income of at least Rs 100$000 per year or more, with some exceptions; married men 21 years of age or older could vote, as well. To be an Elector, it was necessary to have an income of at least Rs 200$000 per year.

Neither women nor slaves were allowed to vote in Brazil in the 19th Century.

The income requirement was much higher in the United Kingdom even after the 1832 reform. The only countries at the time that did not require a certain income to vote were France and Switzerland, where universal suffrage was introduced only in 1848. It is probable that no European country at the time had such liberal legislation as Brazil. The income requirement was low enough that, effectively, any employed male citizen could vote. For comparison, in 1876 the civil employee with the lowest wage at the time, a janitor working in the public sector, earned Rs 600$000 annually.

Most voters in Brazil had a low income. In 1876, for example, in the town of Formiga, in the province of Minas Gerais, the poor were 70% of the electorate and in Irajá, in the province of Rio de Janeiro, they were 87%. Ex-slaves couldn´t vote, but their children and grandchildren could, as could the illiterate (which few countries allowed). In 1872, 13% of the free Brazilian population voted. For comparation, in 1870 in the UK, electoral participation was 7% of the total population; in Italy, it was 2%; in Portugal, 9%; and in the Netherlands 2.5%. In 1832, the year of the British electoral reform, 3% of the British voted. Further reforms in 1867 and 1884 managed to expand electoral participation in the UK to 15%.

Although electoral fraud was common, it did not pass unobserved by Pedro II, or the politicians and experts of that time, who considered it a great problem to be resolved. Some measures, like the electoral reforms of 1855, 1875 and 1881, had been taken with intention to eliminate, or at least to diminish, fraud.

OPINOSO IS NOT FAITHFUL TO HIS OWN SOURCES. HE CHANGES THEIR TRUE MEANING TO PROVE HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW. - --Lecen (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To compare Brazil with other countries is a poor idea. Only because there is a war going on in Iraq it does not mean that I have to start a war in Brazil as well. Only because Somalia or Haiti are poor countries it does not mean that Brazil also must be one. Just because few people voted in the UK, or in Micronesia or in Malawi it does not mean that Brazil had to have few voters as well.

And why are you using the genetic Portuguese influence in Brazil to dominish the Africa one? They do not erase each other. Why are you trying to hide the fact that most Brazilians have African ancestry? Do you have any problem with it? Also, why do you attack Darcy Ribeiro with such a big anger, trying to demoralize his intelectual capacity? It's not up to you to decide if an author is big enough. Keep your personal opinions to youself, they're not welcome here.

Now, I have to leave. I will date now. There's a life outside and I live in a beautiful country with many things to see. Bye-bye. Opinoso (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not faithful to your own sources. - --Lecen (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you a nice date. :) When you come back, please reply to the issues raised here. And please try not to make any accusation or insinuations. Because those are surely not welcome on Wikipedia, see wp:civil. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New change on the text

Taking in consideration the suggestions found in here, and also Opinoso's, I have made new changes on the text on the section about Pedro II reign. Here goes the changes:

• "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" (Opinoso's) - removed.
• "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed" (Opinoso's) - removed
• "with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.” (mine) - removed
• "Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries" (mine) - removed
• "The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America" (mine) - removed
• "and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end" (mine) - removed
• "which left more than 300,000 dead" (Opinoso's) - removed

Added:

• "However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles" - mention to Pedro II conflict with the pro-slavery farmers.
• "and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery" - just changed the website source for an author.
• "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." - Opinoso's original mentioned only 1864. Now the information regarding the slave population in Brazil is more complete as it goes from the independence up to the slavery abolition.

Well, now the text is more simple and direct. I hope it can stay that way and please everyone. I'll begin working on the text about the republican era tomorrow. - --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is how I believe the article should be. It´s simple, direct and straightfoward. It mentions slavery clearly and even has a "see also" banner to anyone who wants to know more about it. See below:

Extended content

Emperor Pedro II reign Main article: Pedro II of Brazil See also: Slavery in Brazil Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country." As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem the Sabinada and the Balaiada, all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival." Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance). The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888. However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887. Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” The emperor did not care about its fate and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.

It is terrible, and it hides important facts about this government, particularly the social exclusion of the majority of Brazilian population, its poverty, and the manipulation of richness in the hands of the 1.5% elite. Opinoso (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now start working it out. Make a proposal; try tackling one subject only; reach agreement; then move on. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

Lecen is making things look too positive, while Opinoso is making things look too negative. Now how to be?

Both parties should at this point decide not to make any edits that do not have consensus. Otherwise the article will be protected, or users blocked.

How to have consensus when you disagree?

Settle on the opinions of uninvolved editors. I have outlined them above in detail for each of the ten points.

Note: please do not make personal accusations (even if they were correct), and respect each other's sources (in general a book is considered reliable unless it would be shown to be unreliable according to the policy guidelines). Without these two things you will never reach consensus. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to make it look too positive. During the first decade of Pedro II's reign several rebellions occurred and the country fell into anarchy. That is cited in the text. Once he was declared an adult, the country had peace for 40 years, until the end of slavery. What do I have to do? Do you want me to to put in citations and quotes from at least 5 respected historians about the subject for each point? I can do that. But I do not understand why in a section that tells briefly about something, the opinion of several historians had the same value of only one. - --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be defensive. Try to accept alternative points of view. Perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#The_most_important_lesson. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is so bloated that I can't reliably edit it.

Sorry, giving a TLDR to the article as a whole.- Sinneed 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Humor: The US article suffers the same problem... 160Kb long... ick.

Sorry I can't help.- Sinneed 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that such a good article is going under a process of ruination because of the actions of a single user who wants to sell his personal admirations here. Sinned, what do you think about reestoring it to the original History session, which was erased by user Lecen withoiut any justification? The original part had nothing controversal, it was neutral, well sourced and far from being biased, and there was no reason to erase it. In fact, I already reverted the page to its original way[6], but I got reversed by Lecen without any justification, who decided to start a edit-warring.

This is the original article which was erased by Lencen without any justification: Opinoso (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

History Main article: History of Brazil Origin Main article: Indigenous peoples in Brazil Two Brazilians of indigenous descent wearing traditional costumes. Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia (Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes. A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea. When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi-nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should "civilize" the Amerindians. Colonization Main article: Colonial Brazil Map of Brazil issued by the Portuguese explorers in 1519. Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies. Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century. Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall. Statue of António Raposo Tavares at the Museu Paulista. During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians. In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland. Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy. In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony. Empire Main article: Empire of Brazil Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil in 1873. Fala do Trono, by Pedro Américo. In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825. In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt, the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835. The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000. Banner of the Empire of Brazil On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead, and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law, Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery. When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place. By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery. Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état. Republic Main articles: Estado Novo (Brazil), Brazilian Second Republic, Military dictatorship (Brazil), History of Brazil (1964–1985), and History of Brazil since 1985 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, current President of the Federative Republic of Brazil The Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, the lower house of the National Congress. Pedro II was deposed on 15 November 1889 by a Republican military coup led by general Deodoro da Fonseca, who became the country’s first de facto president through military ascension. The country's name became the Republic of the United States of Brazil. From 1889 to 1930, the dominant states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais alternated control of the presidency. A military junta took control in 1930. Getúlio Vargas took office soon after and remained as dictatorial ruler until 1945. He was re-elected in 1951 and stayed in office until his suicide in 1954. During this period Brazil also took part in World War I and World War II. After 1930, successive governments continued industrial and agricultural growth and the development of the vast interior of Brazil. Juscelino Kubitschek's office years (1956–1961) were marked by the political campaign motto "50 anos em 5" (English: fifty years of development in five). The military took office in Brazil in a coup d'état in 1964 and remained in power until March 1985, when it fell from grace because of political struggles between the regime and the Brazilian elites. In 1967 the name of the country was changed to Federative Republic of Brazil. Just as the Brazilian regime changes of 1889, 1930, and 1945 unleashed competing political forces and caused divisions within the military, so too did the 1964 regime change. Democracy was re-established in 1988 when the current Federal Constitution was enacted. Fernando Collor de Mello was the first president truly elected by popular vote after the military regime. Collor took office in March 1990. In September 1992, the National Congress voted for Collor's impeachment after a sequence of scandals were uncovered by the media. The vice-president, Itamar Franco, assumed the presidency. Assisted by the Minister of Finance at that time, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Itamar Franco's administration implemented the Plano Real economic package, which included a new currency temporarily pegged to the U.S. dollar, the real. In the elections held on 3 October 1994, Fernando Henrique Cardoso ran for president and won, being reelected in 1998. Brazil's current president is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006.

Everything is sourced here and it was a nice job conducted by several authors during years. Lecen erased all this good work for nothing. This must come back as soon as possible. Opinoso (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Original section being replaced by new one

The issue is: in 20 October 2009, user:Lecen started to erase several sourced informations from article Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His justification to erase them was "Adding a much better and correct text with sources to Empire section"[7]. After a few days, the entire section about History of Brazil was erased by this user, and replaced with his own contributions.

Lecen is free to point the parts that he found to be "incorrect" or "worse" in the original History section. However, I can't find any rule from Wikipedia allowing an user to erase sourced informations because he deslikes what was writen there, and giving no reasons to erase them. Wikipedia does not allow this type of behaviour. Comments please.Opinoso (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know little of the subject, but blanking is to be deplored. If there was incorrect or biased information, the proper course is to correct it AND add citations of reliable sources. Without that it is potentially the editor's WP:OR. It is unfortunate that the article has been worked on since, so that it is not to easy to see what is complained of. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will make a brief summary of the problem according to my view: I started to rewrite the section “History” in the article on Brazil. The idea was to improve the text changing the old citations based on websites for books written by several renowned historians. I had already rewritten three subsections without having received complains from other users. In the fourth subsection that deals with the reign of Emperor Pedro II, I received serious complains from user Opinoso who made baseless personal accusations against me for no reason. I sent him a private message asking him to get into a peaceful resolution to the matter, but he simply ignored me and kept with the accusations, attacks and ironic remarks towards me. After that he added untrue information in the subsection. And even more serious: he was not faithful to his own sources and created information that did not exist in the sources, as I managed to prove in the discussion page. - --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II and his reign viewed by foreign and Brazilian historians

Nothing of what I wrote was taken out of my head or based on personnal opinions. They were all taken from history books written by renowned Brazilian and foreign historians. Anyone who reads it, will surely notice that is identical to what I wrote. I am putting in here a few of them. If any one wants it, I can put as many others as necessary until I prove the fairness of my allegations. I remain faithful to my sources, the opposite of what Opinoso does. And if to any of you they might seem "biased" it is because as historian José Murilo de Carvalho said (p.265) the all historians "tend to be sympathetic toward the monarch if not openly praiseful".

American historians

Dana Gardner Munro

(Munro, Dana Gardner. The Latin American Republics; A History. New York: D. Appleton, 1942, pp.273-274)

Under the new Emperor, Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress. Despite his youth, Pedro II soon showed a surprising capacity to give the country precisely the kind of government that its political development seemed to demand. Educated by conscientious tutors under a strict regime that left him little opportunity for contact with the court influences which had shaped his father’s character, he grew up to be serious minded, irreproachable in his private life, and indefatigable in the performance of what he considered his duty. He was keenly interested in art, science, and literature, well-informed though not profound or brilliant, an able and intelligent ruler if not a great statesman. His subjects loved him for his simplicity and his democratic ways even when they regarded his weakness with tolerant amusement or criticized his official acts with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.

Thomas E. Skidmore

(Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.73)

Pedro II brought a natural talent to his work. Even at age 14, he was steady, equilibrated and discrete. The young emperor had another advantage. As his father said on the eve of his departure in 1831: “My son has an advantage over me that is the fact that he is Brazilian, and the Brazilians like him. He will reign without difficulty and the Constitution will guarantee his prerogatives”. During his reign, he acquired the reputation of being just and objective, projecting the image of a honest and ethical sovereign who would not hesitate in disciplining politicians who were caught turning away from his strict standards. In this he resembled Queen Victoria, his British contemporary, whose long reigned (1837-1901) in great measure was parallel to his. Pedro II became more and more a point of reference for the elite, who used its straightness and firm pulse to move the country far away from the “unstable” Latin American republics.

British historians

Roderick J. Barman

(Barman, Roderick J. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp.XIII-XIV)

The task of transforming Brazil into a functioning nation-state fell to a boy aged fourteen. Pedro II devoted himself during the next half century to meeting the formidable challenge. “During what is now a long life,” he reflected in November 1891, “I have applied all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people.” Resourceful, patient, and above all persevering, he eschewed bold initiatives and avoided confrontations. The emperor first established an undisputed dominance over public affairs, his integrity and his impartiality being respected by all. Even more important, the public persona he developed embodied the values which the ruling elements in Brazil wished for their country. He was at once the model emperor and the model citizen. He literally and metaphorically towered above his fellow Brazilians. Pedro II’s achievements at home and the high reputation he established abroad convinced Brazilians that the goals he advocated would create a country as powerful and as civilized as France, Great Britain or the United States.

Brazilian historians

Pedro Calmon

(Calmon, Pedro. História da Civilização Brasileira. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2002, p.217)

The revolution that occurred in Pernambuco in 1848 – when Rio Grande do Sul was already pacified since 1845 – ended a cycle of civil-military agitations that disturbed, during the regency and beyond, the life of the nation. The politics, became British-like, and were improved, creating springs and bumpers that started to function under the vigilant eyes of the emperor, whose personal power crossed the wide time of 1840 to 1889 - the peace was consummated and allowed, with the development of the ideals, the evolution of democracy in Brazil. There is not, in the history of the South America, more continuous period of tranquility, so different of the examples given by its neighbors [the Spanish South American republics], that J.B. Alberdi considered our case the “Brazilian miracle”. When the throne fell, in 1889, Rojas Paúl, president of Venezuela, said,: “It has ended the only republic that existed in [South] America: the Empire of Brazil.” Mitre called it “a crowned democracy”.

José Murilo de Carvalho

(Carvalho, José Murilo de. D. Pedro II. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007, p.9)

D. Pedro ruled Brazil from 23 July 1840 up to 15 November 1889. It was 49 years, three months and 22 days, almost half a century. He assumed the power with less than fifteen years old in a turbulent phase of the national life, when Rio Grande do Sul was an independent republic, the Maranhão faced the revolt of the Balaiada, it had barely ended the bloody war of Cabanagem in Pará, and England threatened the country with the retaliation due to the slave traffic. He was deposed and exiled with 65 years old, leaving consolidated the unit of the country, abolished the traffic and slavery, and established the foundation of the representative system thanks to the uninterrupted accomplishment of elections and the great freedom of the press. For the longevity of his government and the transformations effected in its course, no other head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country.

--Lecen (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Carlos Olivieri

(Olivieri, Antonio Carlos. Dom Pedro II, Imperador do Brasil. São Paulo: Callis, 1999, p.22)

Until the decline of the Empire, in the 1880s, the political stability favored the economical and cultural development of the country. In the literature, in painting and music, started to appear creators, such as the poet Gonçalves Dias, the writer José de Alencar, the painter Pedro Américo and the maestro Carlos Gomes. All of them are still up to this day important references of the Brazilian culture. Enthusiastic of the arts, dom Pedro II tried to support writers and artists. He granted scholarships in the foreign for Pedro Américo and Carlos Gomes, among others. If the Government could not pay for them, he would pay with his own money. [...] Beyond favoring artists and intellectuals, dom Pedro II personally sponsored many educational initiatives, establishing or collaborating with the establishments of schools and institutions of scientific research.

--Lecen (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Karp Vasquez

(Vasquez, Pedro Karp. Nos trilhos do progresso: a ferrovia no brasil imperial vista pela fotografia. São Paulo: Metavídeo, 2007, p.38)

Although having assumed the power very young, in virtue of the artifice of the Majority, done in 23 July 1840, when he had not completed the age of 15 years, Dom Pedro II made of the Second Empire a period of stability and growth to Brazil. Reserved and melancholic, Dom Pedro II was in all different from his impetuous father, having remained in power for almost fifty years, in one of the longest reigns of the history of the world. Without letting become fascinated by power - which he neglected in favor of studies -, Dom Pedro II knew how to impose himself although so young and to balance between `luzias” (liberal) and “saquaremas” (conservatives), to lead the country into a period of stability and prosperity after 1850. Enormously interested in everything that was related to scientific discoveries, Dom Pedro II sought to modernize the country, anticipating itself in many cases the initiative of European countries.

--Lecen (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? What's your point here? Did anybody say that Emperor Pedro II did not do good things for Brazil? Of course he did. However, his government was not so perfect as you're trying to sell, neither the Republic was so evil like you're trying to sell. Both have positive and negative points, like any other government. However, your obssession with trying to "prove" that the reign of Pedro II was a great moment for Brazil seems a little bit "suspect". You choose (for personal reasons) to post only the positive points about Monarchy, and only the negative points of Republic. You erased important facts about that period, crucial aspects (negatives is most cases) and replaced them with all positive aspects. Not a really neutral attitude. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen comments on each sentence he removed

Hello Lecen, how are you doing?! This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article. Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations, and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right? Since he erased ALL the History text, it means that ALL the original sentences were "wrong" and "worse". Could Lecen please show us the wrong informations it had? Because, as far as I can, everything seemed to be well sourced and neutral. I'd like to see him commenting on each information he erased (since he erased everything, he must comment each sentence of the original text), and explain why he erased it, and why the sentence was wrong. For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.

This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).

I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude. However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place. This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed. Then, Wikipedia allowes me to re-post what was removed with no reason.

Good luck Lecen. I will wait the comments on each information that you removed (not only about Emperor Pedro II, but about the entire History text, since you erased it all). It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that, but perhaps we should first solve our issues in this section. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you agreed with my idea. In my opinion, the original History text had no issues. It seemed perfect to me. In Lecen's opinion, the entire text had issues, and then he decided to erase it all. I think the first step is Lecen to point all the issues he found there, using sources to point all the informations he found to be wrong (with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home). I find it incredible that an all-sourced text could be all wrong. Then, let's give Lecen an opportunity to point all these mistakes he claimed to see there (and contradict them with sources). However, if he is not able to prove why an information was "wrong", then he is not able to remove it. Opinoso (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources, then I'm pretty sure that the informations from these books may be easily found on different websites (good works are always followed by many people and posted in millions of websites around the world). Opinoso (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lecen, how are you doing?!

So polite now! what take you so long to act like this?

This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article.

As usual, you are not telling the truth. As I explained before, I have re-worked the subsections from early settlement up to the end of the Empire. When I was going to work on the republican subsections, you appeared. Unfortunately, by the way. I added a paragraph to one of the republic subsections but I erased later. So, saying that it was the entire section isn´t correct. I would not expect something else out of you, I must confess.

Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations

And they were.

and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right?

If yo uread the older text and my version of the colonial era, you'ss see that they are very similar. The exception is that my explains better the territorial expansion and the treaties signed by Portugal and Spain that gave the borders that Brazil now has. By the way, if you don´t even know if the older text had correct or not informations, why have do you want it so badly back?

I think the first step is Lecen to point all the issues he found there, using sources to point all the informations he found to be wrong (with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home).

You talk like I had done all that out of nowhere. Anyone can see the discussion page and will observe that I warned in here that I wanted to improve the text. That was on October 17. Three days later, and many other edits later, I made my first modification. And I made it clear that if anyone had any opinion about it, I was waiting for. Two days later, I warned everyone that I had made other modifications and asked for opinions. No one did. In fact, other editors were correcting a few grammar mistakes on my texts but other than that, no one had complained. Three days later (October 25, a full week after I warned that I wanted to improve the text), I told everyone that I had ended working on the texts about the colonial and imperial era and that I was moving towards the republic. Two days later, I once again warned about new changes. Then you appeared.

For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.

Oh, but you can use your personal opinions and fabricate infromation by giving sources that does not says what you claim?

I don´t need to bring the opposite. Read the older and the newer text, they are similar. Mine has more information and runs more smoothly. Oh, and I used as base the history section of the United States. That is why both structures are so similar.

This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).

And I want you to explain why you were not faithful to your sources and fabricated information out of nowhere. That is not correct. In fact, I am dying to say what truly is, but I have to polite.

I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude.

You are not a judge to act like that. I don´t want an opportunity from you. You were not faithful to your source. You took the work from someone and claimed that that person had said something that he did NOT. Why I am being treated like a criminal? You are the one who should be sanctioned.

However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place.

No, you are not. You will keep them there so that everyone can see your dishonesty. You want to reomve them because now you now that you were caught and is afraid of being punished. Too late. Before all this started I sent you a private message trying to work things out peacefuly. You didn´t bother to answer me. Now you want to undone what you did? Now you want to be polite with me? It is too late. I can explain sentence by sentence that I modificated. I want to see YOU explaining what you did.

This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed.

Ow... and your FAKE sourced information is ok?

Good luck Lecen.

Good luck to you.

What you did was wrong. You cannot use someone (on that case, those sources wyou used) and put under their shoulders the responsabilites for the FAKE informations you have wrote. What if this article was about a living person and that person would try to take legal actions against the inocent source you have used? What you did was serious. Very serious. Someone cannot write a book and use other person's work as source and put an information that the other person has NOT said. That could bring serious problem to the person who was used as source.

It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on.

You are trying to get away from what you did. You think I am going to back down, that we are going to return the text to the older version, and no will notice the frauds you commited. No, sir. No way. For the last couples of days you have insulted my dignity. You have insulted my honor. You have mocked me. Anyone who knows of my contributions in here knows that I do a serious work. A will not let someone like you who commits frauds treat me like I was like you and forget everything that happened. If I were you, I would disappear for a while and stop causing troubles in here.

It's great that you agreed with my idea. In my opinion, the original History text had no issues.

Yes it had. I have put several quotes from several historians in here to prove that what I wrote is correct. I am going all the way to the end now. And you are going down.

then I'm pretty sure that the informations from these books may be easily found on different websites (good works are always followed by many people and posted in millions of websites around the world).

No wonder you took an information from a population table and said that during Pedro II reign more slaves were imported than in any other moment of Brazilian history. And you are asking us to trust on sources based on websites? Are you joking? Because if you are, that is not funny.

So what? What's your point here? Did anybody say that Emperor Pedro II did not do good things for Brazil? Of course he did.

Didn´t you spend all this time giving hints to everyone that I was lying when I wrote down that his reign was prosperous for the country? Didn´t you insult my integrity to prove your point? I wrote down the opinion of several historians about Pedro II and his reign. And no ONE, no ONE seems to agree with your arguments. Oh, I forgot, your arguments are a farse.

Both have positive and negative points, like any other government.

Now you are trying to be neutral? And who said that I was saying that monarchy was better than republic? That was never the matter. EVER.

However, your obssession with trying to "prove" that the reign of Pedro II was a great moment for Brazil seems a little bit "suspect".

DO NOT INSULT ME. STOP INSINUATING things about me. STOP trying to insinuate that I am acting on bad faith. YOU DID. Your obssession drove you so far that you commited fraud to prove your point. You are the one who is "suspect". Do not insult me, ever again by accusing me of things YOU DID.

with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home

So, no one can write in Wikipedia until every one has a copy of the book? If that´s the problem, I can SCAN all pages that I used and send through e-mail to everyone who is intereste to check it. You can NOT do that because your information aren´t even REAL. - --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I must disagree with. There is no reason to use "books that people have at home". Do not make up rules, please.

I'd really like to see that you two agree first of all on a few compromises about the issues we talked about before. We had ten points and some compromises on the way. Have a look at Talk:Brazil#New_change_on_the_text and start making proposals. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Here are my thoughts on the 10 points, following what you wrote:

1. POV language. Me: Not only I agree as I have proved that it does not match with the source's information.
2. If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war the remove. Me: Agree. War casualties should be on its proper page.
3. Should not be here. Me: Agree. Sames as number 2.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements. Me: As I have put in here, all historians says that the country developed and grew. Its source does not even says what it is written.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept. Me: redundant. It won´t make the text richer. Slaves were used on mines, house works, prostitution, etc... not only coffe farms. This is not history of Brazilian slavery (however, my original proposal was to add a "see also: slavery in Brazil" tag so that anyone interested in knowing more about the subject may take a look in the apropriate article), but history of Brazil. There is no reason to be so detailed if the immigrants are not even mentioned at all on the text. And remember: the text must be small and objective.
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept. Me: as I have proven, the source does not says that. It must be removed.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here. Me: I believe that the following phrase could be added: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887."
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept. Me: Fine, it could stay.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed. Me: Agree, it´s unnecessary and the quote was taken out of context. And Pedro II's troubles with the pro slavery faction was already mentioned in the phrase "took too long to trespass the political obstacles”. Not only coffe farmers were gainst the end of slavery, but also politicians and other groups.
10. Incorrect. Me: I agree. -

My proposal for the final text can be seen at Talk:Brazil#New change on the text on extended content. --Lecen (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, user:Lecen is not going to comment on each sourced information that he erased. He prefered to comment on my comments, which is so useless and has no consequences for the article. User Lence said he "improved" the text. No, he did not. He erased the original text, writen by several users, and replaced it with his own contributions. This is not to "improve" a text. User Lecen may be free to add informations, not to erase them.

Then, he wrote in his user page[8] that he wrote "all History sections of Brazil article". It seems user Lecen whats to show the world that he was able to write everything in the History section, and that may be the reasons he is trying to remove the contributions of other users to this specific article. There's something real wrong here.

Lecen accuses me of faking sources. I think this user should read the entire book I used as a source before making such a huge accusation (he addimits that he read only a tiny part of the book). In fact, he is only trying to change the focus of this discussion to me. I'm not the focus of this discussion, neither you are. The focus is the fact that you erased several sourced informations without explaining why were removing them. You only said you were going to remove them because they were "wrong". Ok, were they wrong? So, show us the mistakes they had! It seems you're not able to shows us what was wrong there, then you started to change the focus of the discussion to me. No, no. I'm not the focus of this discussion. Your attitude is.

It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people.[9] (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it? Later, this user apperead here erasing sourced informations, mostly informations that showed negative points of Monarchy, and replacing them with another vision of Monarchy: only positive. Strange, isn't it?

Now, I ask the user to show us why he erased sourced informations, a great opportunity, and he denies my suggestion. I'm sorry Lecen, but if you are not able to explain why an information was "wrong", then you're not able to erase it. It's not me who is saying that, they're the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot erase an entire History text because you just don't like it.

You cannot say you were "improving" the article, because what is "better" or "worse" is a subjective conseption. In my opinion, the old History text is better, and Wikipedia does allow me to re-post it, since you cannot even explain why you removed it. Debresser agreed with me, because this is the most wise way to solve this issue.

Won't you really comment on each information you erased from the original History text? Opinoso (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're getting personnal as usual. What I do on my user page is my problem as long as it does not hurt Wikipedia rules. It is written there "Other articles I have significantly contributed to". "Signicantly" does mean that I was the only one who wrote it. I am just making clear that I had some part on the overall text. And I don´t understand why I am explaing this. You keep accusing me and insinuating that there was bad faith from my part. You are not helping at all on resolving the matter.

Those Brazilian historical figures were Prime-Ministers and considered the greatest statesmen of Brazil in the 19th century. My interest is not in the fact that they later were ennobled, but their role in the political arena.

The only negative information about that era were the ones that you put and that were fake. I already put in here the opinion on foreign and Brazilian historians on that period. Is their opinion against your fake info. Which one to take in account? Anyway, you're only here to cause trouble. - --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of issue

Lecen decided not to comment on each sourced information he erased, and why they and their sources were "wrong". Then, it means that he erased the informations because he just did not like them. Since this is not allowed in Wikipedia, I am re-posting all the sourced informations this user removed without anu justification (it means I am reverting the History text to its original form.

If Lecen finds that some information is wrong, he is able to use this talk page to show us (with sources) why that information is wrong. Or, if the finds a source is not reliable, he is able to discuss the issue in the correct place. However, if Lecen starts to remove sourced informations once again without any justification, then he will be vandalyzing the article. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Added by Grenzer22

Quote: "And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?". Opinoso'(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth": that's completely false. Slavery continued in many other places in the world after 1888, you just have to look for them to find them. No more than 2 decades after the US by the way. And the labour system which was practiced in Brazil was a result of the system which was implanted by the Portuguese invaders, who since from the XV century were capturing slaves, soon to be followed by Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands (in spite of that, and a lot more, Europeans claim to be the champions of the human rights cause; and this is what has been omitted from history books for a long time). As a European colony Brazil was forced to accept slavery from 1500 to 1822, massive slavery, first the Native Americans, and then Africans who were traded by the Portuguese by the millions. From 1822 to 1888 that's only 66 years.

1865 United States abolishes slavery 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery 1894 Korea abolishes slavery 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery 1906 China abolishes slavery 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery 1970 Oman abolishes slavery 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

30 October 2009 Grenzer22

Comment by Elockid

It seems some I just don't like this is going on. That being said, the passages have some problems, I'm commenting on the new ones since the old ones have already been commented:

• but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" (Opinoso's) - removed.

Agree with removal, it reads POV to me

• "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed" (Opinoso's) - removed

Was this such a significant event that it needs to be added?

• "with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.” (mine) - removed

"Extremely" is one of those unnecessary words that for the most part, enhances the effect of POV and really doesn't help convey what the sentence is talking about. This should be avoided, statement does not seem neutral.

• "Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries" (mine) - removed

"Very well" is another one of those phrases. See above. Comparisons usually leads to disputes.

• "The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America" (mine) - removed

See above. Word choice problems

• "and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end" (mine) - removed

"Undisputed", again see above. This could have been left without. You might also want to use a different word other than "hegemony" or at least wikilink it. I doubt that a good number of people know what this is

• "which left more than 300,000 dead" (Opinoso's) - removed

Don't agree with removal. This shows the magnitude of a significant war.

Added:

• "However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles" - mention to Pedro II conflict with the pro-slavery farmers.

"too long". Watch the language here.

• "and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery" - just changed the website source for an author.

This should be reworded to last country in the Americas rather than last American country. Even though "American country" is correct, some people still uphold the belief that term "American" refers to the United States. This is a view that is shared outside of the US also, not just in the US. The term "Americas" from experience doesn't produce the same conception as "American".

• "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887."

There's nothing wrong with adding data about slavery since it was a big part of Brazil's history. However, the beginning of that statements makes it seem too optimistic. You could rewrite it as "Slavery had been declining after/from (choose after or from) insert year(s) here until insert year here, when slavery was abolished."

Hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User Elockid is also able to see the same biased "words" that I do, strategically posted to sell a personal point of view. Even though these "words" may be found in the books used as sources, they sell only a personal vision about the subject, which is not a rule, neither may be the majority view of scholars. Opinoso (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll

First of all I think we have to vote if the old text or if the new text should stay in that article. The old text is the one written by several users along the years and which was already there. The new text is the one exclusively written by User:Lence. When we get to a democratic choice about which text should stay there, the next step would be to correct the biased or wong informations (if they exist) in the chosen text. Nothing more democratic, right? I re-posted the old text, because it was erased without any justification, and user Lence did not want to point what was "wrong" about it.

I noticed some "brand new users" are appearing at this discussion. I hope they are not sockpuppets of other users already involved at this discussion, and I hope the votes of these "brand new users" won't also "appear" here.

I sincerely hope new users will cast their votes. Your hope that they wont is anti-consensus orientated. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that User:Lecen is not available till Tuesday, and that it is likely that that is the reason he didn't answer in detail to your questions. It took you a few days as well to start answering questions instead of making personal attacks... So please, be realistic. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that editors will voluntarily constrain themselves to only civil discussion. -- Rico 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, Opinoso, you should probably change User:Lence to User:Lecen. I don't think they are the same person. I'm not able to because other editors are not allowed to modify another editor's comments. I'll cast a vote after I hear what Lecen has to say. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I also hope anyone can vote. But I noticed a "new user" who left a few messages here and also disappeared. It seemed strange to me. Opinoso (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. We have to be very carefull, because that would be a serious accusation. If you are seriously worried about this, you should post at the appropriate admin noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let it be. I only said I hope it was not a sockpoppet. Opinoso (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing Lencen with Lecen. Opinoso (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Old text

• --Opinoso (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC). The old text is not biased, is sourced, small and it recounts the History of Brazil, without personal opinions of scholars about certain subjects. The new text is biased, too long and it focus on personal opinions of scholars about a certain subject. It has several citations ("") with sentences from books, which seem biased to me, because it tries to sell opinions or a judgement that the book writer has. This is so biased that in the Emperie section, user Lencen posted a sentence of an writer as followes: "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country." This is the opinion of the writer. Nobody has to agree that the Emperor was the one that "has marked more deeply" Brazil. I asked my grandmother, and she thinks Getúlio Vargas was the best government Brazil ever had. I think the opinion of my grandmother is not less important than the opinion of anyone else. And a detail: user Lencen is always writing about Monarchy and Emperor Pedro II, then he has some kind of adimiration for the subject. This personal adimiration may reflect in non-neutral posts when it comes about Monarchy or Pedro II. Opinoso (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Pedro II is seen by historians as the Brazilian Head of State that has marked the country's history more than anyone else. That it is not inly the opinior of the highly acclaimed Brazilian historian José Murilo de Carvalho, but also the British historian Roderick J. Barman (in Citizen Emperor, p.XIII, preface), for example:

"In the history of Latin America since independence, no person has held power so firmly and for so long as did Pedro II of Brazil. The only comparable figure is Fidel Castro, who came to power in Cuba after the 1959 revolution. Through their personalities and their systems of governing, both rulers have shaped to a considerable degree the character and public culture of their nation-states."

And the author later says (p.XVI):

"Pedro II´s principal achievements – the fostering of a political culture and the inculcation of an ideal of citizenship – not only survived his overthrown as emperor in 1889 but also endured as the norms and directives of public life during three succeeding regimes – the Old Republic (1889-1930), the Vargas Era (1930-45), the Liberal Republic (1945-64). Even the military regime which seized power in 1964 was deeply influenced by the vision of Brazil as a nation-state established by Pedro II. Only in the 1980s would this vision begin to be supplanted”

It must be taken in account that the fact that Pedro II has marked the country's history more than any other Head of State does not mean that his government was the best Brazil ever had. It doens´t matter his grandmother's opinion if Vargas was the best Head of State. That's not the point. Opinoso's opinion reveals his partiality and how he insists on depreciating texts and changing their true meanings only to prove his point. ---Lecen (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New text

Other

Polling is not a substitute for discussion

"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. ... in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. ... even in cases that appear to be 'votes', few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a 'majority rule' basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." -- WP:Vote -- Rico 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but there is an issue: an entire text was removed without any justification. The user only said it was "wrong" and "worse". He could not point why it was wrong or worse. We have to know which text will be used there: the old or the new. The old text has no issues (at least, until now, nobody was able to show what was "wrong" or "worse" about the old text). The new texts has many issues, it is totally biased. Then, if the old text will remain there at least from my part, it has no issues to be discussed. But, if the new text will remain there, then we have lots of biased informations to discuss. That's why I prefer the old text, because it was a great text, which was written by several users, and it is sourced. The new text, on the other hand, was written exclusively by one user (Lencen) and it is biased (besides being too long, which actually destroys this article). Opinoso (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor can remove an entire text, being bold. It's easy enough to revert[10][11] and then discuss it on the talk page. Whether there was justification may be debatable. My guess is that Lencen believes there was.
The issue is which version is better -- an oversimplification, and one of the reasons voting is not preferred. Per WP:Vote, "Potential problems with voting include: You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options."
I see Lencen has discussed it here on the talk page. Users are not expected to provide elaborate edit summaries after the discussion is on the talk page. An edit summary is supposed to summarize what the edit is, but not necessarily defend it.

Lencen's edit summaries look like this:

Extended content

12:55, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */") 12:57, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */") 13:31, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */") 06:38, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */") 06:48, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */") 19:46, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Republic */") 13:13, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */") 13:15, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */") 17:19, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 17:24, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */ Adding books to bibliography.") 18:26, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 18:28, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */") 18:29, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 18:57, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */") 18:58, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 19:01, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 19:08, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 19:09, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 21:09, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321993539 by 71.139.23.201 (talk)") 21:16, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 00:01, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322032087 - The brown population in Brazil compass African, European and Native American mix offsprings") 00:47, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */") 18:17, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */ Adding another citation") 18:36, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */") 19:21, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Etymology */") 00:39, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */") 10:52, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "No reason at all to add casualties to the small text about the history of the country. Malê rebellion was a small and insignificant revolt rarely mentioned in books, no reason to be in here.") 10:55, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "The Cabanagem is already mentioned in the text. The casualties cited are controversial and unnecessary to be used in here. It should be put in the article about the rebellion.") 10:59, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */") 13:38, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */") 14:05, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */") 14:42, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322339819 by Opinoso (talk)") 15:16, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision by Opinoso (talk) - I have changed the older and incorrect text for a much improved and with better sources one.") 15:18, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */") 15:19, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */") 15:21, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */") 15:31, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322350103 by Opinoso (talk) - Edit war. Stop it now.") 20:12, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */ Removing the old text for an improved version with sources.") 20:43, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ No reason to put the website citation. The text already makes mention to the rebellions that occured in that period with all sources needed.") 20:58, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */ Corrected grammar issues on the text.") 22:21, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Transfering some sentences to article about Pedro II and Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Now it is more straight foward.") 22:28, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */ Transfered some sentences to History of the Empire fo Brazil and Politics of the Empire of Brazil. Now the text is smaller.") 22:37, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Trasnfered more sentences to article about Pedro II and Politics of the Empire of Brazil") 00:34, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */ Shortened the section by removing not so important information to such a small place. Removed toolong tag. If someone is against it, put it back") 00:37, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */ Removing not so important info") 00:41, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */ Removed not so important info.") 00:42, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */") 19:03, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Add biased tag") 22:05, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */Some modifications. SEE DISCUSSION PAGE.") 15:04, 30 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Military dictatorship and Contemporary era */ Adding more information to Contemporary era.")

Every editor has a bias/POV. Lencen may believe the article is less biased after her or her edits.[12] We'll just have to wait to find out.
I agree with you that length is an issue on Web pages. Lencen seems to too.("A idéia é deixar a seção ... pequena.")
We work on the basis of good reasons, consensus is not in numbers, and Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.
I'm not saying you are, but I would like to ask all people concerned not to get into a WP:WIN[13] mentality, tá? Wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't matter if the new text was written exclusively by one user. Only improving the article matters.
Thank you for being civil. I appreciate it. -- Rico 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Lecen improved the older history text

I will explain each and every single action I did on this article on this place, not because Opinoso requested it, but because other editor did. I have ended writing, as you will see, what I did improved the text and didn´t harm it. And more important: I took as a model the history section of the United States. This is why it has similar titles and number of subsections. --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet sources versus History books sources

Opinoso wrote: Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources

One of the accusations brought by Opinoso against me was of that in the old text of the history section of the article bout Brazil had worthy sources and that mine were not valid.

Yes, it is true that in Wikipedia we can use websites as sources, but we must remember the same ones can be closed, erased, shut down or their texts may even have been written by non-professionals on the subject (which is almost always the case and it is the case in the History section).

On the other hand, I used as sources history books of renowned historians and took as base the work of the majority of historians, and not of a minority (as you can all see here). For example, in the subsection on the Portuguese settling in Brazil, I used a book (The Portuguese Seaborne Empire [1969]) written by the British historian Charles R. Boxer instead of websites that not were even specialized in history, such as it was case in the old text. - --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." -- Rico 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy versus Republic

Opinoso wrote:It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it?

Another accusation of Opinoso against me is that I would be monarchist and for that reason I would be partial and have spurious motives. According to him, that is based on the fact that I usually contribute with articles regarding the history of Brazil during the period when it was an empire.

This is a serious and baseless accusation. Because an editor contributes with articles about the III Reich does not mean that he is a Nazi (please, I am not saying that a monarchist is the same as a Nazi). Nor that an editor who contributes with articles regarding wars means that he supports violence.

Although I do find ridicule, I see that I need that to make a personal commentary on the subject. In my opinion monarchy is not better than republic, nor is republic better than monarchy. The United States, Germany, France and Austria are rich and developed republics. The same can be said of monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Japan.

In short, it is a useless and foolish accusation that came from a user who asked his grandmother’s opinion on a Brazilian Head of State to prove his point in the history section. --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of racism

Opinoso wrote: It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people.

Opinoso wrote: When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.

Another very, very serious accusation made by Opinoso against me is that I want to erase information on the Afro-Brazilians and their role in Brazilian history , because I would have something against them. He is implying that I would be a racist. This is a monstrous and absurd accusation that I do not admit and I find an insanity an editor accuse another one of something so serious for so little. --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso versus Lecen

This is not the first time that I met user Opinoso in Wikipedia. Some time ago I decided to collaborate in the article about the Brazilian people and placed four photos: a white girl, a group of indians, a black young woman with a boy son of immigrants and a brown young woman. All were from the 19th century, as it is very difficult to find photos from nowadays that do not have copyrights, as all know. Opinoso simply reverted what I did alleging that the Brazilian people could not be resumed to white girl only. I calmly informed him that I had placed a photo for each Brazilian ethnic group, and not only one. After that he modified the phrase where it was said that the brown girl was brown, affirming that in reality she was black (only because he considered her as such). I spoke that the book from where I had taken it affirmed that she was brown. What did he do? He accused to me that I was using a book which the other editors did not had access to, and therefore, it could not be used as source!

I received the warning from another user that Opinoso had the custom of becoming “owner” of articles where he contributed. Nobody could modify anything that he simply reverted all. I observed in the Opinoso’s discussion page that he already had entered in serious issues with other users previously, and also into edit wars. As I found that the article was not worth all the trouble, I simply stopped contributing to it.

When, for my unpleasant surprise, he appeared in the article on Brazil complaining of my modifications, to prevent problems, I sent him a private message asking to peacefully discuss the matter and enter in a consensus. What he did? He ignored me and caused an edit war, and also gratuitously attacked and accused me in the discussion page. I received a warning that I would be blocked if I did any other reversion. And more: he reverted the whole text to the original one although there was an warning on the page telling that no one could do anything until the discussion on it be finished. --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between the older and newer text

Colonial era

Origins (OLDER TEXT)

Extended content

Main article: Indigenous peoples in Brazil Two Brazilians of indigenous descent wearing traditional costumes. Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia (Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes. A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea. When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi-nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should "civilize" the Amerindians.

Colonization (OLDER TEXT)

Extended content

Main article: Colonial Brazil Map of Brazil issued by the Portuguese explorers in 1519. Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies. Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century. Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall. Statue of António Raposo Tavares at the Museu Paulista. During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians. In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland. Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy. In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony.

What is wrong and right in the older text

What is the wrong:

• The information about Indians in "Origins" mix historical and nowadays info. (The modern information should be on demographics article or in the Indigenous peoples in Brazil article.)

No, they should. They're important informations and should be there. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bandeirantes seen as the ones who expanded Brazilian borders (when in reality Portugal conquered territory that belonged to other nations through wars of conquest and later kept by treaties);

Yes, the Bandeirantes were the ones who expanded Brazilian borders. It was not "Portugal". Portugal is not a person. The people who expended the territory were the Bandeirantes, since they did not respect the Treaty of Tordesillas. And most of Brazil was only inhabited by Amerindian populations and Jesuit priests (from whom the Bandeirantes got the lands). Even though there were wars to take lands from the Dutch or the Spanish, most of Brazil was taken by the Bandeirantes, and from the Amerindians, not from "other nations". This information is so true. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of Portuguese colonial administration (untrue, as what kept Brazil united was the victory of the central government over the rebellions in the 1830s and 1840s, more than 100 years after the period mentioned).

It's not untrue. Laurentino Gomes wrote Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of the settlement of the Portuguese Royal family in Brazil in 1808:

"One way to assess the legacy of King John VI is to address the contrary: How would Brazil be today if the Portuguese court had not come to Rio de Janeiro? (..) But the former Portuguese colony would be a fragment of small autonomous countries, much like their Spanish American neighbors, with no other affinity than the language". Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is right:

• Time of Portugal arrival; Indians behavior (nomadism, cannibalism, etc...); miscegenation. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
• The creation of hereditary captainships and their failure; the creation of a single governorship to rule Brazil; Sugar as the most important export good in the early years of colonization; crisis of sugar export economy; explorers finding gold mines in the countryside; a rebellion and two conspiracies against high colonial taxes.(Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)

A final commentary about the changes:

• As anyone can see, I did not erase all text written by other editors. Most of it was kept. The true changes are the fact that I removed the website sources and placed the works of C. R. Boxer and Eduardo Bueno as they are far more reliable.

I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.

Yes, you did erase mahy informations. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers (NEWER TEXT)

Extended content

See also: Indigenous peoples in Brazil and Colonial Brazil The first Christian mass celebrated in what would later be called Brazil marking the beginning of the Portuguese colonization. When arriving in April 1500 in the coast of what would later be known as Brazil, the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral found the primitive people that inhabited it. They were divided in several distinct tribes, that fought among themselves and that shared the same Tupi-Guarani linguistic family. The “men were hunters, fishers and food collectors and the women were encharged of the reduced agricultural activity that was practiced.” Some of the tribes were nomads and other sedentary; they knew the fire but not metal casting and a few were cannibals. The settling was effectively initiated in 1534, when King Dom João III divided the Brazilian territory in twelve hereditary captainships that would be governed by members of the lesser nobility or proceeding from educated families. The experience revealed itself to be an utter disaster, and in 1549 the king assigned a governor-general to administrate the entire colony. With the foundation of villages appeared the municipal councils, and consequently, the beginning of the democratic representative system in Brazil. Up to 1549, most of the (few) settlers were exiled men, but from that date and on, the voluntary emigrants (including women and children) from Portugal became predominant. Around 1530, the Tupiniquim (the same tribe that Cabral met) and their bitter enemies the Tupinambá, the largest and most important tribes in Brazil, allied themselves with the Portuguese and the French, respectively. Between the Portuguese and the Tupiniquim “occurred a certain intermittently pacific inter-racial assimilation.” While the Tupinambás, however, were mostly exterminated in long wars and mainly by European diseases to which they had no immunities. The ones that survived were enslaved by other tribes or by the Portuguese or fled toward the countryside. By the middle of the 16th century, sugar had become the most important item of the Brazilian exportations. Thus, the Portuguese turned to other forms of man power to handle with the increasing international demand. Enslaved Africans were imported and became the “basic pillar of the economy” in the most populous areas of the colony.

Territorial expansion (NEWER VERSION)

Extended content

Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the Southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, São Luís in 1615. They suffered a setback with the Dutch invasions that began in 1630 and that managed to conquer large portions of the Brazilian northeastern coastline. The Dutch domain did not last long and they were expelled definitively in 1649. The Portuguese sent military expeditions to the Amazon rainforest that defeated and conquered British and Dutch strongholds. The Portuguese settlement in the region initiated in 1669, with the foundation of villages and forts. In 1680 they reached the far south and founded Sacramento at the side of the Rio de la Plata, in the Eastern Strip region (current Uruguay). The Portuguese and their Amerindian and African allies expanded the Brazilian territory through endless wars of conquest. At the end of the 17th century sugar exports entered in decline due to competition with the British and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and also due to high taxes. The discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais (General Mines) between 1693 and 1695 saved the colony from its imminent collapse. From all over Brazil, as well from Portugal, thousands of immigrants, from all ethnicities, departed toward the mines. A 20% tax over the gold extraction created dissatisfaction that resulted in an open rebellion in 1720. The Portuguese government suffocated it with relative easiness, assuring its rule over the region for the next seventy years, until the discovery of two small secessionist conspiracies in Minas Gerais and Bahia. In the following decades other gold mines were found in current Mato Grosso and Goiás, in the Brazilian Central-West. The Spanish tried to prevent the Portuguese expansion on the territory belonged to them according to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 and succeeded on conquering the Eastern Strip in 1777. All in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso signed in the same year confirmed Portuguese domain over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of current Brazilian borders. In 1808, the Portuguese Royal family, fleeing from the troops of the French Emperor Napoleon I that were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of the entire Portuguese Empire In 1815 King Dom João VI, then regent on behalf of his incapacitated mother, elevated Brazil from colony to sovereign Kingdom united with Portugal. The Portuguese invaded French Guiana in 1809 (that was returned to France in 1817) and the Eastern Strip in 1816 that was subsequently renamed Cisplatine.

Imperial era

Empire (OLDER TEXT)

Extended content

Main article: Empire of Brazil Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil in 1873. Fala do Trono, by Pedro Américo. In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825. In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt, the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835. The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000. Banner of the Empire of Brazil On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead, and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law, Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery. When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place. By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery. Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état.

What is wrong and right in the older text

What is the wrong:

• Independence war overly simplified (mentioned only as "a series of political incidents and disputes"; wrong perception of the first constitution promulgation; wrong reasons to why Pedro I abdicated.

Why are they wrong? Bring sources.Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• A whole paragraph on Malê revolt (a very minor rebellion that is rarely mentioned on history books, shouldn't be in this very small subsection);

It was a very important slave rebellion, taken in Salvador, one of the largest Brazilian cities.[14] Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

casualties on Cabanagem (a smaller rebellion during the regency, the War of Tatter was much more important and is not even mentioned);

Any source to claim the Cabanagem as a "smaller rebellion"? Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

the other rebellions are not mentioned at all;

Add the other rebellions. No need to change an entire section because of this. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

more than 300,000 deads on the War of the Triple Alliance (this is how many Paraguayans died, no reason to be in here);

Why not? It shows how big the war was. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

wrong reasons to why the monarchy fell.

Why wrong? All sources claim that the Monarchy fell because the Emperor got involved in three issues together: end of slavery, military and religious problems. Besides that, there was a growing Republican movement in Brazil. These are the reasons for the fell of Monarchy reported in any source about the subject. You erased the historic reasons and wrote in its place the following bizarre information: Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown". This is such a psychological POV and bizarre theory. The Emperor was forced to leave the government because of the three issues he got involved (slavery, military and religious) along with the growth of Republican ideas in Brazil. He never wanted to leave the government. This is your personal theory. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is right:

• Dom João VI coming to Brazil and subsequent departure leaving Dom Pedro as regent; Independence war against Portugal. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
• Mention of the first Brazil constitution which had a great influence on subsequent constitutions (Separation of powers, civil liberties, etc...) and also on the Moderating branch (exclusive only to the Imperial era). (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
• Regency; rebellions during the regency; mention on War of the Triple Alliance, end of slave traffic and end of slavery; end of monarchy. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)

A final commentary about the changes:

• As anyone can see, I did not erase all text written by other editors. Most of it was kept. The true changes are the fact that I removed the website sources and placed the works of renowned historians as they are far more reliable.
• Some of the olders passages did not have sources (such as Dom João coming and departure from Brazil, Brazilian independence, etc...). Added reliable sources to it.
• I also explained why Brazil continued as a monarchy and did not became a republic as almost all other countries in the Americas (a very, very important info).
• Mentioned the other rebellions that occurred during the regency and why they happened.
• Added the other international wars Brazil participated (much more important than internal rebellions).
• Added information on slavery decline and population data.
• Added text about the stability and economical development of the country in this period, according to many historians.

I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.

You erased lots of true informations, replacing them with biased ones. Not a single information from the old text was wrong. Sorry, but you have not a single reason to erase informations there. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Independence and Empire (NEWER TEXT)

Extended content

Main articles: Brazilian War of Independence and Empire of Brazil King Dom João VI returned to Europe in 26 April, 1821, leaving his elder son Dom Pedro as regent to rule Brazil. The Portuguese government attempted to turn Brazil into a colony once again, thus depriving it of its achievements since 1808. The Brazilians refused to yield and Prince Pedro stood by their side declaring the country's independence from Portugal in September 7, 1822. On October 12, 1822, Pedro was acclaimed first Emperor of Brazil as Dom Pedro I and crowned on 1 December 1822. In 1822 almost all Brazilians were in favor of a monarchical form of government. Republicanism was an ideal supported by few individuals at that moment of the Brazilian history. The subsequent Brazilian War of Independence expanded through almost its entire territory, with battles that were fought in the northern, northeastern and southern regions of Brazil. The last Portuguese army surrendered in March 8, 1824 and Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in November 25, 1825. Declaration of the Brazilian independence by Emperor Dom Pedro I in September 7, 1822. The first Brazilian constitution was promulgated in 25 March 1824, after its acceptance by the municipal councils across the country. It was “a highly advanced charter for the time where it was elaborated” and had all individual guarantees that would be found in the subsequent Brazilian republican constitutions. The government form was a hereditary, constitutional and representative (and after 1847, parliamentary) monarchy. The State was divided in four branches: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderating (or Royal Prerogative) – the latter, responsible for the “consolidation of the national unit and for the stability of the Empire’s political system”. The Brazilian defeat in the Argentina-Brazil War resulting in the loss of Cisplatine (nowadays Uruguay), Pedro I incapacity in dealing with a representative system where he would have to take in account the opinion of the parliamentary opposition and the provincial desire for a higher decentralization all contributed for lowering his prestige among the Brazilians. But the main reason for his abdication was due to his continuous interest in the succession crisis in Portugal. The emperor refused the Portuguese crown in favor of his eldest daughter in 1826, but his brother Dom Miguel usurped the throne. For the surprise, and against the will, of the Brazilians, Pedro I abdicated in 7 April 1831 and departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter’s crown leaving behind his son and heir who became Dom Pedro II.

Emperor Pedro II reign (NEWER TEXT)

Extended content

Main article: Pedro II of Brazil See also: Slavery in Brazil Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country." As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem the Sabinada and the Balaiada, all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival." Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance). The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888. However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887. Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” The emperor did not care about its fate and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.

Opinoso conduct and edits on this article

Another matter to be debated are Opinoso conduct and edits done on this article. First, I will put a list of his edits that will be followed by a commentary by me.

• Opinoso wrote: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"

According to Opinoso, he got the information from here. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.

Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.

What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery.

• Opinoso wrote: "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"

According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an online version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:

"So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants), it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society." (Page 6 of the online copy)

Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source.

• Opinoso wrote: "The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy."

According to Opinoso, his source (as usual, the sociologist Darcy Ribeiro) says that Brazil had an stagnant economy (with the exception of three provinces only) in the period between 1849 and 1889. However, every historian says otherwise.

That´s not the real problem. The real one is the fact that nowhere in Darcy Ribeiro's book says what Opinoso wrote. Nowhere at all. Anyone who wants to check it, see the [online] copy.

The only place where it makes any mention of the Brazilian economy during the Empire is this one:

"The Civil War in the United States makes São Luís grow, that in the 1872 census appears as bigger and larger than São Paulo." (Page 7 of the online copy)

São Luís is the capital of Maranhão, in the Brazilian northeast, that is, far away from São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais, who according to Opinoso were the only places in Brazil where the economy were growing. Not only that, but Darcy Ribeiro also says that São Luís was richer and bigger than São Paulo, capital of the then province of São Paulo! Not only Opinoso has created information that his sources did not say, he also entered in contradiction with his own source! - --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Opinoso wrote: "The slave manpower was replaced by the labor force of European immigrants attracted to the country. The productive lands remained in the hands of the same aristocracy, forcing the majority of Brazilians to work for those land owners in poor conditions, while thousands of Brazilians were compelled to migrate to urban centers in order to escape from poverty and from the arbitrariness of land owners. This massive rural exodus has formed a huge underemployed population in cities, creating large pockets of poverty (favelas)."

Opinoso used Darcy Ribeiro's book as source for this one. The way it is written by Opinoso, we get the idea that after the end of slavery and of the Monarchy (when Brazil became a Republic), thousands of Brazilians went to live in the "favelas". Not only that, but that the majority of the Brazilians had to work under poor conditions to the "evil" landowners.

Taking a look at the online copy of the book (at page 7) in the chapter "INDUSTRIALIZAÇÃO E URBANIZAÇÃO", Darcy Ribeiro talks about the migration that resulted in the "favelas". Let´s see what he says:

"In Brazil, several processes already mentioned, above all the monopoly of the land and the cultivation, promoted the expulsion of the population from the countryside. In our case, the dimensions of it are amazing, given the magnitude of the population and the immense amount of people that were compelled to move. The urban population jumps from 12,8 million, in 1940, to 80,5 million, in 1980. Now there are 110,9 million." (Page 7 of the online copy)

First of all: Darcy Ribeiro uses the period between 1940 (more than 50 years after the end of the Empire!) up to 1980, and then to nowadays. Also, nowhere it is told that "forcing the majority of Brazilians to work for those land owners in poor conditions", as Opinoso said. Opinoso takes information (when there are any) from a source (as in the case of the slavery population data where he said that during Pedro II reign was the moment when most slaves were brought to Brazil) and expand it from his own head and uses it out of its true context. Darcy Ribeiro was talking about the demographic explosion that occured after Vargas went out of power and he puts it just after the end of the Empire. Why he did that? Why? Only to prove his point against me that between 1848 and 1889 the Brazilians were starving to death and blah blah. - --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: Opinoso has created false information, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. He has ignored Wikipedia rules by reverting texts when it was still being discussed (only to hide the fake infromation he had put). He falsely accused another editor (in that case me) of being racist and having a secret political agenda. He is a troublemaker that is untrusworthy and that has to be stopped at once from causing further damage on Wikipedia. - --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other users of being racist is a common practice of Opinoso. So is giving very peculiar interpretations of his sources (in other article, he quotes Simon Schwartzman as saying the exact opposite of what Schwartzman wrote). All articles owned by that user are collections of personal opinions, based on original (and misguided) research; and anyone who dares question his opinions is quickly driven away by violent diatribes, use of sockpuppets to win edit wars, personal attacks, insults, baseless accusations, and general uncivil behaviour. Ninguém (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are users trying to change the focus of this discussion to me, not to the article itself. I won't feed this discussion. Well, since not a single information from the old text was wrong, while the newer text is totally biased and ommits informations, there's not a single reason to change it. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Lecen, as a person who has been following the discussions related to Brazilian subjects, I can tell you that Opinoso is not Brazilian. He is a foreigner, a biased foreigner, who simply has managed to control Brazilian related themes, and to implant his lies and biased agenda. As seen above (e.g that Brazil was the last country on earth to abolish slavery), he has said many wrong things about Brazil, and he carries his stick everywhere to spread his biased message on Brazil. It is not like I am delirious, but I suspect he may work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. He has had many conflicts with Brazilians over the years, he has always won (even when wrong), and he still controls Brazilian subjects. The very fact that he presents himself as a Brazilian, when he obviously isn't, should be enough for him not to be allowed to dictate Brazilian subjects as he is. Be aware that this guy is truly dangerous and has no good will towards Brazil or Brazilians (or Latin America and Latin Americans in general). Grenzer22

I would appreciate it if we could focus on the issue at hand -- what content is worthy of inclusion in the article, what content is not, what WP:NPOV violations there may be, what content has failed WP:V, etc. -- in an atmosphere of civility and devoid of personal attacks. -- Rico 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I have reported this page, here. -- Rico 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible, but not a single information from the old text was wrong. Opinoso (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit(s)

Does anybody propose we edit the article in some way, say, somewhere in the history section? -- Rico 21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BRAZILIAN TOP MODELS : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.173.132 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil is the land of most beautiful and gorgeous top models in the world. For instance, Gisele Bundchen, the most know and valuable girl face in the world (US$ 50 million in 2007 !), and many others, like Adriana Lima, Caroline Trentini, Isabeli Fontana, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Fernanda Tavares, Fernanda Motta, Ana Claudia Michels, by the way, a true brazilian national team of players.

One of most important, new and emergent industry is the fashion, with a very good international image and significant economy contribution in last years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.173.132 (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hehehe! I have to agree that Brazilian models are the best ones in the business, but this is not the place to talk about it! Opinoso (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature, poetry, and the usual Wikipedia mistakes...

Reading this article, I find the following, in the section on Literature and Poetry:

Until then, the books written in Brazil were printed in Portugal; Monteiro Lobato, of the Pré-Modernism (literary moviment essencially brazilian)[192], founded the Monteiro Lobato & Cia., the first national publisher, to edit your adult books.[193]

First of all, "until" when?

Second, Lobato's publishing house was not the first to print books in Brazil; in the XIX Century, the Laemmert brothers were already running a Typographia Universal to print books for their Livraria Universal.

Third, Pré-Modernism (sic, with diacritics and all) wasn't a literary movement, essentially Brazilian or not; it is the name given, ex post facto, to an array of Brazilian artists whose work displayed some Modernist characteristics and no longer fit into previous literary movements such as Symbolism, Realism, or Parnasianism, but were not and identified not as Modernists.

Fourth, as flattered as I am by the idea that Lobato founded a publishing house to print "my" books, I fear that what was meant here is "to edit his adult books". Ninguém (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Content dispute: another opinion requested

There appears to be a content dispute between a couple of editors on this page. Would an editor with some knowledge of Brazil and its history care to add their opinion and/or help resolve the issues?

Without looking too much into it, I would say discussion to substantially alter a significant portion of the article should be done before it is changed, not after. Consensus always needs to be obtained to change something, not to leave it. It looks here as if there was little (maybe no) discussion to alter these sections and other editors are very rightly upset. Grsz¹¹ 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This RFC is unclear and really vague, and it's hard to tell what the issues are. I tried looking at the history of the page, but there are at least four different places where things have been reverted. I'd recommend closing the RFC, listing all of the issues, and allowing all of the editors here to comment on them. If no consensus has been reached, then reopen the RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what has been done. All issues were raised here in detail, but with no avail. Only then was this Rfc opened. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brief history of what is going on: user:Lecen virtually erased all the History text from this article, without any justification (he only posted in the talk page he was going to change it, he could not explain why). Of course this is not allowed. That's the beginning of the issue. Later he explained the original text was "wrong". After many discussions, I asked him to show what was "wrong" about it. He pointed a few "wrong" sentences (which was not enough to erase an entire History text). Of these few sentences, none of them was wrong (it means the text was being erased without any reason). Moreover, the new text he was trying to post in this article was totally biased. I re-posted the original text, erased without justification.

Now user Lecen is using this talk page to make up personal attacks against me (he is trying to change the focus of the discussion from the article to me). I said I am not feeding this type of discussion anymore. Opinoso (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed user:Lecen is once again trying to post his biased text in that article. It seems he is trying to rise another edit-warring. He cannot be civil. I reverted it to the original text he is trying to erase. Opinoso (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen is nor edit-warring, nor is he being uncivil. He made a few minor edits to a paragraph he edited before. I will have to post a warning about being civil on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not made a "few minor edits". He actually erased the entire original text once again.[15] There's no reason for the original text to be erased and replaced by a new one. And yes, he is be uncivil, since he cannot explain why he is trying to erase a text, but keeps erasing it. Opinoso (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into it (again). Anyway, that is called "edit-warring", not "being uncivil". The less we make accusations, the better. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are right. That was indeed a revert. But may I point out that it was a revert of your revert [16]. So it is hardly your place to make this point. In fact, usual practise (see Wikipedia:Protection#Content_disputes) is to keep the present version while there is discussion. Your reverts (or Lecen's for that matter), are in contradiction to this guideline, and do not further consensus building. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I reverted it. But as Debresser said, all I did was to bring back the text that it is still under debate. Anyway, Opinoso does not want to find a solution for this crisis. It is only an infinite discussion based on Opinoso's (or his grandmother's) personal arguments and that´s all (and at most, Opinoso's fake sources). I will give my opinion: remove Opinoso's fake information out of the text and let us continue working on the Repuclic history section. - --Lecen (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I will note at this point that if editors want to continue to work out consensus on the 10 point raised above, that would be the easiest solution of all. I have seen few substantial comments there of late. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfurtunetly, in the last months, virtually all the Brazilian users who used to contribute for the English Wikipedia left the project. I do not know their reasons to leave, but they did.

Due to this lack of Brazilian users, people started to feel free to do whatever they want in Brazilian-related articles. So free that we got to the point that an entire History text was erased without any justication from article Brazil, one of the best Brazilian-related articles (until then...). Since most Brazilian users disappeared, this seemed to be free to be erased. But not so free, because I did not disappear yet. Sorry to tell you, Lecen, but you cannot erase anything here. You are not even able to explain what was wrong about the text (nothing was wrong, then).

I noticed you are focusing on my "fake" informations. There was nothing fake about Darcy Ribeiro's book. All the informations are found there. You did not even read the book. You only want to change the focus of the discussion from your attitude of erasing texts to me. I'm not the focus, your attitude is. Moreover, the Darcy Ribeiro's informations I added to your biased text are not even going to be used, since the original text cannot be erased by you. Even though you accused me: No, I did not write the old text. Not a single word was written by me. This text was written along the years, with the contribution of many Brazilian users. Unfurtunetly, in the last months, virtually all the Brazilian users who used to contribute for the English Wikipedia left the project. I do not know their reasons to leave, but they did. For this, Lecen felt free to erase their contributions. This is not a respectfull attitude with other people's work.

Sorry Lecen, but you cannot come, erase other people's work, replace it with biased informations and think nobody was gonna see. I saw that. You cannot do that. Even though for foreigners your new text may look ok, anyone who knows a little about Brazilian History realize how biased it is, and how hard you tried to paint the Brazilian Monarchy as the "angel" and the Republic and the "devil". Try to be a little more neutral next time. Opinoso (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User Grsz11 said "Without looking too much into it, I would say discussion to substantially alter a significant portion of the article should be done before it is changed, not after. Consensus always needs to be obtained to change something, not to leave it. It looks here as if there was little (maybe no) discussion to alter these sections and other editors are very rightly upset."

That's the point. Lecen erased other people's work without a discussion. He only started to show the "wrong" informations when I asked him to do that, many days later. However, there was not a single wrong information, then no reasons to erase the article. Now he is accusing me of "faking informations" or of using my grandmother as a source. That's because he does not want to get into a consensus, but only rising more and more discussion. He keeps discussing informations that are not even being used in the article, only to change the focus (which is the old text being erased, and not the new biased text).

Lecen cannot erase the sourced informations from other users. I think everybody (except him) agrees with that. What else should we discuss here? Forget Darcy Ribeiro or my grandmother. They're not being used. Opinoso (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To address the premise of your argument, one doesn't need by Brazilian to edit Brazil articles. And the statement that because there aren't any Brazilian editors, everybody else just erased everything is outrageous. Grsz¹¹ 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points settement to history section

As Debresser requested, I am taking the lead to bring back the 10 points discussion to end the crisis in the history section. First the 10 points, and then the other editors will make any comments they desire. In sum, let´s end this once and for all, please. - --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The 10 points

1. "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"
2. "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed)"
3. "War of the Triple Alliance,[120] which left more than 300,000 dead)"
4. "During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy."
5. "Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery."
6. "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa"
7. "and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil."
8. "Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery"
9. "because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country"
10. "By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent."

Lecen thoughts on the 10 points

1) POV language.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

2) Not important enough to be in here. Also wrong information. Casualty info from one of several rebellions that occured in the period.

Comment: "The final balance of the Cabanagem was tragic, it is calculated that died around [...] 20% of the estimated population of the province." (Vainfas, p.105 - See article's bibliography)

The Cabanagem was not important macrohistorically. It did not change the outcome of Brazilian history. The rebellion deserves to be mentioned, but not at the point of even its casualties be cited too in this small subsection.

3) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: The way it is written, it seems that 300,000 Brazilians died, when in fact 300,000 Paraguayans died. This is an article about Brazil, not Paraguay. Doens´t make sense to put German losses on II World War on USA article.

4) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

5) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: Slaves were used, but they were not the only man force used. "In the rural area of the country, agriculture was done by the producers themselves (that is, without the use of slaves), supplying the local market." (Fausto (1995), p. 238–239 in Fausto, Boris. História do Brasil. São Paulo: Fundação de Desenvolvimento da Educação, 1995.) In larger farms, both slaves and free European immigrants were used. In sum, no reason to be so detailed or else, we are going to have to explain in the subsection what I just wrote.

6) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Comment: As I have already proved before, the source used by Opinoso does not say that. Fake information that must be removed.

7) I propose changing to "Slavery had been for decades in decline in Brazil since its independence: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." (Vainfas, p.18 and p.239)

8) Should stay.

9) Should be changed to "However, he too longer than expected to trespass the political obstacles and thus Brazil became the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery." (Schwarcz, p.315)

Comment on why should be changed: the passage as it is written makes it sound as the Emperor had the power to abolish slavery by himself but he did not do that because he feared the slave owners. It is much more complicated than that: the passage ignores the Parliament (the only institution that had the power to end Slavery in Brazil, and it had to be done by law), Senators, Congressmen, the Cabinet, Slaveowners, other political pressure groups, the society, etc...

10) Wrong information. Must be removed.

Another information that is wrong. Take a look in link in the citation: there were 6 million whites, 2 million blacks and almost 6 million pardos. User Opinoso simply added pardos with blacks and concluded that they were descendants of Africans. That is not correct. The category “pardo” includes mulattoes (descendants of Africans and Europeans) and caboclos (descendants of Indians and Europeans, the vast majority of Brazilian population in the north and northeast). And even if such information was correct (which it is not, at least in the ways he put it), there is no reason to be included in the history section, but instead in an article on demography of Brazil or slavery in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser thoughts on the 10 points

1. POV language.
2. If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war then remove.
3. Should not be here.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept.
6. Might be of minor importance
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.
10. Incorrect.

Elockid's thoughts

Replies to Lecen in italics 1) Change the wording and it should be fine

Another editor may add another source if they find one. It would then be possible to keep it

2) Perhaps this piece of information should go to the article History of Brazil instead?
3) After looking around a bit, Lecen does seem to be correct on this one. However I can't read Portuguese so I can't say for certain since the source does say it is Portuguese (still need to look at the book)
4) If I'm not mistaken, the information about the coffee is correct, but the rest I'm not too sure about

Just referring to the information about coffee playing a big part in the economy. The rest the information I wasn't too sure about.

5) Slave labor was used, so I don't think it should be deleted. Why not add both pieces of information? They seem to be relevant

If you mean this sentence is going too much into detail, not passage, then it wouldn't be going too much into detail. It's only one sentence and it's quite short.

6) Not too sure about this one, sorry
7) Source is temporarily unavailable. Failed verification at the moment.
8) Agree about this staying. This is an interesting piece of information
9) This is a direct copy from Encyclopedia Britannica. Probably best to remove the statement or change the wording.
10) According to the source, IGBE, the largest group by the end of the 19th century were the Brancos (whites), followed by the Pardos (brown), and lastly the Pretos (blacks or African Americans). So should be changed or removed.

Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, you are correct, I give you an "A"

Lecen, your 10 points are perfect. All of them are correct. I am a Brazilian who is deeply interested in the history of his own country. All your 10 points are not only correct but free of bias. Unfortunately, as you can see, we do not have a say on our topics in a supposedly "free" encyclopedia. Our history is tragical and brutal, yes, but it is no less brutal and tragical than the history of most other countries. It is not like there was slavery only here, it is not like there was prejudice only here. Take a look at the history section of other countries in Wikipedia, the tragedies that happened in those countries have not been associated with the people like they have been here in the Brazilian topics. For the foreign racialists, it is more about the projection of their twisted perceptions of the humankind than anything else. Fortunately modern science has demolished the idea of biological races and a hierarchy within the humankind. Of course there are still people who consider themselves superior, but that's their problem, and their history tells very clearly that they are not as special as they think they are.

Saudações de um brasileiro da gema Grenzer22

Is there anyway to remove this sockpuppet out of here? He is no good for the discussion. He does not have any past history of edition in Wikipedia, with the sole exception of this discussion page and another one about a Brazilian singer where Opinoso also contributes. Ironically, both seem to get along in there, as Opinoso has not complained about him. Coincidence? Perhaps. - --Lecen (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is a very specific term. I do not think you had that in mind. It is a serious accusation, leading inevitably to a block for the sockpuppet. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I am not asking for Opinoso's head But this Grenzer22 is not helping on anything and I can hardly believe that he is a legitimate editor. - --Lecen (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am Brazilian Lecen. I have followed this discussion and I agree with you. That's all. It is just one more case where Opinoso has bullied Brazilians, not allowing them to tell the history of their own country, in a malicious and bigoted way. Your points are entirely correct, and they should not come into discussion the way they did. Check the track record of Opinoso, check what he has done to other Brazilian posters in the past. He has managed to implant his biased views on Brazil in a supposedly "free" encyclopedia. I won't post back, you seem to have misunderstood me. Boa sorte!Grenzer22

I also agree

I also agree with each Lecen thought, once Opiniso has invented some of his edits and the Lecen's edits is more close to the Portuguese Wikipedia which has a featured article on Brasil and those editors generally are Portugueses and Brazilians who understand more about the country's history. Luizdl (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To make things easier

Since many people here are brazilian, and the portuguese wikipedia's article on Brazil is featured (as luizdl said above), why don't all the parts settle in just translate the portuguese version? At least for now. Later, when the article is in a better standard, you may start discussing some of this issues again. (but hopefully not haha) --eusourei^(talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian history subsection: Military dictatorship and Contemporary era

Well, I have improved the text in the history subsection Military dictatorship and Contemporary era. What I did, in sum, was to expand the text so that the reader can understand better the period and I also added reliable sources to it. I used three authors: Elio Gaspari, Thomas Skidmore and Boris Fausto. However, I was wondering if I should keep the quotations inside the footnotes in Portuguese or if I should translate them to English. Anyway, please make comments or put your thoughts on what I did. - --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving myself towards the last subsection not worked yet. I'll end today writing the text about Vargas rule and his downfall from power. - --Lecen (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's over! Ended all improvements. Nothing more to do except for grammar and spelling fixes. Anyone interested on doing that, feel free to. Special thanks to everyone who helped me "surviving" this ordeal (and a very, very special one to Debresser). And for the ones who consider Getúlio Vargas the greatest Brazilian Head of State, there is also a large piece dedicated to him also. - --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recents adds by user Aureola

Well, I was looking at Auréola recent adds to the article and I felt obliged to say something about it. First of all, I must say that any contribution is worth it and I am one of the first to recommend it. However, most of Auréola's adds to the article cannot be considered enciclopedic.

In fact, most of it looks like a big, giant ad or publicity piece about Brazil.

The People and festivals is such an example. And the others, such as Leisure in Brazil and Brazilian women... what are they, by the way? They are a bunch of nonsense words that do not add anything to the article. The Leisure in Brazil subsection is completely POV, or at most, a subsection devoted to criticize the Military Dictatorship and Capitalism, as the following sentence can reveal: "the military coup of 64 ensured the continuation of capitalist development in Brazil on a increasingly larger, increasing the concentration of income, choosing a conservative modernization from a coalition of classes that "playing ground the hypothesis of an antagonism between the Brazilian bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie and agrarian oligarchy of another."

Am I the only one who has noticed that? - --Lecen (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't Auréola post glamorous informations about Brazil if a section of this article is already devoted to glamourise the Monarchy? Why couldn't Auréola criticize the Military Dictatorship or Capitalism if there is an specific section dedicated to criticize the Republic? Auréola may be only following a tendency here. And he/she has sources, then, it's ok.

By the way, I like the section about "Brazilian women" that Auréola posted. If Emperor Pedro II has an entire section dedicated to enhance his skills and his glorious government, it is clear that the Brazilian women also deserve their own section too. The brave Brazilian women deserve it. Auréola, if you have "sources", go ahead, keep posting. Opinoso (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"the military coup of 64 ensured the continuation of capitalist development in Brazil on a increasingly larger, increasing the concentration of income, choosing a conservative modernization

Well, this doesn't look as a criticism of capitalism at all. Besides, it is quit true; the military dictatorship indeed ensured a political environment conducive to the country's capitalist development (socialist it was not, for sure; and actual development took place). Income concentration certainly increased during the period. And unless we were going to deny the existence of any modernisation, what else could it be called unless "conservative modernisation"?

from a coalition of classes that "playing ground the hypothesis of an antagonism between the Brazilian bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie and agrarian oligarchy of another."

The only problem I can see here is one of syntax; it is not that "conservative modernisation" was chosen "from" such a coalition of classes, but that "conservative modernisation" was chosen "over" or "instead" of a politics (that would be that of Goulart) that tried to build a coalition based on the idea of the referred antagonism. Ninguém (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not make sense:

1. Brazilian people spends much of his time in meetings with other people.[300] "Papo" (chit-chat) and the offering of teas and coffees in the cities are commons. (Unbelievable!)
2. "Brazil emerges thus as a bud mutant, rescheduled from its own characteristics, but tied to the genetic Portuguese matrix, which unsuspected potential to grow and to be full were only realized here." (Who would be capable of writing this? Ow, of course. Darcy Ribeiro. The man. The legend.)
3. The Brazilian people is known as socially happy. (Really?!)
4. Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda, one of the most important historian of the country, wrote that the Brazilians had a friendly character and this was one of its greatest virtues (which he developed the theory of "cordial man"). (That is not the true meaning of cordial man. Sérgio B. de Holanda was talking about the Brazilian capacity to use friends, family and everything else to get favours or make the use of not so correct ways to get something for themselves. In other words, the "jeitinho brasileiro". God, Auréola didn´t even bother to read the book.)
5. Models like Gisele Bundchen and Alessandra Ambrosio and the Brazil women's national football team make that Brazil has good international reputation (What?!!)
6. Brazil was placed in tenth position in the category Culture & Heritage among 15 countries; in category Tourism Brand, the country was in thirteenth place, and in the general category, was siding in the twenty-first, among 50 countries and above countries such as Russia, Iceland, Argentina and Mexico (Pure publicity!) - --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Brazilian people spends much of his time in meetings with other people.[300] "Papo" (chit-chat) and the offering of teas and coffees in the cities are commons."

Indeed, it makes no sence. It seems some self-deprecating legend Brazilians maintain about themselves (we are all lazy, etc).

"Brazil emerges thus as a bud mutant, rescheduled from its own characteristics, but tied to the genetic Portuguese matrix, which unsuspected potential to grow and to be full were only realized here." (Who would be capable of writing this? Ow, of course. Darcy Ribeiro. The man. The legend.)

To be fair, Ribeiro would not be able to write such mess. This is Ribeiro... as translated by this article's overlord, Opinoso. Perhaps with the help of Babelfish?

Opinoso makes a disservice to Ribeiro by misoverquoting him. Under Opinoso's discretion, Ribeiro is stretched, twisted, and otherwise tortured, to say things that have never crossed his mind.

The Brazilian people is known as socially happy. (Really?!)

Sheer legend, of course.

Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda, one of the most important historian of the country, wrote that the Brazilians had a friendly character and this was one of its greatest virtues (which he developed the theory of "cordial man"). (That is not the true meaning of cordial man. Sérgio B. de Holanda was talking about the Brazilian capacity to use friends, family and everything else to get favours or make the use of not so correct ways to get something for themselves. In other words, the "jeitinho brasileiro". God, Auréola didn´t even bother to read the book.)

Yes, this is a superficial, to say the least, interpretation of Buarque de Hollanda.

Models like Gisele Bundchen and Alessandra Ambrosio and the Brazil women's national football team make that Brazil has good international reputation

Looks like tourism propaganda.

Brazil was placed in tenth position in the category Culture & Heritage among 15 countries; in category Tourism Brand, the country was in thirteenth place, and in the general category, was siding in the twenty-first, among 50 countries and above countries such as Russia, Iceland, Argentina and Mexico (Pure publicity!) - --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... Ninguém (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article "Tang Dynasty" is longer than "Brazil" but has not any note about its size... Very strange... Auréola (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I need to write my words on the settings made in this section. Forgive my English, please... (I'm brazilian, to the discomfort of Lecen.) The User Lecen is concerned about his own ideologies, while I and others (who support me) are concerned with creating a good article. Nowhere in my edits I said what is good or bad on Brazilian politics or Brazilian people, so I do not create any propaganda praising Brazil. Perhaps Lecen is one of those foreign who have horrible visions about Brazil, without even knowing the country ... The user forgets that this is an article about a country and, above all, a colossal country, and deserves to be placed every angle on this same place, as well as the good Wikipedia articles about other cultures and dynasties ... Auréola (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About the Nation branding 2008, I confess that I was inspired by the section "Society" of the article "Germany" ... I think if the Germans are such a reputation, why could not the article about Brazil? Auréola (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I'll let words of my heart: I don't ignore that Brazil is precarious on education and politics, I don't ignore that Brazil is very poor in many areas (perhaps because it was stolen when was colony), I don't ignore that Brazilians can not enjoy a society a little fairer; but, above all, I don't ignore that Brazil has much good things to show, and this is exactly what I did in my edits ... Who has what to show on the bad side of the country, to do it for himself, but try find your material in/on the best sources and not in own ideologies!!! Auréola (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say Opinos... err... I mean, Auréola. Whatever you say. - --Lecen (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ahahaha, he thinks I am Opinoso!! Another reason for I laugh of those who are unaware of things. Auréola (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, esquece essa discussão e volte-se para o país que te ama... Auréola (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. You've crossed the line for the last time. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not User:Auréola. Only because she doesn't agree with you, Lecen, it does not mean we are the same person. This is such a huge accusation. I don't even know who is Auréola, but I like her contributions. Lecen, stop commenting on me everywhere. I already left the article Brazil for you to do whatever you want here and re-write the History of Brazil according to your desire. The History section is already destroyed, and I can see Auréola is at least trying to improve the rest of the article. I hope nobody will use the History part of this article for a school work (poor studants, they will think that the Monarchy was some kind of Heaven, and the Republic a Hell...also poor will be the grades they will receive from their teachers...).Anyway, keep posting Auréola and good luck. Opinoso (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil relation to the world

As I have noticed Brazil is playing a more important role in the world. I wanted to contribute to the concept in a more broad way by adding this file as a contribution should it ever be needed. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth brazil.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Brazil

You need to get reliable sources on this question and show it to me. Maybe I can help you ... Auréola (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular media section has to be expanded

The section Brazil#Popular media must be expanded. It needs two aditional paragraphies: one for Brazilian television and another one for Brazilian music. They should have, in my opinion, between six to eight lines at most. Nothing big, just to have an idea, similar to other country articles. - --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is impossible to write a short paragraph about Brazilian music, Lecen. Brazilian television even could have this paragraph, but the music, no... We can write a entire section about Brazilian music with two or three small paragraphs, but they must be complete. Auréola (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Popular midia" to "Cinema"

I changed the name "Popular midia" because Cinema is not a popular media in Brazil... (It is very funny see the name of Glauber Rocha in a section that says "popular".) And I do not really think important to write about Brazilian television; this is a task for the articles about Brazilian cities. And I will insist again that Brazilian music deserves its own section, as with articles about others countries, like England... I do'nt kwnow why Lecen implies with the size of the sub-cections of the Culture section if the article about England is like this... Auréola (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if you do not consider Cinema a popular media, because it is. Cinema is popular culture is thus treated as such in the other Wikipedia articles about countries. And it does not matter if you do not think it is important to write about Brazilian television. And it does not have any sense to say that it is a task to articles about Brazilian cities. The article must have at most 2 paragraphies at each subsection, just as all other articles about countries. - --Lecen (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, have I erased your additions even though they do not make any sense and is nothing more than tourism publicity? No, I opened a discussion topic in here to talk about it. - --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious racial informations

I noticed that dubious (and wrong) informations about the racial composition of Brazil was included, as follows:

"The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattos (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians). The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern, Northeastern and Central-Western regions. Bahia and Maranhão are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states".

Why they are dubious:

1) Race in Brazil is based on self-classification. Any person can claim to be of any race, according to their personal wish. Not all Pardos need to be "multiracial" to claim to be Pardo. Many of the "Whites", "Blacks", "Asian" and "Amerindian" are multiracial as well. Pardo means "brown", not multiracial. Brazilian census is based on skin color, not on race.

2)It sells the false idea that Brazilian multiracials are separated ethnic groups. They are not. It's impossible to separate the Caboclo (White and Indian) from the Mulatto (White and Black). Everybody mixed with each other, producing a "tri-racial" (Black, White and Indian mixed) population. All genetic studies conclude that most Brazilians have some degree of European, African and Amerindian DNA. Caboclos did not live in guettos separated from Mulattoes or vice-versa. They mixed with each other for centuries, producing the bulk of the Brazilian population.

3) Caboclos are not the majority of the population in Northeastern Brazil, and Maranhão or Bahia are not the "Black exception" there. The vast majority of Northeastern Brazilians are of African descent, mixed or not. Amerindian and European ancestry is of course found mixed with the Africans. Again, Caboclos and Whites did not live in guettos separate from Blacks or Mulattoes. In fact, they mixed for 500 years to produce the Northeastern Brazilian population.

In a genetic study, the main mtDNA found in the White population of Northeastern Brazil is of African origin.[17]. It's not even European neither Amerindian. The "Caboclo majority" is a false information.

4) The source used to claim "Caboclos are majority in Northeastern Brazil" comes from BARSA encyclopedia. This book is not even specialized on racial subjects. The IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) claims that the "Black population is concentrated in the North and Northeast".[18] The IBGE is the official agency responsible for racial matters in Brazil. And it reports that the Black Brazilian population is concentrated in the Northeast. Then, the "Caboclo majority" is really a false information.

From IBGE:

"On the map, one can see that the black population in the Southeast and South of the country is below 40% - notably in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, where it stays below 25%. But in large parts of (states) of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá and in different points of Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins the map shows that blacks are more than 85% of the population."[19]

Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins are all located in North and Northeastern Brazil, and IBGE said they have a large "Black" majority. Then, the "Caboclo" theory is fake.

5) For many years people tried to "hide" the African contribution for the population in Northeastern and Northern Brazil: "The idea that Fortaleza was a white city was sold very strongly,". "Historically, the participation of blacks in the formation of the society in Ceará has been completely forgotten."- said Historian Cecília Holanda.[20].[21]

Even though there is a significant population in Northeastern and mostly Northern Brazil with more Amerindian phenotype, it does not mean they are the local majority neither that they do not also have African descent. In fact, miscegenetation between Africans and Amerindians was quite common in Northern Brazil, as Gilberto Freyre already exposed decades ago and a recent genetic resource conffirmed:[22]

The "Caboclo majority" theory is false. I'm adding a "dubious" tag on those informations. Opinoso (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)