Talk:Social apartheid in Brazil

The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

POV notice

This article (even if biased sources can be quoted) is nothing more than mudslinging with a crassly inflammatory title. It is unfit for an encyclopedia, and can never be neutral under its present title. Haddiscoe 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.

Please list the specific issues you have, and which specific policies have been violated, and how. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It doesn't present opposing views fairly, as only the pro-view encompassed by the title. The title is inflammatory and implies that there is a serious (encyclopedia-article worthy) subject to discuss, when that in itself is controversial. An equivalent biographical article would be say, Allegations that George W Bush is a fascist tyrant (and I'm sure one could come up with references to "justify" cobbling together that article). That article would be as impermissible as Evidence that George W Bush is a great and wise leader (also totally sourceable). It is the title itself that suggests that a point of view is worthy of serious consideration, and has the effect of putting opponents of that point of view on the back foot from the start. Thus there is a total lack of the detachment necessary for a credible encyclopedia - the lack of detachment that there would be in the article - Allegations that God doesn't exist, which we don't have, preferring the neutral Atheism. This article should be merged to one with a neutral title such as Race in Brazil. Haddiscoe 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Such attempts have failed at other articles, and even at this one. Wikipedia tends to take an all or nothing approach. If you nominated them all of the "allegations" articles for deletion at once you might have a better chance, I think. Noone has tried that yet.--Urthogie 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil; if you have any sources that contradict this view, it would be great to see them, but I haven't found them yet. In general, though, you're objecting more to the existence of this article than to any specific text found in it; the tag you're using can't deal with that. For better or worse, Wikipedia has decided that these types of articles are encyclopedic. As Urthogie points out above, there are quite a few of them around; for example, there's an AfD right now on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) - why don't you see how successful you are in getting that article deleted; it should be instructive. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I think this should be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". There doesn't seem to be anyone denying the allegations. —Ashley Y 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not authorized to make an argument from silence on behalf of the proponents.--Urthogie 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

Since there are no significant views published by reliable sources given that deny the state of social apartheid in Brazil, we should rename the article. As Jayjg points out, it's pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil. —Ashley Y 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV demands we only state they are allegations. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, NPOV demands we fairly represent the consensus of reliable sources, that is that social apartheid exists in Brazil. Qualifying it with "allegations" is an insertion of POV. —Ashley Y 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that point. Take into consideration that the article's only major contributors don't think it should be moved. Calling this situation "social apartheid" rather than "allegations of apartheid" requires a personal interpretation of the evidence provided. And as I argued at the AfD, this article is a case of synthesizing published material to advance a position as it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not that either. There are plenty of reliable sources that allege there is apartheid (usually described as "social apartheid") in Brazil, so it's not a synthesis to note that in an article. The analogy is even stronger in the case of Brazil versus other "apartheid" allegations because the affected group are mostly of African origin, and the perpetrators are mostly of European origin. On the other hand, it's still just an allegation, and not every source describes this discrimination as apartheid. What I'd really like to find is some material denying the existence of social apartheid in Brazil, or taking issue with the analogy, but I haven't yet been successful. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, of course; I suspect the majority of the material on this is written in Portugese, not English. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather whatever salvageable material from all these useless articles be merged into more appropriate pages, and the articles themselves deleted. But that doesn't seem terribly likely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should happen, I don't know. I think some attention from users who regularly contribute to articles relating to Brazilian society would be helpful. —Ashley Y 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. —Ashley Y 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem being discussed is not a brazil problem, its a suggestion about naming guidelines. A more appropriate place to post this notice would be the policy village pump, where it can be discussed whether popular allegations deserve their own articles.--Urthogie 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to ask the Brazil project about a Brazil article. But you're correct, it's not just a Brazil problem, as several, often only vaguely related, of these "allegations" articles have been created. Several are even less encyclopedic than this one. Perhaps you should ask at the Village Pump before creating any more of these.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley Y. All the allegations on this page seem to be in regards to social apartheid. Therefore it would appear to be more appropriate to name this page "Allegations of Brazilian social apartheid."

Furthermore the article opens with the comment that "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid South Africa to those of Brazil". That is not correct. No-one is drawing an analogy between the policies of the two governments. The "apartheid" in Brazil, as numerous statements in this article attest, is attributed almost exclusively to an unofficial state of affairs, an existing social status quo, rather than to deliberate acts of policy. Gatoclass 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While most sources refer to it as "social apartheid", not all do. Also, while there may be no official policies supporting it, it is maintained by unofficial policies and police enforcement. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what an unoffical policy is, but perhaps the lead could open with, "Allegations of Social Apartheid in Brazil draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid South Africa to the de facto state of affairs resulting from unofficial policies and police enforcement in Brazil," thereby maintaining the all-important analogy with the Israel analogy, while managing to gesture (however confusingly) to the analogy that's the subject of this article.

Incidentally, if it's "pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil," and no one's found sources contradicting this, then why does the lead speak of a "controversial analogy"?--G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called a "controversial analogy" because the opening sentence is basically lifted from an earlier version of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page. Unfortunately it's a poor fit here. "Apartheid" in the Brazilian context is being employed only in the most generic sense, with few if any direct comparisons being made between it and the former South African regime. It's not so much about policies of racial discrimination here as it is about entrenched racist attitudes and the social divide they perpetuate. So I think even your suggested modification would be something of an overstatement.

Indeed it appears that the term "social apartheid" is a neologism specifically coined to describe the situation in Brazil, and the subject might be best approached from that angle IMO. Gatoclass 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term "social apartheid" is used to describe situations in all sorts of countries: France, Bristol, Virginia, Venezuela, U.K., Australia, China, Ireland, etc. The fact that most sources describe the situation in Brazil as "social apartheid" doesn't mean that most descriptions of "social apartheid" refer to Brazil. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleanup so it isn't a collection of quotes. Sources are always good, but I am sure we can make it in an encyclopedic voice, no need to provide extensive quoting.--Cerejota 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New Navbox

I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.--Victor falk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this decision, for reasons made clear on other "allegations" pages. I also oppose the stress you've created by acting so recklessly.--Urthogie 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is unfit to appear in an encyclopedia

The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's either rename this article social apartheid in Brazil or merge it into the social apartheid article. A name with "social apartheid" in the title is more appropriate than "Brazilian apartheid" as it is more specific and the first term is the one that's more common. What procedure do we have to follow to bring this about? Lothar of the Hill People 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the material in this article is relevant to the concept of Social apartheid

It should be merged there. This article while informative is too short, badly titled, and imminently relevant to the social apartheid article. Tiamat 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your view that these and related articles should be deleted are well known by now. However, the AfD failed. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems ironic to me, considering Tiamut's protest of my moving her Hafrada article without going through AFD.--Urthogie 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

These last two users are members of the small group of bad contributors who created the whole "Allegations of ..." articles. Their only goal is to obtain the deletion of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Poppypetty 23:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Title

Should the term used be "Apartheid"? Last time I checked, Apartheid was backed up institutionally, while Brazil's problem is more socio-historico-cultural (i.e. no institution or law was created in Brazil for the specific purpose of segregation). I'm in favour to take "allegations" off, since it is not a fringe opinion, also, if the term Apartheid stays, shouldn't it be "social Apartheid"?

Apartheid? It should be "Social prejudice in Brazil"

First of all, I am Brazilian, from southern Brazil, of mainly southern Italian origin (or so say my grandparents). I created this account for the sole purpose of expressing my views in this talk page, though I may use it in the future. I have so far contributed here or there, nothing really big, and also a bit on the portuguese-language Wikipedia.

I would really appreciate if other Brazilian users shared their views here. I shall come here once in a while to see the discussion, because I ended up seeing this article and I believe it is not neutral, and therefore want to see the discussion on the subject.

Personally, I believe there is no such thing as Apartheid in Brazil, either social or racial. As you can easily see in the Apartheid article, Apartheid is a government policy. There isn't, and as far as I'm aware there has never been, any policy of the kind in Brazil. In the very beginning of our Constitution, it is stated that "every Brazilian is equal before the law". On the other hand, I do not deny that there is prejudice in our society. The fact that there are people claiming there is a kind of Apartheid in Brazil does not change what Apartheid is; in fact, it just shows they don't know better. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot afford not to.

Many people, including specialists, claim that there is a lot of racial prejudice. (I'm only entering this subject because someone said the article should be merged into Race in Brazil - I disagree because the two matters are different.) I think this is a bit exaggerated. There is some racial prejudice in Brazil. What I see a lot is social prejudice. I have heard young people of some wealth saying things such as "she's nice, but lives in the slum". There has been a minor scandal with a video of rich young people throwing eggs on the people in the street from their apartaments. I have not so far heard anything of the sort of "she's nice, but black". I'm not saying that doesn't exist; I already stated that there is some racial prejudice, and by "some" I mean more than "a bit of". It should be noticed, however, that race is not the "big" reason for prejudice in Brazil, and that the matter of social prejudice should not be merged into it.

With that explained, I believe the article should be renamed to "Social prejudice in Brazil" and cleaned up, expelling the Apartheid word from it; it does not belong in this article. The current title makes the whole thing look like black and white people hated one another in Brazil, which is no nearer the truth than the existance of wizards.

I'm available to any further discussion or explanation of my point of view on the subject, and would love to discuss and compare opinions on that. I do not check very often my Wikipedia logins (I haven't logged in my portuguese-language Wikipedia one for a very long time), so I would ask you to send me an e-mail when posting here. My e-mail address is vitorcassol AT gmail DOT com.

P.S.: 3 o'clock in the morning. No wonder I'm so tired.

Vítor Cassol 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not alone in thinking this article is a sham. It was written by two editors who expressed little previous knowledge of Brazil, as part of a series of similar articles claiming there are notable "allegations of apartheid" in various countries, like the US, France, China, etc. Discussion of this "series" is ongoing at WP:APARTHEID, if you want to check in, but it hasn't gotten much done. I nominated this article for deletion a few months ago, to no avail, but depending on any developing consensus at other articles, I will likely do so again in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.

My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the social or race aspects in Brazil. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The "social apartheid" metaphor is widely used in Brazil, and the subject reaches the level of encyclopedic inclusion. There's no need for a merger here. CJCurrie 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I support Jossi's proposal wholeheartedly, for all these articles, but this one in particular. Doing so from here could spare us going through another AfD like with the China article. "Social apartheid" in Brazil might be worthy of encyclopedic conclusion, but the material can be included as part of fuller and better article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment don't let Jossi do the merge. He did a very bad job on Human rights in the People's Republic of China, little more than a cut and paste. --Ideogram 12:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's not fair to tear down another editor doing a first attempt at fixing a major problem. If that's your only problem, I'll do the merge myself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "Social apartheid in Brazil" is a notable issue and there is a lot of very credible literature on it. The article should be renamed Social apartheid in Brazil since that is the more specific and accurate title and particularly since the issue is not whether or not "social apartheid" in Brazil exists - I've seen no literature suggesting it doesn't or opposing the description of the situation as "social apartheid" - but what it consists of. It's a social problem, not a debate over terminology. Lothar of the Hill People 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The material would certainly be better placed at an aricle on Brazilian society, rather than standing on its own without context.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Apartheid should only be used in describing the old South African practice. It is just empty words in all other contexts (like when current people/countries are accused of Nazism or Stalinism). The allegations of Brazilian apartheid is only important or interesting because of the coinage of the phrase "social apartheid," and that phrase is what this article really appears to be about (within Brazil, of course). This should be expanded upon here with information in this article. --GHcool 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:OR. "Social apartheid" maybe in common use in Brazil, but there is no analogy to South African apartheid. Allegations to race segregation appear only in quotes meaning more or less this: "Blacks are more poor than the others just like once in South Africa". But where is the government policy to make the analogy valid? Suggest merge both articles Social apartheid and this one into one and rename it to something more neutral like Social segregation Brazilian style and list Brazil on the top of the list. greg park avenue 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Jossi, I'm assuming that since you are using the merger of Allegations of Chinese apartheid into Human rights in China as a model, you are proposing that this article be merged into Human rights in Brazil. Lothar of the Hill People 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is an NPOV and OR nightmare.--Dali-Llama 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Double Strong oppose This article probably needs a rename, but it is about notable, sourced, debate in Brazil into which even the current President of the country is engaged: "Apartheid" is precisely what the debate is about, with a clear racial component linked to the situation of black Brazilians. I also oppose all attempts to treat all of the Allegations articles as just one article: they are related as a series, but they are their own articles. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose if this is limited to Saudi Arabia Brazil, Support if its applied globally, per WP:NPOV.--Urthogie 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Saudi Arabia? What? This is the Brazil article. Are you just posting that same comment everywhere in another of your attempts to get the Israel article deleted with the others?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was copying and pasting, because I feel a global approach needs to be taken. Mistakenly forgot to replace the word.--Urthogie 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALLORNOTHING might not be policy, but it does talk good sense. Please read it. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain with questions. Would you want the content on "social apartheid" (i.e., wealth disparities) merged into a broader article (e.g., Economy of Brazil) under the same heading of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" or a different heading? Except for the lead sentence, the article never uses the phrase "Brazilian apartheid," only "social apartheid"! The choice of "Brazilian apartheid" for a title/heading strikes me as potentially violating our pillar of neutrality in regards to NAMING, not to mention the WP:NOR and WP:RS aspects of Naming. Specifically, as I've argued elsewhere, WP Policy supports self-determination in identifying terms, and surely Brazilians -- like Vitor Cassol above -- don't think that their economic gaps, even though correlated to race, justify the self-identifying phrase "Brazilian apartheid." Does anyone, supporting or opposing Jossi, believe that "Brazilian apartheid" is a superior, more neutral heading than, say, "Social inequities in Brazil"? My vote belongs to oppose if the opposers commit to a superior title, and my vote belongs to support if the supporters commit to a superior heading (within the merged article)! If both commit to an NPOV heading/title, then I will step off the WP:NPOV pillar and weigh the decision based on lower priority policies (e.g., what is the notability or proper weight to be accorded this topic relative to its potential main articles). Thanks for hearing me out! HG | Talk 12:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning broken?

For some reason when I hit edit for sections, the previous one shows up.

I just misposted a comment because of this. Anyone has noticed this before/knows why? Thanks!--Cerejota 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, the quote farm template as a heading was screwing it up. Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other titles

I'm wondering if other titles (other than the current one or "Human Rights in Brazil") might not be more appropriate here. Ones from other countries that come to mind are Segregation in Brazil and/or Economic inequality in Brazil (see Segregation in Northern Ireland or Income inequality in the United States for examples). Are these possibilities? Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Brazilian apartheid is a better title. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Are you maybe playing a sneaky devil's advocate? Just above you say "This article probably needs a rename, but it is about notable, sourced, debate...." But, as you know, the sources refer to "Social apartheid" not "Brazilian apartheid" which is more a WP:OR phrase. Ciao. HG | Talk 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that this is actually a notable topic in Brazil? From looking through the sources, my impression is that they are talking about the social issues generally, and to some extent using this phrase. Related question: are you envisioning this as an article on the phrase or on the underlying conditions? If it's on the underlying conditions, and considering there seems to be a lack of articles on these underlying conditions in Brazil, I'd think that would be the natural place to focus. Mackan79 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I very sure this is a notable debate. People have left the party in government using apartheid as a reasoning. Use of social apartheid has gained currency as a "non-racial" argument, but it is at is roots related to the flavelas and the racial situation. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft Requested Move to Social Prejudice (or similar) in Brazil

Looking back at Vitor Cassol's plea for a name change, he may be unfamiliar with the Requested Move process. What would happen if some Brazilians submitted a Requested Move with the following statement?

A Requested Move Proposal

• Neutrality first. Brazilians acknowledge racial and social prejudice in our country. However, the current article is not neutral because the term "apartheid" offers only a one-sided comparison of our social inequities. Don't some scholars show that "apartheid" is an exaggerated description, and that Brazil's social problems do not reflect merely government policy (as in South African apartheid)? If reliable sources compare our socioeconomic problems to a "social apartheid," then I can live with the "apartheid" comparison as long as it is not given undue weight and it is balanced with other views. This lack of neutrality violates the pillar of neutrality. To ensure that editorial decisions on this article advances toward neutrality, we are requesting that the article Title be given a more neutral Name.

• Second, self-identification. Wikipedia Naming convention on identities states: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Such self-descriptions should be verifiable. In the event of naming conflicts, WP Policy specifically asks us to use the objective criterion: "Current self-identifying name of entity". This guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination for any group of people. Brazilians do not identify their nation, policies or political leaders in terms of 'apartheid.' So remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the title and any headings.

• Against our invoking NPOV/self-identification, some Users may argue that the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" should not be censored. However, we reject this argument. First, we can live with and would not censor references to "apartheid" that give balanced weight to scholarly sources (and less weight to exaggerated rhetoric). Second, our No Censorship policy itself states that its own few exceptions including neutrality: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view) ...." This clearly demonstrates that the NPOV pillar may trump the censorship policy as need be.

• Against our invoking NPOV/self-identification, some Users may argue: If other painful epithets violate the self-identification of people, then the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" should be allowed. However, we reject this argument, as stated in this well-established essay:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: <Pokémon example> The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).

• Against our invoking self-identification, some Users may argue: If Wikipedia allows any allegations of Fooian apartheid titles, WP should be consistent and allow all such titles. However, the essay finds: "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, ...." Therefore, Wikipedians need not say delete them all, or keep them all, especially not if they would object to make a point. (Even were I sympathetic to their point, such motivations have no bearing on a Requested Move.)

• Third, WP:NOR. Specifically with "Brazilian apartheid", the article itself relies on references for "social apartheid". The phrase "Brazilian apartheid" appears to be original research.

• Fourth, it is fine for us to revise a POV Title in this situation. Granted, "alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes." However, we are not asking to resolve any dispute through a new name, but rather continue applying WP policies to improve editing under a more neutral title. The Requested Move does NOT rule out future editing, delete, keep and merge decisions. Furthermore, to those disputing a name, the Naming Conflict guidelines say, "They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." (bold added) Objective basis here includes "Current self-identifying name of entity".

• Fifth, no loaded, one-sided terms like "allegations". Consider WP:WTA, which is derivative of neutrality. WP:WTA rejects words such as "alleged" because "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and etc."

• Therefore: We hereby request the Move of this article to: "Social prejudice in Brazil" or "Social inequities in Brazil" or any similarly neutral title. (Maybe even "Comparison of Brazil and apartheid-era South Africa"?) Write fairly about our problems, but give us back our good name. <end of draft>

Yikes, I can't believe the Brazilians would submit such a long-winded statement! Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk

• So: How would you advise the Brazilians on strengthening their argument for a Requested Move?

Can you imagine a revision that you might accept as a first step, even if you'd rather merge or delete the article eventually, and even if the selected interim name was not your ideal choice? ~~

• I know how. Request re-listing of AfD or post another AfD, based on the premise that Brazilians were not properly informed about the ongoing discussion concerning their own backyard, and because of that, the result of the discussion may be biased. The note Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. has not been posted. It's not fair. Plea to move as per WP:RM done by other Brazilians as Vitor Cassol could be crucial to move this article to less troubled waters. I would do that myself but don't know how to execute the AfD procedure - too complicated; never made one. greg park avenue 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the move is controversial. To give you an idea of the sources not included here, because of the language barrier, you have this [1], It is titled "Apartheid brasileiro: raça e segregação residencial no Rio de Janeiro" (Brazilian apartheid: race and residential segregation in Rio de Janeiro). This is clearly an in depth study at a notable analogy, which is one many Brazilians are indeed uncomfortable, but is notable and current currency in academia (it cites "American Apartheid", btw, which was unfortunately deleted). If you notice something, both in the French and Brazilian articles, when confronted with information, many nationalist editors backed down. It is natural for people to "defend" their countries and try to use the ignorance of others in their favor, however, WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are correct when they give their reasons: ignorance and dislike are not reasons to delete. Sources tell us if it exists, we must do edits. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we nominate it for deletion again, making no qualms about merging whatever material is good to more appropriate articles, and making sure the Brazil project is informed? That would ensure the useful material is kept, and relieve us of the headache of this poorly named and structured article once that is done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we change the title and re-structure the article? Deletion is overrated. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because no matter what you do to it, the article doesn't stand on its own. Even with a restructuring and title change, there's no reason the content shouldn't be merged into the human rights article (among other places). Perhaps the case could be made that this action is unfeasible due to the amount or importance of the content, and should become a content fork, but I don't think this is the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks for responding. You say, "even with a ... title change, there's no reason the content shouldn't be merged in the human rights article." This means, pardon me for saying so, that logically you could concede the title change... since you still would be able to propose a merge. Currently, the merge proposal is meeting strong opposition (above), I'm sure AfD more so. So why not change the title and see if, "even with the change" whether you might THEN persuade folks on the merge? You have nothing to lose, you would satisfy WP Policy (e.g., NPOV and self-identifying), and maybe more folks (e.g. Brazilians focused first on name) would agree with a merge based on your undue or low importance? Since you'll probably need to agree on a subheading name within any merged argument anyway, isn't it consistent with your concerns to avoid a subheading edit war and make the name change first? Thanks! HG | Talk 10:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. To that end, I agree with Lothar's attempted rename.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "social apartheid" is well established by academics inside and outside of Brazil and I don't think it's appropriate to drop it just because some people are offended by it. I think "Social apartheid in Brazil" is preferable to "Brazilian apartheid" as the latter suggests there is a specifically Brazilian form of the problem where the former simply suggests it's a problem in a number of places (see social apartheid) one of them being Brazil. Also, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research since it's only used in Wikipedia whereas "Social apartheid" is not. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the article to "Social apartheid in Brazil" but I won't get into an edit war over it and would welcome further debate. In the interim, I think this name is preferable to the old name of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" for the aforementioned reasons. If this new name is still not satisfactory I'd like to suggest "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" as a compromise. Lothar of the Hill People 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your boldness has been noted and I have boldly reverted it. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect reverted

No consensus has been established for the rename. The discussion cannot be ignored. I strongly oppose both the merger and the Social apartheid in Brazil formulation, as there are analogies held because of racial factors (ie not just social). This debate is notable in the same fashion as Israeli apartheid, but doesn't draw as much international attention. Yet WP:IDONTKNOWIT has it right when it says, "I don't know it" is not a reason to delete (or what amounts to the same, a merge). I propose Brazilian apartheid or Debate on Brazilian apartheid as possible titles, but "Social apartheid" excludes the reality on the gruond of a form of racial apartheid. Resist the temptation to allow one primary source to dominate, and to adopt the "urban apartheid"/"social apartheid" french model. These are two separate countries...

I am still hunting for additional secondary sources, but I am a bit hampered by my very weak Portuguese. I have provided a weaker secondary source titled "Apartheid Brasileiro". However, I can assure you that while the situation is indeed described by some commentators as "social apartheid", it is also described as "economic apartheid" and "apartheid" without qualifiers. We cannot act hastily and without consensus, no matter how this page was created on the first place. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's stretching it. Keeping "Brazilian apartheid" rather than "social apartheid" just because there's a racial component isn't right - the term is hardly ever used, evidently even in Portuguese. We should go with the name that's notable and verifiable. I believe that when this is done, it will become aparent that the material should be merged into human rights in Brazil, lest it hang out on its own here as a context-less stub.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Crejota, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research (few if any sources use that phrase), as is your reason for keeping it and I don't think we can retain it when virtually all of the sources refer to it as "social apartheid". I also don't think it's acceptable for us to wait until you or someone finds an acceptable source that refers to "Brazilian apartheid". Most of the objections are in particular to the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" so if there is a consensus it's to get rid of that phrase in the title. Can we please rename the article either "Social apartheid in Brazil" or "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" so we can get rid of the current, really bad, title? Lothar of the Hill People 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree: "Brazilian apartheid" and "Social apartheid in Brazil" are about equally notable. I have provided sources, and have argued for involving Brazil focused editors to clarify the question. Furthermore, notable sources, such as President Lula, do not talk about "Social apartheid" but "eocnomic apartheid". I think you are performing WP:SYNTH and pushing a solution around this topic that doesn't fit sources. Your opinion of OR is a fallacious one, however you engage in clear WP:SYNTH. Please read WP:POT. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly to remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the article. You are the only one arguing otherwise. Thanks! Lothar of the Hill People 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is because the consensus is informed by the fracas around AoIA instead of the actual notability of the term in the context of Brazil. Failure to consider information can break consensus. You do have a good point, however, I suggest we do not move hastily. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are a number of credible sources that use the term "Brazilian apartheid" I'd be willing to accept that (though I think "Allegations of" needs to go). However, the vast majority of the google hits for "Brazilian apartheid" are due to one article being cited in various places, "Brazilian Apartheid: Street Kids and the Struggle for Urban Space" and others are because of wikipedia. I think we need scholarly sources (more than just one article) rather than relying on google hits. Can I suggest "Apartheid analogy in Brazil" or "Brazilian apartheid analogy" as a possible compromise? Lothar of the Hill People 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "Apartheid Brasileiro"? What about other uses that are not keyword based [2]? This is where you guys being mirror images of the creators of this article comes into play. You know jack about this debate, its reality, and its nuances. I find it particularly interesting that my appeals to involve Brazil-focused editors (who may not share my point of view, but would certainly be able to contribute better) have been met with retorts that are less than convincing. This is not about Brazil, but about something else. I am trying to make it about Brazil. That said Apartheid analogy in Brazil is my second alternative to Brazilian apartheid. Obrigado! --Cerejota 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

In the talk page of Human rights in Brazil Lothar suggests that people discuss here, however it is customary to discuss mergers in the talk page of the "TO" page, not the "FROM" page, as the template {{mergefrom}} clearly shows. We should discuss mergers there to engage Brazil-focused editors, who might or might not want a merge based on very different reasons than why you nominate. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for that is that the user, Jossi, who started the merger discussion started it here without naming a target discussion and in the process of the "vote" Human rights in Brazil was mentioned. I just put a note on the target's talk page informing people that a discussion was already in progress. Jossi probably should have started the discussion there but she didn't. That doesn't invalidate the discussion. Lothar of the Hill People 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unusual to force a merge upon a set of editors, and not discussing in the target page or with the target page editors smacks me of POV pushing. This is turning disruptive. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crejota! Read what I've actually said! It's completely absurd for you to accuse me of tying to "force a merge" when I actually oppose the proposed merge[3]. All I did was inform Talk:Human rights in Brazil that there was a discussion in progress and I don't think Jossi was trying to "force a merge" either, I think she just failed to do any research as to which article she wanted to merge into. Thanks!

Secondly, you are the only person on this page who wants to keep the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" in the title. Read the comments made in "Draft Requested Move to Social Prejudice (or similar) in Brazil". There is a consensus to remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the title! I'm sorry you disagree with this but your sole opposition is not enough to declare "no consensus". Lothar of the Hill People 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Word. Three editors have now moved it to this same title over several months. Consensus is clearly for retitling, unless you feel that consensus equals maintaining the status quo from when the article was manufactured by two editors with no previous interest or expressed knowledge of Brazil (the word "Brazilian" was even spelled "Brazillian" at first!) As for "forcing" a merge, that's just not what's happening - for example, Lothar, Ashley Y and myself have different opinions on this, for example me favoring a merge but Lothar being against it - but all of us agree on the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I do feel that "Social apartheid" ignores other sources that speak of other forms of apartheid with equal notability as "Social apartheid", ignores sources and debate in Portuguese, and is in fact being pushed by editors that like those who created the page "with no previous interest or expressed knowledge of Brazil". Please read WP:POT.

I do have a rather more deep interest in the matter, and have provided sourced objections against a WP:SYNTH title "Social apartheid in Brazil". Until a better alternative can be come up with (I have suggested Brazilian apartheid) this remains the title. Obrigado!--Cerejota 12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, three almost-meatpuppets guided by concerns that have nothing to do with Brazil is not consensus. Obrigado!--Cerejota 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)