Talk:Brazil

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Rio de Janeiro or Brazil?

I cant understand why do we have some many pictures of Rio de Janeiro in this article. We have 5 pictures directly connected to Rio, more than 50% of the total article! (Pictures describing places).

We also have pretty useless pictures as: - "Rio de Janeiro is the second largest financial center of the country.". - "The Maracanã Stadium at the Brazilian Championship."

I am removing part of those pictures. 144.226.230.37 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

It is missing a comment about slavery (both of Indigenous and African peoples) in the History session. It is almost impossible to talk about colonial economy without talking about slavery.

Do you people agree? Opinoso 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavery is mentioned in the demographics section. The argument for me is whether or not mentioning slavery in the history section is too specific for inclusion in the main country article. My opinion is that while it should be included, we should keep the article relatively stable for the time being, and establish a consensus of what is to be included before it is actually included.--Dali-Llama 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics has nothing to do with the History session. Remember: many people are only searching for Brazilian History, many do not take a look at the other sessions. Opinoso 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume if that was the case they would go to the History of Brazil article. Like I said, I agree with you that it should be included, but we we need to establish consensus. Let's let others chime in...--Dali-Llama 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has time to read the History of Brazil article because it is too long. The page of a country must be as complete as possible. If you people want to diminish the article, you cannot forget that it cannot become an incomplete research. Opinoso 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, just to remember that we are not only trying to meet GA criteria, but also the Featured criteria. We have a limit of content. Sorry, but is impossible to be a complete source even for the most notable aspects of Brazil because of these limit. If you are going to add Slavery statement then I ask: Which part do you will remove? I still agree with Victor to only follow WP:WPC, so these problems would be diminished. Carlosguitar 10:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned, I might well jump in :-) Slavery is a very important element in Brazilian history and deserves a mention in this article IMHO. If you're concerned with size you can delete the sentence The period of sugar-based economy (1530-c.1700) is known as the "Sugarcane Cycle" in Brazilian history which is redundant. The following sentence Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed as being of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries seems contradictory with the previous one, was the sugar industry in crisis for two centuries? Then, how can you speak about a "sugarcane cycle" for this period? BTW, this whole paragraph lacks sources. --Victor12 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me Opinoso.--Dali-Llama 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity pictures

They are unnecesary in this article. If you people are so worried about the article's size, then let's erase them.

Reasons for their deletation:

1) All those celebrities do not represent the ethnic diversity of Brazil.

2) All the "Whites" are supermodels. Most Brazilians are not supermodels and do not look gorgeous as these pictures try to sell.

3) There isn't a single picture of an African-looking Brazilian (the only two "more Africans" are Ronaldinho and Gilberto Silva, who are clearly Mulatos).

4) There are two pictures of fair-blond supermodels. Only 5% of Brazilians are blonds; most of them are not fair-blonds as the picture of supermodel Ana Hickmann tries to sell; only 1 blond picture would be necessary.

5) There is a picture of actress Giselle Itiè, who is not even Brazilian (she is from Mexico)

6) All the models and actors there are of recent immigrant ancestry (Italian: (Cicarelli, Fasano), German: (Hickmann and Bündchen) and Arab: (Sarahyba) and do not represent the majority of Brazilian women, who are mostly of old Brazilian stock.

7) There are no pictures of mixed-race women (the only "mixed" is Adriana Lima, who has blue eyes and looks "European").

8) There are no pictures of Brazilians with Amerindian features, who may represent the majority of Northern Brazil's inhabitants.

All these celebrities pictures should be out of this article.

What do you people say about it? Opinoso 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a good, efficient picture and it should stay. If it is a source of conflict with other editors (besides yourself, Opinoso), then I believe we should err on the safe side and replace it.--Dali-Llama 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, this image is very problematic, it is will never please everybody. Joao Felipe said in my talk page that have interest to remove, so I think we have consensus. Carlosguitar 11:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I'm working in a new model here, and already I removed the image. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion without replacement. I think the picture shouldn't be removed before you present a better candidate for that section. Rather than having a demographics section without pictures (save for its subsections), I think we should work on improving the one that bothers you. Controversies have been affecting almost every picture in this article, so I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to remove it. In short, if you can come up with a better picture than this one, by all means, show it here and everyone will choose together by vote. However, leaving the section without a picture is a step backwards in my view. Sparks1979 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support, as per Sparks1979, provide a replacement first. I also don't oppose the use of celebrities (or better, famous brazilians), if you can choose a very representative group. The page's one is indeed bad. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you prefer to post a fake picture than no-one? This sounds very Brazilian to me: if you can't do better, than leave a bad thing in its place. It sounds like the jeitinho: let's put anything in the place just to fill it.

This is sad and serious...It is better to be without a picture than post one full of problems as those celebritie's were.

By the way, no country's article use pictures of celebrities to represent a country's population. Some use pictures of unknown people, but most do not use human faces' pictures. Brazil should not be the exception.

Maybe we should post a table with the numbers of settlers and immigrants who came to Brazil: Africans, Portuguese, Italians, etc. It is better than post pictures of blond Supermodels and say they represent the ethnic diversity of Brazil. Opinoso 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

About the points you’ve made on the picture, here is what I think:

1) The ethnic diversity must be represented, but that can be done with or without celebrities.

2) I don’t see a problem with celebrities being used to represent the country. In fact, I think it’s better to use celebrities because their pictures make sure we are seeing people of a certain nationality, whereas unknown people can’t be “checked”. Everyone knows normally the general public isn’t as good-looking as celebrities are. That’s common knowledge, so the pictures aren’t really inducing anyone to think otherwise unless it’s a very naïve reader.

3) What is an African looking Brazilian? A black person? IBGE says only about 2% of the population is black. I know you don’t like IBGE’s numbers, but unless you have another widely accepted source, we are just going to have to stick with IBGE. The “mulattos” are represented. Arguably they deserve more space to be accurately represented. Edit: Not 2%, but 6% (sorry). Still a minority anyway Sparks1979 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

4) About the blondes, I don’t mind having only 1 picture. But at least 50% of pictures must be white.

5) True, this picture should be removed.

6) Ancestry is irrelevant. What matters here is race according to IBGE’s five groups: white, mulatto, yellow, black, Amerindian. Again, if you don’t like IBGE, provide us another reliable and widely accepted source.

7) If you want to balance gender representation, I’m fine with it.

8) According to IBGE, they represent less than 1% of the population. Again, you have another source?

Here is what I think: I agree with you the picture can see improvements. While improvements aren’t carried out, we should keep the current picture. 3 people voted to remove it, 3 people voted not to remove it. So since there was no consensus, it should stay until we have a better picture to place in the section. About the table you mentioned, it’s not a bad idea. Why don’t you organize and post it? Sparks1979 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we will use celebrities, they don't need to be beauty, just famous.

The article says we are 49.9% white, 43.2% brown, 6.3% black 0.7% yellow/indian, so a image in the same section must represent this.

In a group of 10 images, 5 whites, 4 mulattos and 1 black is more accurate, but we can also be more diverse with something like 4 whites, 3 mulattos, 1 black, 1 ameridian, 1 asian. 5 men, 5 women, at least 2 whites and 1 brown of each sex.

For whites, we should not use only "european" pale blondes. A "white" brazilian can be very tan. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of new faces: sportists Hugo Hoyama (is the name right?), Vanderlei Cordeiro de Lima, Felipe Massa, Daine dos Santos; minister and singer Gilberto Gil, astronaut Marcos Pontes, actress Camila Pitanga, singer Ivete Sangalo, Xuxa, all more or less known out of Brazil. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, your suggestion seems fine. Sparks1979 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, celebrities cannot be used, because people will edit war to insert yours favorite celebrities and this will never end. Non-notable or unknown is always preferable. Carlosguitar 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And how are we supposed to know whether unknown or non-notable people pointed out as Brazilians are really Brazilians? You can’t tell that just by looking, it wouldn’t be a scientific approach. The only way to be 100% sure we have pictures of Brazilians is by using celebrities.

Besides, no one has been fighting over personal preference of specific celebrities. People were fighting over the correct representation of ethnic groups – the same thing can happen with pictures of unknown people. Sparks1979 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sparks1979, but I may ask you: are you blind?? Because only a blind person could say Brazil has a mere 6% of Blacks.

Or do you live in a German-Brazilian city, such as Pomerode and has never been out of it?

I am sorry but you know nothing about Brazilian demographics and should not opinate about it.

Fist of all: Brazil does not have a "mulatto" category: it has a Pardo one. Mulato is a half White half Black person. Most Brazilians are tri-racial: White, Black and Indian.

The IBGE census is based on self-declared answers. A Black person can say he is Amerindian; a German-Brazilian guy can say he is Asian, etc, etc. As many Brazilians are racists, many of them tend to "White-wash" their ethnic origin. That's why mere 6% of Brazilian sayed they were Blacks.

Blacks are not a minority in Brazil. If you had any knowledge of Brazilian History, you would know that in Colonial times Black Africans came in much larger numbers to Brazil than Europeans. Only more recently (from the 1870's) European immigrants came in larger numbers.

For the numbers of African-descendants that were living in Brazil before the large European immigration in the 1870's, it is mathematically impossible to have more people of European descent in Brazil than those of African one.

By the way, Amerindians represent less than 1% of Brazilians, but millions and millions of Brazilian DO possess a large amount of indigenous ancestry, and most of them are included in the Pardo cathegory or in the White one, for those who are predominantly of White origin.

If you were more interested in this issue, you should google many DNA researches that found large amounts of Amerindian/African ancestry in "White" Brazilians.

Go to the Afro-Brazilian article and read, please.

tip: travel more around Brazil and then tell me what most Brazilians really look like and if Blacks are 6% of the population. Opinoso 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I follow IBGE’s statistics, you know, the official ones, something I can see you are not too familiar with.

IBGE’s statistics are adopted by any Brazilian Geography book (Melhen Adas, Hildebrando A. de André, Demétrio Magnoli, Regina Araújo, Hervé Théry, Neli Aparecida de Mello, just to name a few). The same goes for History books. I would also like to add IBGE’s statistics are also officially adopted by Instituto Rio Branco’s entry exam, one of the hardest and most prestigious in Brazil. Oh, they are also adopted by Fuvest and all other organizers of major university entry exams.

I find it quite amusing you have the petulance of coming here for a lousy attempt of convincing all the hard working editors that you, Opinoso, happen to know more about Demographics, History, and Geography than all the major authors in Brazil, not to mention the highly qualified diplomats in Rio Branco. You also think you know more than all professors responsible for the prestigious university entry exams, not to mention experts in one of the few acclaimed governmental institutions, IBGE. They are all blind. They know nothing about Brazilian History.

The editors of Wikipedia have the duty of following a scientific approach. That means we should follow the major authors and researchers in each field, and that’s exactly what we are doing. If IBGE says Brazil has 6,2% of blacks in the population, then that’s what we are going to use in Wikipedia. It hurts your feelings? I’m so sorry. I suggest you establish a new statistics institute, because so far you’ve failed miserably when challenged to present us with alternative demographical data. Oh yeah, there’s your little DNA argument. Unfortunately no one is going to buy your plastic, because you haven’t mentioned a single established geographer that adopts DNA ancestry studies to explain demography in Brazil.

I’ve seen you accuse people of racism (without any substance, of course) whilst threatening them with laughable lawsuits. Pitiful. You are the only that seems to have a problem with race over here. As you can see, no one is supporting your self-centered views. In turn, you resort to edit wars and personal attacks.

I use books. You use google. Need I say more? I suggest you go back to whatever place you crawled out from, because you are only embarrassing yourself over here. Sparks1979 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, the images of a article are not the right place to start changing some information you disagree.

If the article uses IBGE's data in its text, we should change the information for a better source, and latter represent it in the images; or accept what we have and represent with the images.

I think, Opinoso, is what you call "black" and "pardo", and what IBGE call. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I have direct acess to IBGE's method), but in PNAD and the census and every other that researches people's races, is the person who indificates himself as one of the choices provided.

So, if IBGE says whe have 50% of whites and 6% of blacks, it is not saying that 6% of Brazilians have black skin or looks like a african, it is saying that 6% of Brazilians think himselves has black person.

But maybe I'm a little biased, has I do works in IBGE (not as researcher, but in the IT area, but I think I know well enough the other areas). wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sparks1979, it seems you have no critical sense. If you belive anything you read, you will end up committing mistakes and keep showing you have no knowledge about anything as you are doing. I am sorry if hurts you the fact that I know enough about Brazilian History and Geography. It was school, you know. Maybe you should try to visit one.

I am not saying IBGE statistics are not trustworthy. They are, because they represent reality. The thing I am saying is that the Racial statistics are based in self-declaration. They do not have any rule, such as the North-American census which uses ethnic origin (German, English, African, etc.) rather than skin color, as the Brazilian does.

DNA resources are not used (yet) by Geography books because they are too recent. The first one was made less than five years ago and has been largely promoted in the Brazilian press (you may read more newspapers).

Even IBGE agrees that Brazilians tend to "white-wash" their ethnic origin. However, there is an obvious growth of those who classify themselves as Pardo. If this trend continues, in some years they will outnumber the White category. Esta queda é simultânea ao acréscimo das populações de cor preta, de 4,9% para 6,3% e de cor parda, de 40,0% para 43,2%, confi rmando a tendência já encontrada com os dados dos censos demográfi cos entre 1991 e 2000 de revalorização identitária dos grupos raciais historicamente discriminados.

I am sorry if I know more than you...It is normal, let's just face it. Opinoso 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I love your personal attacks. That’s the first thing impolite people do when they know they’ve lost their grip on their own arguments. You can squeak like a little mouse, but no one here is interested in your imaginary version of reality. You should have noticed that by now. I find your cries for a black version of Brazil quite amusing, so by all means, continue your moans as long as you don’t disrupt the article.

What you fail to understand – and here is where your little attempt at shoving your creative version of Brazil at other people’s face fails miserably – is that whether or not you agree with IBGE’s statistics they are what we have. IBGE says in Brazil 6% are black, 42% are brown, and 50% are white. Do you have other statistics? Yeah, I didn’t think so. You dislike criteria the IBGE uses? Cool, then what are the real statistics? Oh, you don’t know them? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

It’s not our fault your brown friends in Brazil consider themselves white. At least show some respect towards their wish. :)

As for the DNA researches, you killed your own argument when you said “Geography books and IBGE don’t use the recent DNA studies yet”. That’s the whole point! Every institute, university, and geographer uses the current IBGE data, not DNA studies. However, you think you are smarter than everybody… Oh, you also enjoy questioning people’s academic credentials. I’m sorry, but you can’t dismiss what every scholar in Brazil uses. DNA studies are interesting, but they aren’t widely accepted for now. They are a mere curiosity. IBGE’s data is what really matters.

You are obsessed with race and ancestry. Judging your posts, whatever your own race is, I can only assume you have trouble accepting it. Wikipedia is not the right place for you. I suggest you start a blog where you can release all your rants. Let’s make a deal: you can continue your little crusade here in the talk page, as it’s really a lot of fun, just don’t disrupt the article ok? Sparks1979 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You two, please, don't be uncivil. It just worsen the sittuation. I found myself uneasy with your particular attitude, Sparks, maybe because I sense this more personal to me, maybe because I already knew as Opinoso can be agressive. Whatever, don't use fire against fire.

However, Opinoso, even with the bad attitude, I must agree with Sparks central argument: Wikipedia uses the information from the right sources, not the "right" information you, as smart as you are, agree with.

DNA studies are "better"? I would be myself glad to include this in the article if you show us a valid, relevant source about this. And I'm not talking about "I read in this newspaper".

Want to talk about the "white-washing" attitude of the people in the research? OK. You just showed a good source about this. But we still have IBGE's numbers as the only valid ones.

This is not a dispute, Opinoso. We don't care for your personal, previous knowledge about the subject. We care about what the valid, verifiable sources you can find about the subject. We will use IBGE for now, that's all. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn’t really make any personal attacks towards Opinoso. I only adopted the same tone. I did make some heavy criticism towards his not so polite comments towards me, but I did stick my criticism to his comments. Thus, if you read again all the messages carefully, you will notice I heavily criticized his comments, but I didn’t personally attack him in any way. I did say I assume his has a problem with races, but that’s not an attack. So I’m pretty sure I didn’t break any rules. The discussion is nasty and a bit over the top, but you have Opinoso to thank for triggering it. And you bet he will be back to this soon enough. This is what he has been doing for the last months. He finds problems with all sorts of editors.

Anyway, why do you feel this is personal towards you? Sparks1979 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sparks, your constant harassments in my talk page and now personal attacks to Opinoso will lead you block per your disruption. Again, assume good faith with other editors and keep WP:COOL. Opinoso made his statements about IBGE in good faith, but we cannot use his argument to edit this article because of attribution.

Opinoso you are warned in the same form. Carlosguitar 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn’t harass you in your talk page, because I’ve never made any offensive statements towards you. Harassment = offensive statements. Sending you messages does not equate to harassing you. I can send you messages in your talk page whenever I want to. What I can’t do is offend you. If you think I’ve offended you in your talk page, call a Portuguese-speaking administrator (Carioca) to read the messages I sent you and let him decide. If you want to report me for writing in Portuguese, I remind you I’ve seen you writing in Portuguese too.

2)You sent me a warning to stop personal attacks. I sent you a warning to stop personal attacks too, because in my view, you attacked me in our long discussion a few topics above in this page. You called my opinion a “vanity show” and you wrongly accused me of rule infringement.

3)You can warn me and I can’t warn you? How does this work?

4)I send you a long message in your talk page trying to put an end to our mutual animosities. You didn’t even bother replying, so don’t come here trying to play the goody goody boy on me.

5)I always assume good faith. But when clearly good faith isn’t there, I’m not forced to assume otherwise.

6)I don’t have a problem with Opinoso not agreeing with IBGE. I really believe he thinks the DNA studies are superior. What I have a problem with is the fact he tried to impose his opinion, as well as the fact he tends to go personal on people. Anyway, I’ve just sent him a long message in Portuguese where I try to put an end to this. A message any of you can read, since I know all of you speak Portuguese.

7)You are not an administrator, so you don’t get to decide whether people get blocked or not. You have a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia rules, but, I’m sorry for saying this, I find your interpretation of the very same rules quite poor. Sparks1979 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

8)Last but not least, I didn't personally attack Opinoso, although I think I was a bit over the top while commenting his replies. I've apologized to him in his talk page. Still, no rule breaking from me, at least not in my view. Sparks1979 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Status reached

I'd like to congratulate and thank everyone who participated in this GA push, with special mention to Carlosguitar and João Felipe C.S, for successfully completing the GA process in such a short time and with such commitment. Hopefully we can extend that to the next WikiProject Brazil collaboration as well! Speaking of which we should probably get on nominating that article right now.--Dali-Llama 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that most of you have never written anything in this article and feels responsible to its success. The funniest thing is to see your mention to João Felipe C.S, who cannot even speak English, but felt free to vandalize this article and tried many times to manipulate what was posted here (and still tries). Just take a look at his "models" of this article: after many discussions, he still keeps posting the dark Favela picture.

How about the obssession with selling the idea that Brazilian citie's are full of beautiful buildings, like First-World ones. Where are the pictures of exotic Brazilian beaches in this article? The only one is the Recife one, with buildings in the back. It looks like a dirty beach. This is incredible! Opinoso 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the actions required by the GA Review. When you look at the "Done" marks, there's an overwhelming number of contributions by CarlosGuitar and some by Felipe as well. So yes, congratulations to both for making the changes required to bring the article to GA status. The rest is argumentative.--Dali-Llama 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m very happy we’ve reached GA status, since I’ve been directing most of my time as an editor in Wikipedia at improving this article. I apologize for not being around last week, I just had too much going on with work and other everyday tasks.

As I’m carrying out my latest grammar review in this article, I’m actually quite surprised at the many small problems I found in “Administrative divisions” and “Geography and Climate”. They’ve now been removed. I’m surprised and glad they didn’t hurt our GA nomination. Sparks1979 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Working towards Featured Article Status

After finally regaining GA status, I think this is a good time to start considering work towards FA status. Check out the criteria here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

In the past days, I’ve already addressed the following problems:

• Prose: I carried out a slow and careful revision of each section, covering the whole article, and focusing on prose quality issues. I tried to preserve the original text whenever possible to avoid disruptive and controversial changes. I’ve probably removed almost every major flaw, although there might still be a few minor errors here and there. I’ve also removed some lines that seemed too detailed, according to our policy of keeping the article within a reasonable size range. When I started working on this two days ago, the article had 88,479 bytes, now it has 84,805 bytes, so I think I’ve fulfilled my promises of not expanding the article while reviewing text. Several small grammar mistakes have been removed. I could also use some help from proficient/native speakers like English rosy and Dali-Llama on this.

• Wikilinks: we had a major problem here. I don’t know how this wasn’t spotted by our GA reviewer, Dr. Cash. Well, the problem has finally been addressed. Almost every redundant wikilink was removed, as well as wikilinks to common words such as “aircraft”. As a nice side effect, we also saved almost 2K.

• External links: the section was a mess. I removed all specifications to links being in English, removed what seemed to me like unnecessary links and adopted a simpler style of organization, similar to that of Australia.

Now, here is what I think we still need to do:

• Citations: I think it would be nice to establish a standard in style for footnotes. I can do this, but I’m sort of bored of this type of work after reviewing all the wikilinks. It would be great if someone could help me out. We also need to review the quality of these references... some might have to be deleted, whereas others are somewhat redundant. Not every little thing needs a footnote, only things that can generate controversy. Perhaps we can get them down to around 120-130? Edit: spelling. Sparks1979 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Minor expansions: Our GA reviewer,Dr. Cash, suggests we make some minor expansions in etymology and in the health subsection. I don’t mind making them, but it would be nice to hear what others have to say about this. Minor expansions means we probably go back to about 88 K.

Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Sparks1979 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Before we start, the only thing I'd be worried about is some time limit between GA and FA to demonstrate stability. We should probably grab a couple of FA reviewers and clear it with them. Once we get clearance on that, I'll feel far more comfortable making those changes.--Dali-Llama 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We need time between a GA nomination and a FA nomination. I only want to establish some guidelines for our work. For now I think we could work on citations, but I’m sure there must be other aspects bothering editors. For now, there’s no hurry, let’s do things calmly. Sparks1979 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

User:Sparks1979, why you are erasing the fact that "Brazil had 19.8% reduction during the previous four years."?

Since when minimum wages guarantees a high standard of living for the population?

I am following WP:NPOV, I removed all the enlargements terms and fixed the sources.

Also, until today you did not explain why you are not following WikiProject Countries guideline, why no one FA country have Social issues section, and why professional encyclopedia Britannica does not have any citation about Brazil's social issues. Not only a ownership, but also disruption. Carlosguitar 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't justify the changes made by Sparks, I have to state that the Wikiproject Countries guidelines are not set in stone, as can be seen in different FA articles. Therefore, I think that even a section such as social issues, if properly referenced, NPOV and not putting the article over the magical 85kb, is beneficial. A lot of people are talking about major changes to the structure of this article, and we need to be careful to gradually ease into these changes, giving people time to reflect and react on these changes.--Dali-Llama 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalillama, all sections are important to this article, but is impossible to cite here, you know. We still need to merge some statements to not prejudice others like the recent Slavery statement in the History section. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Ok, first of all, thanks for taking it to the talk page. I will make an effort not to get personal about this so we can work constructively. I will try to accept the suggestions you make so we can reach a consensus and end this once and for all.

I expect you to do the same.

In case we disagree on something, then Dali-Llama can provide the tie-breaking vote, that is, if other users don’t join in.

So let’s analyze this point by point.

1. Should there be a “social issues” section?

You argue the “social issues” section should be removed and sent to a sub page, because WikiProject Countries rules don’t include this in the model they present. Also, you point out no FA article has a “social issues” section.

My view : I agree we don’t need a “social issues” section, but I think it fits nicely as a subsection of demographics. Thus, we wouldn’t be violating WikiProject Countries rules, because it’s a subsection and not a section. Note WikiProject Countries rules don’t determine what type of subsection each section can have. There is a little bit of room for freedom here. As for the second point you made, of other FA articles not having a “social issues” section, I don’t really see a problem with this. Australia, for instance, has a section on “flora and fauna” – that seems unique as well. Why should Brazil have a “social issues” subsection, making it unique? In my opinion, because Brazil is peculiar in having a strong economy and a relatively poor social standard of development. Countries normally have strong economies and high social standards (IDH), or they have weak economies and poor social standards. Brazil is somewhat unique this way. So I think we should briefly mention the main social problems affecting Brazil.

I think Dali-Llama and João Felipe C.S back me up on this one.

Major, maybe all professional encyclopedias does not have Social issues section. Brazil also have a great potential for a flora and fauna section and I strong oppose this section without benefice others. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean the information we've gathered under "social issues" isn't scattered around in other encyclopedias. We could do this as well. We could transfer the "poverty", "minimum wages" and "social security debts" information into the "Economy" section. "Inefficient public institutions" fits in "Government". "Violence" could be pushed into the cities paragraph in "demographics", as a typical problem of big cities in Brazil. I would then also mention transportation issues. I prefer keeping it in the "social issues" subsection, it just feels more organized. If you prefer to scatter the info around, we could consider it, if other users also agree. What's your preference? Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Sparks on this one. I prefer to have it in it's own section. At the same time, I'd like to remind everyone we're inchng further towards a large article. We're in zero-sum mode. Considering the GA status quo had a social issues section, I don't see why we should remove it. And remember: WikiProject Countries is a guideline and a suggestion, not a rule.--Dali-Llama 19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

2. First and second sentences:

"Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development. Poverty, urban violence, astounding social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of minimum wages, are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government".

Comment : I noticed you kept them in your version, so I think we’re ok here. There are no citations because I felt there was no need for them, considering these issues will be referenced in the next paragraph.

3. Third and fourth sentences:

"The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment".

Comment : ok, you didn’t change these in your version either, so I think we’re fine here as well. The second wikilink (Gini coefficient) helps a lot.

4. Fifth sentence:

>>>This is the first controversy.

I wrote: "According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of poverty based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population."

You prefer: "According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of poverty based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years".

Comment : at first I had removed this when I was reviewing “social issues” because I genuinely thought it was more important to simply explain the current figure of poverty than to explain there was a reduction; I felt if we explained there was a reduction, we would also have to explain the negative counter effects felt by the middle class. But I will back down on this one. To be frank, I guess you are right in mentioning this, it’s a more balanced outlook on the matter. There’s one small problem though. I’ve just taken a look at the FGV study itself – it’s actually talking about “miséria”. In other words, it’s actually talking about people below the poverty line. “pobreza” = “poverty”. “miséria” = “below the poverty line”.

New suggestion : "According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of people living below the poverty line based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population — a 19.8% reduction considering the previous four years".

This way we reintegrate the reduction factor, and we also correct the mistake in translation. What do you think? I also replaced "during" with "considering".

Ok, I can see you accepted my first suggestion, thanks. I would just like to add we should use "considering" or "along" instead of "during", because "during" doesn't fit very well here. Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Sixth, seventh and eight sentences.

"Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards".

Comment : both versions are equal, so I guess we can move on.

6. Ninth sentence.

>>>Second controversy.

I wrote: "High levels of violence are a part of life in large urban centers".

You wrote: "Violence is part of life in large urban centers".

Comment : I wrote “high levels of violence” because simply writing "there’s violence in the cities" is innocuous. Every large city in the world has "violence", even developed cities like London. What seems worth mentioning here is the fact large urban centers like Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have "high levels of violence". They are "high" because when compared to developed urban centers like London, New York, or even places like Moscow (believe it or not), they are a lot higher. The peculiarity here is the fact we have "high levels". Not necessarily the "highest" in the world, but they are higher than the average developed urban center. Since any city in the world has "some" violence, I think simply writing "violence is a part of life in urban centers" is writing something kind of obvious. We all know the violence in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo is almost out of control – armed gangs invade apartments to rob people – in Rio, drug lords literally control parts of the city – that’s not “average” levels of violence. This is a well-known fact, so I thought it didn’t really need a citation. But we can look something up.

Suggestion : keep the sentence the way I wrote it. Maybe we can get more sources, something statistical.

No you need a index of larges cities to know what is, very low, low, moderate, high and very hight. You cannot said that Brazil have high violence without comparing with all others larges cities. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you want a parameter here. I will try to look for any scholar saying "there are high levels violence in Brazil" (os níveis de violência no Brasil são altos) or I will try to find some study making a comparison with other large cities. I still think saying "there's violence in the large cities" is innocuous, because there's some violence in any large city. Also I believe it's common knowledge that levels of violence in Brazilian big cities are high. Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, problem solved. I've just added two good citations (BBC News and Transnational Institute) claiming "violence in Brazil is comparable to a war zone". I think this settles it. Sparks1979 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Tenth sentence.

"Analysts generally suggest the alarming social inequality as the major reason behind this problem".

Comment : both of us kept this sentence, so no problem here. I didn’t look up some references for it because it’s common knowledge.

8. Eleventh sentence.

>>>Third controversy.

I wrote: "Muggings, robberies and kidnappings are common in many cities, and police brutality and corruption are widespread".

You wrote: "Muggings, robberies and kidnappings are common large urban centers. Police brutality and corruption are widespread".

Comment : Ok, you changed "in many cities" for "large urban centers". I back down here as well. I would just suggest we use "largest cities" because we already used "large urban centers" before. Therefore, we avoid stylistic redundancies. Also, you ask for a citation for "police brutality" and corruption. Fair enough. This is a well-known fact, but I agree it can use a citation. Also, you made a minor grammar mistake when you forgot to use the preposition "in" after "common".

Suggestion : we use your version here, with a small adaptation.

Quick comment: we need to fix a small grammar mistake. The correct form is "are common in the largest cities", not "are common in largest cities". You can also use "are common in large cities". Other than that, we're cool here as well. About the citation, I will look up something, although I think this one is kind of common knowledge. Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

9. Twelfth sentence.

"Inefficient public services, especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life".

Comment : no controversy here, we both used the same sentence, so I will move on. I made a small grammar mistake when writing “inefficient”, which you repeated in your version, so we only need to correct that.

10. Thirteenth sentence.

>>>Fourth controversy.

I wrote: "valued at R$ 380,00 as of April 2007, minimum wages fail in guaranteeing a high standard of living for the population".

You wrote: you deleted the line.

Comment : I admit this is badly written. However, instead of removing it, I think we can rewrite it. The idea is to say the minimum wages are insufficient, because they are not high enough to fulfill the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV of the Brazilian Federal Constitution. This is a pretty much undisputed fact. This is what it says: "São direitos dos trabalhadores urbanos e rurais, além de outros que visem à melhoria de sua condição social: ... IV - salário mínimo, fixado em lei, nacionalmente unificado, capaz de atender a suas necessidades vitais básicas e às de sua família com moradia, alimentação, educação, saúde, lazer, vestuário, higiene, transporte e previdência social, com reajustes periódicos que lhe preservem o poder aquisitivo, sendo vedada sua vinculação para quaiquer fim". We all know R$ 380,00 can’t possibly guarantee someone all that – the Constitution defines that as the basic requirements for a elementary standard of living – the minimum wages don’t fulfill those requirements.

New suggestion : "valued at R$ 380,00 as of April 2007, minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards".

It really is considered common knowledge in Law Schools, but I would like to know what you guys think. I can provide a few citations for this, so it doesn't look like original research.

Unnecessary details about value number and date. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you wrote "Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards". I'm fine with this, this controversy ends here. Cool. Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

11. Fourteenth sentence.

"Brazil currently ranks 69th in Human Development Index".

Comment : again, no controversy here.

12. Last sentence.

"The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s".

Comment : this is a good point I wanted to add into the article a long time ago. It’s well sourced and I’m glad we both used it in our versions.

+ + +

So this is it. We actually don’t have that many problems of controversy in the section. I’m sure we can talk this through. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparks1979 (talk • contribs) 02:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Next time read WP:DR, before making unjustified reverts. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I already got your opinions. I don’t like starting edit wars. I’ve never even been involved in one. The only reason I undid the changes you made was the fact I wanted to take it to the talk page. You yourself undid my work twice without taking it to the talk page or talking to me privately in our own talk pages. So if you think I violated WP:DR, didn’t you violate WP:DR as well? If you think about it, almost every time you accused me of rule infringement, you ended up doing exactly the same thing.

I have no problem backing down when I think I made a mistake. It would be great if you could assume your mistakes as well.

I’m not here to fight – Wikipedia is a hobby for everyone, so it’s supposed to be a fun thing to do. I prefer to resolve things peacefully. If we can’t reach an agreement through conversation, then we can get a tie-breaking vote from another user. I always try to follow democratic decisions, even when I don’t like them. It’s the only way to keep some order here, since we don’t have authorities that can decide on their own. Sparks1979 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering I've been involved in more edit wars in the past week than in my past 3 years of Wikipedia, I'd say you guys worked out well. We've adopted this rule with Opinoso and Felipe and I hope it goes for everyone else as well. If you make a change from the status quo (say, it's been sitting there for more than 48 hrs), and someone reverts you, immediately take it to the talk page. Don't revert it back to your change from the status quo. We have a GA on our hands and any change away from that should bring a higher level of scrutiny. And besides, you're discussing phrasing and minor content issues, not hassling over grave NPOV, OR and RS subjects--there's no reason to make an immediate change and grab on to it for dear life. Obviously you two had some outlying issues from the previous discussion with Opinoso, but both of you are tremendously valuable editors and I don't want to see our little "cabal" of editors that made it through GA fighting. Everyone take a deep breath, and we now have two major projects coming up: Felipe's proposal for changes to Brazil and the FA roadmap.--Dali-Llama 19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Large and developed"

I added the peacock template because the article says that "The Brazilian economy is large and developed." A.Z. 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked to mitigate peacock terms, but I don't think anyone in their right minds will dispute that Brazil's economy is large. "Developed" may be more arbitrary, so I've copied existing text in the article to reflect that.--Dali-Llama 04:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your changes still don't have any useful information. I will dispute that the economy is "large" because the phrase "large economy" is devoid of meaning. "Mature manufacturing sector" uses another peacock term, "mature". I think the template should be re-added. A.Z. 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I reverted your changes. I meant only to re-add the template. I wasn't able to revert myself because of database problems. A.Z. 04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay--My understanding is that you're not disputing the facts, you're saying that we're "telling", not "showing", which is a fair argument. Let me see if I can fix that....--Dali-Llama 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh you thought I meant to say that Brazil has a small economy? By no means... You understood it correctly now. I'm glad we could work that out. A.Z. 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain what I mean here. I don't know if you read that page. Anyway, it would be enough to read WP:PEACOCK. The link to that page is one reason why the template is useful. A.Z. 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That's what I thought. I'll work on it in a bit, and see if the other editors can pitch in as well.--Dali-Llama 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Major changes

Just to preface things, this is a proposal for changes for the article by Felipe, prior to an FA push by us. Hear him and let's see what we can do.--Dali-Llama 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. “Etymology” >>> It can be expanded or removed.

• I disagree it can be removed, per the GA review.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this section is too short. I don’t see why we need a section with only two lines. The GA reviewer complained the information didn’t work as an introduction to History, and I agree it doesn’t. However, I think we could insert the etymology information in “Colony”, right after the first line. I also don’t mind a minor expansion of another line or so. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

2. “History” >>> It can be summarized.

2.1 “Colony” >>> It can be summarized

2.2 “Empire” >>> It can be summarized

2.3 “Republic” >>> It can be summarized

• I don’t think there’s much room to summarize the subsections. I’ve seen quite a few FA articles with more information on history than Brazil’s. I think we can consider merging everything together without any subsections. I tried this in a preview and it looked a lot better to me. Also, it would save a few valuable bytes. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

3. “Government and Politics” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

3.1 “Foreign relations and the military” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

3.2 “Law” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

• I agree, leave it as it is. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

4. “Administrative divisions” >>> It can be expanded. In my opinion, the section would have to be divided in the sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". Currently it only speaks of the regions, of "geographic" form, when I found better to be portraied of "historic" form. As in other FA, the section it would have to deal with as the e regions the states had appeared, on the territorial conquests and the different introduced forms of division already in Brazil.

4.1 “Regions” >>> ???

4.2 “States” >>> ???

• This was the original state of the article prior to size reduction. I don't feel any content is lost by having just one section, so I'd consider this a stylistic change. I feel the status quo is appropriate, and dividing it into two would tempt people to increase their respective sizes, which is the last thing we need with the size of the current article.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't understand...

First > The "regions" aren't a political division and yes geographic, promoted for the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States of each region.

Second > The only “senão” is that in this in case that we would have that to give more emphasis for the States, that are a division politics.

Therefore they need to be separate. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don’t mind having this section split into two subsections, but I’m against doing it if style is the only reason behind it. Felipe C.S's idea is interesting… but I’m also a bit preoccupied with anything that has “expansion” written over it. I’m on the fence about this one. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

5. “Geography” >>> It can be expanded. An important section for a country as Brazil, and extremely poor. Content very reduced, the introduction was minimum. Not yet I found the best form to describe, plus who knows somebody has some idea.

5.1 “Climate” >>> It can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities seem superficial to me, mentions for "climate of monsoons" of the North and "climate of (polar) masses" of the South it would be better. Torrential rains of the Amazon Rainforest, the dry and barren climate of the Northeastern hinterland, the intense cold of the Southern mountain ranges would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil. Citations of the record temperatures already also registered.

5.2 “Environment” >>> It can be expanded.

• Zero-sum argument. If we feel it needs expansion, we need to remove content somewhere else.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can merge everything in Geography. I don’t see a need for two subsections on “climate” and “environment”. Why not have a subsection on “topography” then? My proposal: we leave it as it is, or we merge everything and rewrite it. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

6. “Economy” >>> It can be summarized.

6.1 “Energy policy” >>> It can be expanded. The section speaks only of ethanol. Cite the energy matrix of the country also is important, giving reference to the image. (Dali-Llama revert my editions)

6.2 “Science and technology” >>> It can be expanded. For the same reason of "Energy policy". The sub-section need of reference to the image.

• My reversion rationale is as follows: Energy policy is something very specific to Brazil (IE: it would not be noteworthy enough for any other country, with the possible exception of the Low Countries and Scandinavia, which have considerable renewable energy resources), and is typically not in main articles. I agree with its inclusion, but this should be a very short section. Consider this a "bonus" section. Felipe proposed to delete the Social Issues section, and then expand Energy Policy. I am against this suggestion, as if we consider both sections "secondary" or "non-standard" sections, I'd consider social issues in Brazil to be far more important to understanding what Brazil is like than our energy policy.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not accurately thus. I only suggested, in Dali-Llama's talk page, the removal of the section for controversial reasons that come causing disputes. In the place would be placed the "Languages" section. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that’s very unconvincing. If we are to start removing information because of controversies, then we might as well delete half of Wikipedia. Also, I think for now the controversy is over, check the previous discussion in this talk page. The “social issues” information has been here for more than two years. “Social issues” is a lot more important for the understanding of Brazil than details on “languages” or “sport”. I strongly oppose this idea. Sorry Felipe C.S, but to me it feels like you are trying to “hide dirt under the carpet”. This page has lost many good editors because some insist on painting a colorful, unrealistic version of Brazil – some sort of “almost developed” “economical powerhouse” tropical paradise. Come on! We all know this is only a developing nation, full of problems. While it's not Africa, it's far from first world standards too. I’m not in favor of a negative view of the country, but I think the outlook needs to be realistic – the article has to show readers the real Brazil, with the good and the bad parts. We remove "social issues" – this articles loses almost all credibility. Sparks1979 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma! Since when Bricannica does not have credibility because does not cite any information about poverty and violence? Again, major encyclopedias does not have any citation about social issues as we have here. Oh yeah, certainly editors which are following WP:WPC, and trying to make article more professional are hiding information. Carlosguitar 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong. I will presume you mean Encyclopedia Britannica when you say “Bricannica” has no mention to poverty and violence in Brazil. How about this for violence? “Violence and corruption among police are serious concerns in Brazil, exacerbated by low wages and educational attainment. Each year police in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are implicated in hundreds of extrajudicial killings as well as in drug trafficking, kidnapping, theft, and other crimes. Attempts at reform have been frustrated by the sheer number of such incidents and by frequent conflicts between police agencies.” [1]. Information on poverty is scattered around. For instance: “Infant mortality rates are still a serious concern but vary widely according to region and socioeconomic status: in the affluent urban districts the rate is quite low, but in the favelas and other poor communities, particularly in the Northeast, it is much higher.” [2] Another bit of information on poverty: “As a result, members of the middle class have been increasingly forced to live in minuscule apartments in densely packed high-rises, while the poor are confined in nearby favelas (“shantytowns”) or in residential areas that may be several hours away from their workplaces.” [3] It goes on and on, that is, if you actually bother looking around. False dilemma? Cut the crap. That comes from Britannica Online, your all-mighty "professional" encyclopedia. Give up dude. Sparks1979 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

About violence, nice they are saying on accurate form about: São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and not the simple: "High level of violence" or "comparable to war zone". Which are biased. But, I will not oppose the "comparable", since comparable never means equal.

A small citation about favelas, yet no statistics or rate as we have here. They lose credibility? Never.

Yes, there is false dilemma argument here. Oxford University Press, no citation about violence, and a small citation about street children. They lose creditability? Never. Catholic Encyclopedia, no citation about violence and poverty. They lose creditability? Never. Columbia Encyclopedia, no citation about violence and poverty. They lose creditability? Never.

Yet, no one encyclopedia and FA country article with "Social issues section". Carlosguitar 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A. WP:SIZE First you said your problem with social issues was “always about size”:

If you rewrite social issues without increasing WP:SIZE I will not oppose. The problem was away with WP:SIZE. And I am not the user that have been reverted by 2 established users with good reasons to removed his statement. Carlosguitar 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I proved there were no longer any problems related to excessive size. Yet, you continued complaining. Where’s the coherency in the things you say? Wasn't WP:SIZE the big problem?

Simple, I had not Dr pda tools, so I did not know the prose size, and I was following what Epbr123 (talk · contribs) recommended, to diminish article to about 80KB. Of course, you was the only editor to oppose him. Carlosguitar 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, you said the problem was “always about size”, and that if size was no longer a problem “you would not oppose” the section. However, once convinced “size” was not the problem, you continued coming up with all sorts of reasons to justify your rants. So it was not “always about size”, was it? This is what anyone would call incoherency. Sparks1979 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

B. WP:WPC You then went on to complain about the article not following WikiProject Countries. I carefully explained “social issues” is a subsection and not a section – thus, it doesn’t violate WikiProject Countries, because it gives editors freedom to create subsections according to their own understanding. I also showed you examples of featured articles that contain unique sections not listed in WikiProject Countries, such as “flora and fauna” in Australia, “transport” in Cambodia, or “tourism” in Pakistan. Dali-Llama has recently provided more examples. Note these are all examples of unique sections. If we examine subsections, every featured article has unique peculiarities.

Brazil has no unique sections, only unique subsections, which are allowed by WikiProject Countries. In short, Brazil follows WikiProject Countries quite strictly. Surprisingly, you still keep bringing up WikiProject Countries. Hey, it would be nice if you could assume your mistakes sometimes.

The only citation is Subdivisions about of the administrative subdivisions of the country related to Politics. Also: "Demographics - Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known." Again nothing about social issues nor "unique" section. Carlosguitar 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When you are talking about the people’s quality of life, you are talking about aspects of “demography”. Read any Brazilian Geography book in its “population” chapters – you will find exactly what we have here.

South Africa has a section in “Aids” and a section on “crime”. Pakistan has a section on “tourism”. Germany has a section on “law”. So why aren’t you complaining in their “talk pages”? I only see you complaining here. This is what anyone would call double standards. Sparks1979 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

C. Citations. Since you apparently can’t admit you’ve lost the argument, you started moaning about citations.

I provided good sources (BBC News, international organizations) for each word you challenged, including the stuff you call “biased”.

And you are misinformed, again, again and again. WP:BIAS: NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. While Britannica says that violence in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeriro are a grave problem, biased you say that are "war zone", or your original research about "High violence in Brazil". Carlosguitar 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to say BBC News and international organizations are biased? Encyclopedia Britannica says the medium class in Brazil lives in “minuscule apartments” – and that’s not biased? If they are all biased, what do you want to use as sources? Nothing? I’m misinformed? Hmmm… you claim you live in São Paulo and you think the rate of violence is not high… how about that… :D Sparks1979 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

D. Comparisons with other encyclopedias. You kind of ran out of arguments, yet here you are for one last round of outbursts. Now you are bringing up these “professional encyclopedia” comparisons. It seems you don’t understand the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to emulate other encyclopedias. It tries to push the boundaries a bit further, by inviting any user to contribute with their knowledge. That’s why Wikipedia is 20 times larger than Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want Wikipedia to include only what the so-called “professional” encyclopedias have in their database, then what’s the point of having Wikipedia in the first place? That’s not to mention if we were to follow your flawed reasoning, we would have to delete three quarters of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I still proved your latest outburst wrong. You challenged me by saying “Encyclopedia Britannica” had no mentions to violence and poverty in Brazil. I quote you: False dilemma! Since when Bricannica does not have credibility because does not cite ANY information about poverty and violence? Again, major encyclopedias does not have ANY citation about social issues as we have here. Oh yeah, certainly editors which are following WP:WPC, and trying to make article more professional are hiding information. Carlosguitar 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In 10 minutes I found mentions to poverty and violence. Encyclopedia Brittanica is always accurate and unbiased? I find the use of “minuscule apartments” quite biased. I bet if I had written that here, you would be throwing your usual round of rants at me. :)

Now you want me to go check every other encyclopedia online? I’m sorry, I’m not going to do that. You were shouting about Britannica not having any mentions to “poverty” and “violence”, I found them in 10 minutes.

This is getting boring. Why don’t you try helping by actually writing something instead of pointing your finger at other people all the time? Sparks1979 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand Sparks your inquietude about False dilemma, you used a fallacy argument to only give credibility to those which have Social issues statements: "We have credibility with Social issues or we do not have." ;)

Anyone in a easy reasoning, know that we do not need Social issues to have credibility. Carlosguitar 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Any serious scientific work on Brazil talks about the positive and negative sides, including your beloved Britannica. Unfortunately, for some reason you want to turn “Brazil” into a tourism magazine, and still feel fit to talk about neutrality issues and “professionalism”.

You seem to be the only one showing signs of inquietude around here. “Hey everyone, Sparks1979 is breaking rules, please, someone help me”. You’ve spent the last few weeks behaving immaturely, making random unfounded accusations and crying for help – help that never came, because you are wrong. You should know it, but apparently you let your emotions control your behavior. Probably assuming mistakes means your ego gets hurt, right?

Let’s make it simple: no one supports your view. :) You lost, “drop the stick”. Sparks1979 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to side with Sparks on this one. WPC is not a straight-jacket and Britannica is not god (if it were, why are we all here?). If we're agreed that the article can go to 50kb of readable prose, then social issues would be my first section for a scrubdown and expansion.--Dali-Llama 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the first? Brazil has the most biodiversity in this world and Environment section is still small. You may not like WP:WPC, but a number of editor established a consensus to "easy" feature a article by following their guideline. If you strong disagree with "inaccurate" of their guideline, you need to discuss with them.

And we should maintain article below than 49-50KB not go to 50, going to 50KB is problematic. Carlosguitar 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty about biodiversity in the article right now. And regardless of WPC's actual requirements, there are enough country FAs with non-standard sections that makes me think that even they don't always agree (or contribute) to particular articles' individual requirements. South Africa has a section on AIDS, Nepal has "Recent Developments". I think it should be the first priority since that section, while controversial, needs to be thoroughly devoid of OR and present facts as NPOV as possible.--Dali-Llama 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious Dalillama? Did you see Indonesia#Ecology and South_Africa#Flora_and_fauna? We not even talk about Atlantic Forest, Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado how do you think that there is "plenty" about biodiversity? Ah I got, there is no "plenty" citation about social issues. Anyway, I will start working on Environment section, now. Carlosguitar 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don’t think we need a subsection on “energy policy”. I think two or three lines on the subject would fit well with the rest of the section’s introduction. I’m still a bit uneasy about the placement of “science and technology” in this section. I don’t mind reducing the size of the introduction. I’m against the expansion of “energy policy” and “science and technology” if they are to be considered subsections. It’s just too much detail and it goes against our recent "reduction" policies. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

7. “Demographics” >>> It can be summarized.

7.1 “Education and health” >>> The sub-section only speaks of Education and little of Health, without expanding it, the two sides could be balanced.

7.2 “Social issues” >>> It can be summarized.

• Maybe the introduction can suffer minor reductions. Perhaps the information on cities that aren’t State capitals can go, as well as explanations on ethnical distribution in each region. However, I feel we should leave it as it is. I agree with balancing the information on education and health. I’m against reducing “social issues”. It’s a very important subsection and it’s quite small as it is. Why can we have detailed historical subsections on “colony”, “empire” and “republic”, as well as subsections on “climate” and “energy policy”, and not have a subsection on “social issues” with a corresponding size? If we have space in the article to talk about "sport", we have to have space to talk about "social issues". Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, explain why professional encyclopedia like Britannica does not have any citation about violence and poverty? For you information colony, empire and republic historic sections are always part of any professional encyclopedia. Carlosguitar 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica issue has been comprehensively addressed in my reply to your latest outburst. As for the “colony”, “empire” and “republic” subsections, I never said the article should not have such information. Time to practice your reading comprehension again. Sparks1979 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, WP:UNDUE is not the motive to increase Social issues section. Also there is no one encyclopedia or FA article with a section called Social issues. Carlosguitar 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying here doesn’t even make sense. lol Sparks1979 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

8. “Culture” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

8.1 “Religion” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

8.2 “Sports” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

• Agreed. Sparks1979 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

9. “References” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

9.1 “Footnotes” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

9.2 “Further reading” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

10. “See also” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

10.1 “External links” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

10.2 “Internal links” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Article size (again)

Okay folks, this isn't a straightforward subject, but one we must tackle nonetheless. FA articles are typically in the 30-50kb range. This is not without controversy (see the latest discussion at the FA team's talk page here), but I think we can safely assume that we're okay for FA if we keep the article at about 50kb. I would like to move the consensus before we actually start reverting each other when we add content (as I did to Felipe, unfortunately). Are we okay with adopting 50kb of readable prose (as measured by Dr pda's tool) as the new size limit for the article? The article currently stands at 41kb.--Dali-Llama 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the 30-50 Kb guideline, I think we should set 45 Kb as the maximum size just to keep safe. I don’t like the idea of working on the limits. Sparks1979 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• The recommendation is still 32 KB. That never means which we can go to 50 KB. Carlosguitar 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Article size the 32 Kb rule has been relaxed: "With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size." Most featured articles on countries have more than 32 Kb of readable prose. The rule clearly states readers will tire after reading much more than 30-50 Kb of readable prose. Thus, 30-50 Kb is a general guideline for limits. Sparks1979 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My vote is that it's okay to go up to, but not passing 50kb of readable prose, so I agree with Sparks.--Dali-Llama 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, where I said to stay with 32KB? We should not go to 49-50KB, due to problems which can pop up, trying to maintain below than it. Another important point: the problem of WP:SIZE is not us who will decide, but the editors at WP:FAC, so it is still recommendable to maintain prose below. Carlosguitar 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dali-Lama. 50k of prose as limit, below that no removal of content based only on size arguments.Chico 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes:

32 Kb – 1 vote >>> Carlosguitar (removed vote by Sparks1979)

45 Kb – 1 vote >>> Sparks1979

50 Kb – 3 votes >>> Dali-Llama, Felipe C.S and Chico

The majority has spoken, 50 Kbs is our limit. Sparks1979 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when, I voted to stay with 32KB? I know, that is a retaliation about false dilemma Sparks, but no problem. :) I just do not want that this article go to 50KB, because of further problems. Carlosguitar 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That’s what you implied. Try having a little bit more objectiveness; you’ve been consistently showing communication difficulties. :D And there’s no “retaliation”. All your unfounded accusations have been firmly rebutted. ;) Sparks1979 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I did not used fallacy argument about credibility, and I am not the editor which read recommendation as obligation. Obvious, I am not the editor here showing communication difficulties. Drop the stick now Sparks. ;) Carlosguitar 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. An editor proposes we establish 50 Kb as a limit for the article. Others support him. Another editor proposes we establish 45 Kb so we don’t push the limits. Then you come up saying “we can’t go to 49-50 Kb”, adding “there’s still a recommendation for 32 Kb”. Since you didn’t say anything else, one can only understand you think the 32 Kb “recommendation” is the limit we should observe.

I know your type. You avoid objectiveness so later you have room to swing your opinion according to your own agenda. Alternatively, maybe you simply have difficulties communicating. Either way, it’s difficult to see good faith in your reasoning. You are just too stubborn to see your own mistakes, even when they are evident.

It’s also quite funny you ask me to “drop the stick”, when you are the one who started every single argument connected to my work in “social issues”. Sparks1979 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems my ill-fated attempt to halt this discussion has proved useless. Here's one more try: the size issue is solved. You're now addressing personal issues, which this is not the forum for. Doesn't matter who started or who finished, take it to your respective talk pages.--Dali-Llama 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I’ve tried taking it to the talk page. He refuses. He wants everything said here. I’ve tried not making it personal, but he also refuses, making unfounded accusations virtually every time he addresses me. I’ve tried reasoning with him, to no avail - even though no one has shown support for his views, he keeps insisting on them. I can only assume he wants to be provocative. I’ve tried not to start discussions, yet he is always here with his outburts. I believe that gives me the universal right of replying. I’ve tried to ask him to discuss things rationally – I even backed down on a few points here and there – I provided citations for everything he asked for, even the most obvious things (such as kidnappings in Brazil), but nothing can appease this guy. Things seemed to be over, then two days later he is here with his latest complaints. I would happily take it to the talk page, he doesn’t want to. I would happily avoid the discussion, but he always comes back accusing me of things. What do you suggest I do? Sparks1979 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, we've reached a decision. Thanks for the help guys.--Dali-Llama 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway...., the best way I see to deal with size is to let it alone until it reaches 50k of prose, then (if it reaches that mark) we decide where to go from there. Removing valid content before that mark only on size arguments is prejudicial to the article (in my humble point of view). I'm glad we've reached a decision around this and let's keep the good work going. Chico 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gangs, Drugs, Crime, Robberies and Police Corruption

Why is there nothing on this topic in the whole article??

Some Powerful gangs (this could also be in the gang article and is not): Third Command, Red Command, Commando Vermilio. These gangs, and many others are often run by leaders who are in prison and can call in riots and attacks on the outside. Including attacks on police stations.

Crime: Large portions of the cities are filled with shanty towns (called favelas) that light up the hills at night and police and pedestrians do not dare enter these sections. These territories are ruled and governed by gangs that sell drugs, women, and guns, kidnap, kill, and rob with impunity. Taxi drivers drive miles out of the way to avoid these areas for fear of being car-jacked. Street kids join the gangs at shockingly young ages and often have no guardians or parents around to tell them right from wrong. Home invasions are a daily reality for the wealthy. Police do not help and are reputedly involved in much of this mayhem.

This is already covered in the Social Issues section and respective sub-article. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)