![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I agree with you. We are tired of Rio de Janeiro, a secondary decadent industrial center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.30.2 ( talk) 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many pictures of Rio de Janeiro. First of all, I agree that the picture of Rio de janeiro (second largest financial center of the country) is worthless. Why not use the LARGEST FINANCIAL CENTER OF THE COUNTRY instead of the SECOUND? Second, many people know that Carnaval is the BIGGEST cultural event in Brazil, consequently; I think that a picture of the Carnaval in Rio de Janeiro was well used. Third, Brazil is the Pais do Futebol (Soccer Country), so nothing better than a picture of the most famous soccer stadium "MARACANA", which is located in Rio de Janeiro. Domenicasilva 15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]; 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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
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 would like to give my opinion here because I've read some statements and I don't quite agree with things that OPINOSO has said. I have to be on Sparks side. Firstly, I am giving my opinion because I am a mixed-race Brazilian and I thought it would help people who are not Brazilians to understand what people like me who do not identify themselves as a 'pure' colour feel like. In census 2006, I answered my skin color was 'parda' (I hate this name because it sounds like 'Brazilian standard type' kind of thing. But if some people who are like me tell they feel they are white, I wouldn't blame them. That's why I came to give my opinion, as my story is a good example. Even though I don't see myself as a 'pure white', I am more of a white than of an idian, because I know my exact origins. My paternal grandfather was ITALIAN and he purely european. My paternal grandmother is daughter of a portuguese couple that came to Brazil in 1910, even though she is Brazilian she is purely white. My mother's mother, was born in Maceió and she doesn't know her origins, but I can tell you that she looks white and she has blue eyes. But my mother's father is a PURE BRAZILIAN INDIAN and he was born in a tribe in União dos Palmares, Alagoas. So if my skin looks light brown, it's because of my maternal GRANDFATHER only, or 25% of my origins. If you look at me, you can see light brown skin, and straight black hair. So, in the truth, if I wanted to say I am white, even though I don't look like one I would be nexter to a white in the 'DNA reality' Opinoso claims to be the most accurate. I think even more brazilians would be considered white than there are today. If You look at my hair and say it came from my European side of the family you are wrong. My italian gradfather had curly hair and my portuguese gradmother had also curly hair. But if you look at my mother's father, you'll see his hair is really straight. So my indian side of the family gave me straight hair, not the european side like others would think. If you look at my sister, you won't tell she is my sister as she looks really white and has blue eyes. I have brown eyes and I am darker then her but it doesn't mean my ADN origins are much different then hers. Even thought I am not a pure white, I am more a white than a Black because 75% of my gradparents are purely european white. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
References
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’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)
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:
Now, here is what I think we still need to do:
Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Sparks1979 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
+ + +
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
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)
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.
2. “History” >>> It can be summarized.
3. “Government and Politics” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
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.
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.
6. “Economy” >>> It can be summarized.
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?
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.
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”.
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)
7. “Demographics” >>> It can be summarized.
8. “Culture” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
9. “References” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
10. “See also” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 particular edit [4] by Felipe seems troubling, he is removing this image it while quoting the manual of style wich holds absolutelly no basis to it, I didn't revert the first removal because I though it had to do with some grammar mistakes in the image's caption, however I fixed those grammar issues and moved the image down so it didn't go parallel with the image on the other side, this leads me to believe that the issue here is actually the content of the image, wich is a couple of native Brazilians, now the section where its being included its demographics where the addition of the image makes sense, I would like to hear the opinion of both Felipe and other users on this matter, the main question here is: does somebody oppose the addition of an image with these native people? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, Brazilian Indians do not "generate a false and stereotypical image of Brazil for casual readers trying to learn more about the country". They are part of Brazil and its culture, they do exist and do represent Brazilian people.
Brazil is a multi-ethnic country, and its indigenous peoples do represent our racial base; more than all those blond blue-eyed supermodels that you people were trying to claim that represent Brazilians.
Of course João Felipe C.S would revert the Indigenous pic, and everybody knows the reasons. Just read the White supremacy article to understand what is going on inside the mind of this kind of "people".
I decided to remove the Indigenous pic and posted one that shows the racial diversity of Brazilian. It is colorfull, as Brazilians are. Opinoso 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3 editors from this article have just been blocked for revert warring for periods ranging from 24 to 72 hours. My 3RR blocks always escalate and I have now watchlisted this article. Please feel free to use the talk page rather then fighting over the content of this article. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Felipe C.S. is proposing to change the picture under the Science and Technology heading. Here are the choices. Feel free to vote and voice any reservations.-- Dali-Llama 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
All options are ok for me. If I really have to choose, I go for number 1 or number 4. Sparks1979 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I dislike all of them. They're just boring pictures of regular airplanes that add no interesting or useful information to the article. A.Z. 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The article need of some alterations for a possible Featured Article Nominee. These changes are mainly concentrated in the "Administrative divisions" and "Geography" sections.
In my opinion, this section is too short. Something needs to be changed.
This section can be expanded. The section could be divided in two sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". However, regions aren't administrative divisions, them are geographic divisions promoted by the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States.
The current text was written of "geographic" form and occults the history of the political division of Brazil, the territorial levels (captainships, provinces, territories, states, cities, neutral cities, districts), the annexation and loss of territorial areas. The different divisions in the Colonial, Imperial and Republican periods, need to be shown.
An introduction showing the general history of the Brazilian territorial politics, and the "Regions" and "States" sub-sections detailing its subjects, would make an excellent section.
In my opnion, this section can be expanded. The content is very reduced and the introduction is minimum, the section needs alterations urgently.
The "Climate" sub-section can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities aren't so important how much the climatic differences of Brazil. The text could give more emphasis to the diversity, like the wet climate of the Amazonian Forest, the Northeast dry climate, the cold climate of the South… Citations of the registered records temperatures already would be excellent. This would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil.
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all this is not a demographics issue, it is mainly a sports matter, as we all know Brazil is been known for having the best soccer team in world, that’s why we’ve been trying to put the picture of the Brazilian soccer team in the sports section, but some users keep erasing it for no reason besides “We don’t like it” seriously what kind of a reason is that? I’m not the only one that’s seen all the racism regarding this article, a lot of white-rich Brazilians have been trying to portrait it as a second Germany, but again this is not even a demographics thing, it is purely a sports related picture, but we all know the reason behind the removals but since they keep erasing it, I’m forced to open this discussion, I encourage everyone to participate, because otherwise, all the opinions here are going to come from Joao Felipe and other “anonymous” users. Thank you. Supaman89 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Racism... Well, look at Mexico article.
Amandajm 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Everybody, I propose replace the current image with this image. Rio hosted the best Pan American Games ever, and its represents all of sports. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the picture. Of course "some" users are against it, because most players are Blacks.
Brazilian soccer players do represent more than any other thing the Brazilian sport. The Maracanã picture is bad, it is a decadent stadium.
All the pictures of this article are pathetic, showing only pictures of unknown buildings to make Brazil look like Europe or White politicians. Why should these politicians be here? Are they more important than the others? Or are they in the article because they are Whites?
It should be included the old picture of Blond supermodels to complete the White-wash job of "some" users in this article.
It is impossible not to laugh when "some" users say to put the Vollayball picture there. Of course, vollayball is more "elitist" sport, and all the players are Whites.
It semms that members of the White Supremacist group decided to attack this article. Why don't they go to the Norway or Germany article and post their fake pictures in it?
It's a shame. Opinoso 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I still do not know what
João Felipe C.S is doing in the English Wikipedia. This user cannot even read or write in English. He probably does not even know what is written in the
Brazil or any other article of Wikipedia. He is always fighting with other users, destroying the articles with his project of White-washing Brazil (that is all he can do in this Wikipedia).
It is well-known that João Felipe C.S has some problems with the reality:
I do not know if he lives in a fantasy world or what he is trying to do here. Hollywood does not care about Brazil and does not talk about it. I wonder, the action movies that show the U.S as a violent country are trying to destroy the country's reputation? Of course not, they are just trying to make many.
João Felipe C.S is not patriot at all. The real patriot loves his country to the point of fighting against the bad things of it, showing the bad side of the country, he is not ashamed of it. This user, actually, is trying to hide what he considers to be bad about Brazil (favelas, Black people, poor cities, Tropical weather etc) and trying to sell a fake image of Brazil (rich cities, blond supermodels, cold weather, etc).
He is trying to fit Brazil into Europe. It seems a bit Nazi to me: the Aryan race was the best, they were perfect.
But, as all the bad people in the world, they have an end. I hope João Felipe C.S and all his White-supremacists followers leave Wikipedia. At least here, racist people should not have any kind of space. Opinoso 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why
João Felipe C.S is talking about the
Mexico article here, it has nothing to do with the subject. What he did was vandalism: as you are Mexican, Alex, he went to the Mexico article to post unnecessary pictures there to attack you.
I do not know why he thinks posting pictures of Amerindian people would destroy an article. Maybe he thinks posting pictures of blond supermodels in better.
By the way, the Mexico article seems much better than the Brazil. It is much more complete and has richer informations. Since "these users" started to post here and erased 70% of the article's information, it became pathetic.
An student who is doing a resource about Brazil will find nothing in this article. Who cares if the article was big? They just want to fit it into the best ones of article.
It is better to have a good article not included in the best, than have a poor article (as it is now) to include it. Opinoso 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Carlosguitar, at least if a foreigner wants to do a resource about Mexico they will find many information there; the same is not possible in the small Brazil article. Opinoso 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this debate is gone out of hand. I see people offending each other and making it personal, so there is no longer any possibility for a civil discussion. Nobody has the right to call people names just because there is a disagreement. We will have to call administrators to analyze the situation. Let's see if they can solve the problem.
You guys go ahead and do whatever you want with this or any other page. I think only administrators can handle it from now on. I will be contacting them soon, so good luck. I will go back to my projects in the subpages. Sparks1979 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of hand it to say that the Brazilian soccer team picture should be replaced with the Vollayball pic because the soccer players are Blacks and the vollayball ones are Whites. Opinoso 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, you should call an administrator to block youself. It is well-known that you have been saying racist things in
Supaman89 talk page, saying that he cannot post picture of Brazilian Indians because he would be creating a stereotypical image of Brazil. According to your words, Amerindians are bad and create a bad image of Brazil.
By the way, you have been conspiring an attack to the Mexico article, saying to post picture of Amerindians there, selling an idea that the Mexican Indians are a negative point of Mexico. [6]
Why can't the picture of the Brazilian Indians be posted and the picture of blond supermodels or, as you sayed, the picture of the White vollayball team should?
Amerindians are the native inhabitants of Brazil, million of Brazilians have Amerindian ancestry (not less than 1% as you are trying to sell)
This is an obvious manifestation of racism. You should be blocked.
You are the one who cannot discuss here. You act racist and is playing as the victim.
By the way, why do you emphasize you "European" origins in you main page? [7]
What is this obssession with Europe? Opinoso 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, the only one who is attacking people here is you, offending the Brazilian Indians saying they create a negative image of Brazil.
This is an obvious racism. You should be blocked. Opinoso 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing how this page always gravitates around someone calling someone else a racist. Work on the issues people, and stop assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith--that does not affect the discussion. I'll say again what what I've said countless time to Opinoso and others: when you attack someone else personally while trying to make your point, you end up shooting yourself in the foot because people won't listen to your arguments, even if they're valid.-- Dali-Llama 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
All that I have seen in this dispute is a group of users listing reasons that they feel an image shouldn't be in an article, citing statistics, legitimate or otherwise, and copyright concerns, once again possibly illegitimate, to back up their point of view. The users who disagree with them call them racist, and leave out important parts of the other user's statements to try and prove it. This is completely unacceptable. I wasn't even involved in this, and I'm offended by this conversation. I'm afraid that I'm going to be called a racist by this group for commenting in this conversation because I have an American flag on my page. I am disgusted. You have legitimate claims to put the image in the article. Brazil is known for its soccer team, and the copyright concerns are probably a non-issue. If you stop calling people racist, then you will win this dispute. I agree that the image should be in the article, but I am appalled by the claims of racism being thrown around. If you believe that the user is racist, then file a request for comment on his user conduct and make your case there, but for this dispute here and now stick to the facts of the article, and leave each other out of this. The Hyb rid 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Since many people don't seem to like the Maracanã picture, while many others don't like the football team picture, I'm going to make a new proposal: why don't we use a picture of the Pan American games opening ceremony, focusing on the Brazilian athletes? This would represent all sports and there would probably be athletes of many different ethnical groups and origins. This was Guilherme's idea and it might be a good way to end this big fight (sorry, but can't call it a debate). Sparks1979 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Here are some preliminary candidates of licensed pictures:
1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
I will look for more tomorrow. Sparks1979 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Le sigh. A recent comment shows that the picture of the soccer team is still preferred by your opponents. As a sort of hybrid (no pun intended) compromise, would putting both the picture of the soccer team and a picture of the athletes in general be acceptable to you? The Hyb rid —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I liked the second picture, it involves athletes from various sports, since that seem to be the problem that they were arguing, but again some people... still have a problem with showing real Brazilians.
It’s curious how they agreed to show people when the picture was about the volleyball team…, but when it was about the soccer players they rather put the stadium, and now instead of putting the athletes that want to put the building again. Supaman89 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Joao please do not try to put the adjective "racist" to me, you know what I meant, showing real, normal people, like those in the picture, and again you didn't even answer what I said, how is it that you guys said that it'd be okay to the volleyball team, but not the soccer one, and now that we've found a picture representing all the athletes, you change your position again saying that the building would "symbolize the sport", seriously I don't know why you keep trying to hard to hide “some” people, of course when they're white you put lots of pictures of them, but if they're brown then you rather put a building instead?
BTW, Dalillama, if it is okay for you to put a picture of a football match, then how is it different from showing the whole team? Supaman89 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You should assume good faith, if for no other reason than assuming bad faith hasn't been working up to this point. Just assume that Dalillama changed his mind, and isn't trying to keep certain ethnic groups out of the article, please. Now then, Dalillama, I ask you to remember that not everyone can have all of their wishes fulfilled in this dispute. There simply isn't a solution that can please everyone. So now, I ask, which compromise pleases the largest group: the picture of the athletes in general, or a picture of an actual soccer game clearly showing the players? I think that both are equally encyclopedic, so it is all up to personal preference. The Hyb rid 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a racist thing going on here, mainly by users Sparks1979 and Felipe C.S. We are not calling them racist to make a mere attack or obligate them to accept our pictures. We are saying this because it is a fact.
Some people arrived here yesterday and feel able to give their opinions about the case. Felipe C.S has been giving obvious demostrations of racism in Wikipedia for a long time. It all started when he came to Brazil article and posted pictures of blond supermodels and erased pictures of Black Brazilians. Then he erased all the pictures of Brazilian beaches (they still do not exist in this article) and posted pictures of a rare image of snow in a remote area of Southern Brazil.
He is trying to create a fake image of Brazil, trying to make the country look like Europe.
Felipe C.S frequently attacks articles about Black people and vandalize them. In September 7th he erased the numbers of Afro-Brazilian (45 million) to 6 million (??) in the article African diaspora. He was reverted by user Am86 who also sayed he a racist. [11] He is frequently vandalizing the Afro-Brazilian article.
The more recent racism cases were yesterday, when Sparks1979 sayed that the picture of the Volleyball team (mainly White) should be in the article, while the soccer team (mainly Black) shouldn't.
Another case was when the Mexican users posted, with good faith, a picture of Brazilian Indians, and Felipe C.S went to the article Mexico and posted pictures of Mexican Indians there. In his opinion, Indians sell a bad image of a country (statement agreed by Sparks1979 in the Mexican users' talk pages, saying that Amerindians create a bad image of Brazil) [12]
It is incredible how an article about Brazil does not have a picture of a beach (most Brazilians live along the coast). Brazilian beaches are well-known all around the world.
How about pictures of Black Brazilians, who represent half of the country's demographics? Where are they in this article? Why four pictures of politicians? Why all the politicians there are Whites?
Why not post pictures of normal Brazilians, ordinary people, who work all day to get a pathetic wage? Why post pictures of politicians who never work and steal money of the population, while most Brazilians are hungry?
Another question: why so many pictures of buildings? Who sees these pictures think they are in an European country article: modern buildings, serious politicians. In other words, this article makes anyone think Brazil is a First-World country.
But everybody knows most Brazilians live in poor conditions. Most buildings in Brazilian cities are not modern as in the pictures, but old and dirty. Most Brazilians do not live in high-tech cities as the article tries to sell, but in poor and violent places.
This article is a fantasy created by these users who are trying to manipulate it. Opinoso 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All of you could look at this?
These are previous discussions. Only look... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Learn English, then you come here a talk about it.
Opinoso 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
First Proposal | Second Proposal | Third Proposal | Fourth Proposal |
---|---|---|---|
File:Brazil national soccer team.jpg |
![]() |
![]() |
|
World Famous Brazil National Football Team | Athletes, Pan-American Games RIO 07 | The Maracanã Stadium at the Brazilian Football Championship. | Maracanã Stadium at the 2007 Pan American Games. |
First Proposal
Second Proposal
Third Proposal
*
Support - It's best to show the actual sport rather than just athletes posing for picture or at a political event. This is a picture of the national football championship in the country's largest and most famous stadium. It's a no-brainer to me, but I understand others may disagree.--
Dali-Llama 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*
Support In as much as the
Azteca Stadium is shown in
Mexico, this picture is also appropriate and encyclopedic. --
the Dúnadan 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*
Support - As per
Dali-Llama and
Dúnadan.
Felipe C.S
( talk ) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fourth Proposal
Well, with all the involved parties having voted, it seems we have a tie between 2 and 4. We still have two editors (Alex & Supaman) who want the football team picture, and two editors who voted for a compromise with no. 2. On the other hand, 4 different editors (including the three most regular Brazil editors, myself included) support no.3 (the status quo), but voted for no.4. I hate to say it, but the attempt to resolve this through a vote has not resulted in any progress. If the editors who would like to move away from the status quo would still like to do so, they're welcome to suggest alternatives, but as I imagine they would not agree with changing the current image for No.4, and the editors who voted for No.4 would not accept No.1, it seems like the status quo remains until another proposal is made.-- Dali-Llama 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I know I'm not a frequent editor (in fact I've made just small changes in other articles) but this is because I'm starting to learn how to. However, I found necessary to vote on this poll in order to show my opinion that Brazilian sports cannot be represented only by footballers. The stadium pictures as well do not represent sports as a whole, especially number 4, which is a party picture. Number two, being a political event as stated by you or not, contains athletes of various categories and represents the reality of Brazilian sports much betterthan others, having nothing to do with Lula or politics. I think the poll results should be taken in consideration. Denisxavier 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, as I told you, i am learning about how to be a good wikipedia contributor. and I shall tell you, that you should assume good faith in me. I'm not here to edit, just to give my opinion. And I must tell you that I'm not a case of sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
My point with these posts was that while we may take the vote to determine whether there is or not a consensus, in this case, a 4-to-6 vote is no consensus at all. And I don't want to start considering editor qualifiers (new account, compromise vote, established page editor) to discount some votes over others, which is why I was okay with Denis' vote. But if this is the end-result of the vote (and I don't want to see anyone canvassing random editors like some people here did), then it's really up to the 4 editors who are in the minority (however small the margin is), to decide if they do not object to the change. Otherwise, the status quo remains until someone else finds a less-divisive alternative. Personally, I do oppose option 2 for the reasons I've outline before.-- Dali-Llama 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, all the participants involved have voted, and proposal number two has the most votes, thank you everyone for expressing your opinions, now we just have to include the picture, shall I add it myself, or someone else wants to do it? Supaman89 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday picture 4 was leading, today picture 2 is leading. Considering how intense the controversy has been, I believe we should wait at least a couple of weeks before we can draw any conclusions from this poll. Many other voters may still stop by and contribute with their opinion. When the discussion reaches a stage of maturity, we will be able to analyze the results. Be patient Supaman89. This is not a competition to see who "wins". It's a debate where everybody is trying to reach a consensus. If no consensus is reached, then it means the article should not be changed. Sparks1979 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to have a discussion to determine consensus but the participants in the dispute were too angry with each other to talk without attacking each other. Therefore, a vote was the only course of action that could be taken other than going to a noticeboard, which would have gotten several people blocked. The vote will work just fine; it just doesn't have any teeth if people choose to disobey it. By that I mean since it doesn't fit into policy, if someone chooses to go against the majority then this dispute will have to go further into the dispute resolution process so a real consensus can be determined, but if everyone acts with a certain level of honor, then this will bring this dispute to an end right now. A vote is not against policy; it just isn't the official way of determining a resolution. However, there hasn't been anything official about this; this is a completely informal mediation and resolution process. I don't see a problem. The Hyb rid 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
While I don't disagree completely, I'm not sure we can say there is a consensus in a score such as 9-8 or 12-10 - one or two users would be enough to create the same controversy again. I think tight scores in polls like this are dangerous and they don't really resolve the situation. A score like that only shows the uncertainties continue, and it may lead to new disputes over the same issue in the future. Also, I think this poll is far from "over". We can't act like there is some sort of emergency or something. It's not like we need a decision asap. Let's wait a couple of weeks and see if more people want to participate. That will give an eventual decision a lot more credibility. I thought the poll would generate some sort of trend, but it seems there are still two large groups supporting different things. Thus, I admit I'm still a bit unsure about what to do in this situation. I do believe in majority and I think if the majority decides something, all of us need to accept it - however, I'm not sure a very tight score will really represent the majority in a place like Wikipedia, because in one day the score could change again - a tight score means we have a very volatile situation in our hands. When I noticed picture 4, which I supported, led the score by 1 vote yesterday, I still thought "this score is not enough, we still have a problem". I think our best chance of resolving this is waiting a few weeks to see if more people participate. Sparks1979 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested this was determining a consensus; to the contrary, I agreed that it didn't. Also, I did mean to say that I agree this needs to go on for a little longer to put more space between the vote numbers; I guess that I forgot to do so in my last comment. Anyway, as far as your number of oppose vote comments go, I think that the oppose votes should be ignored entirely. In fact, I deleted them once, but Dali added them back - much to my chagrin I might add. Now, the only reason I proposed this as a solution is because, forgive me but I'm going to be honest now, a certain group was too immature to have an intelligent and productive conversation. So, there are only two solutions to this problem:
So, that's the way I see it. The people involved can either shape up and shut up, or get themselves blocked. The Hyb rid 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think the best way to resolve this will be to put both pictures in the article, expanding the sports section a little with text that was deleted already (deleted by myself, incidentally). Sparks1979 21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Got it! I was even able to get 3 pics in there. The Hyb rid 06:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright Dali, I think that I've got it. Take a look at my subpage and tell me what you think. The Hyb rid 08:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Good to see you've reached to an agreement. But I really regret voting yesterday. I put myself into the others fight without noticing and now I feel guilty for starting a debate among you guys again... Denisxavier 14:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You lost, and you can't obligate us to accept another boring picture of building in this article. Opinoso 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good now.-- Dali-Llama 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I agree with you. We are tired of Rio de Janeiro, a secondary decadent industrial center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.30.2 ( talk) 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many pictures of Rio de Janeiro. First of all, I agree that the picture of Rio de janeiro (second largest financial center of the country) is worthless. Why not use the LARGEST FINANCIAL CENTER OF THE COUNTRY instead of the SECOUND? Second, many people know that Carnaval is the BIGGEST cultural event in Brazil, consequently; I think that a picture of the Carnaval in Rio de Janeiro was well used. Third, Brazil is the Pais do Futebol (Soccer Country), so nothing better than a picture of the most famous soccer stadium "MARACANA", which is located in Rio de Janeiro. Domenicasilva 15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]; 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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
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 would like to give my opinion here because I've read some statements and I don't quite agree with things that OPINOSO has said. I have to be on Sparks side. Firstly, I am giving my opinion because I am a mixed-race Brazilian and I thought it would help people who are not Brazilians to understand what people like me who do not identify themselves as a 'pure' colour feel like. In census 2006, I answered my skin color was 'parda' (I hate this name because it sounds like 'Brazilian standard type' kind of thing. But if some people who are like me tell they feel they are white, I wouldn't blame them. That's why I came to give my opinion, as my story is a good example. Even though I don't see myself as a 'pure white', I am more of a white than of an idian, because I know my exact origins. My paternal grandfather was ITALIAN and he purely european. My paternal grandmother is daughter of a portuguese couple that came to Brazil in 1910, even though she is Brazilian she is purely white. My mother's mother, was born in Maceió and she doesn't know her origins, but I can tell you that she looks white and she has blue eyes. But my mother's father is a PURE BRAZILIAN INDIAN and he was born in a tribe in União dos Palmares, Alagoas. So if my skin looks light brown, it's because of my maternal GRANDFATHER only, or 25% of my origins. If you look at me, you can see light brown skin, and straight black hair. So, in the truth, if I wanted to say I am white, even though I don't look like one I would be nexter to a white in the 'DNA reality' Opinoso claims to be the most accurate. I think even more brazilians would be considered white than there are today. If You look at my hair and say it came from my European side of the family you are wrong. My italian gradfather had curly hair and my portuguese gradmother had also curly hair. But if you look at my mother's father, you'll see his hair is really straight. So my indian side of the family gave me straight hair, not the european side like others would think. If you look at my sister, you won't tell she is my sister as she looks really white and has blue eyes. I have brown eyes and I am darker then her but it doesn't mean my ADN origins are much different then hers. Even thought I am not a pure white, I am more a white than a Black because 75% of my gradparents are purely european white. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
References
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’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)
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:
Now, here is what I think we still need to do:
Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Sparks1979 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
+ + +
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
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)
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.
2. “History” >>> It can be summarized.
3. “Government and Politics” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
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.
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.
6. “Economy” >>> It can be summarized.
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?
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.
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”.
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)
7. “Demographics” >>> It can be summarized.
8. “Culture” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
9. “References” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
10. “See also” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 particular edit [4] by Felipe seems troubling, he is removing this image it while quoting the manual of style wich holds absolutelly no basis to it, I didn't revert the first removal because I though it had to do with some grammar mistakes in the image's caption, however I fixed those grammar issues and moved the image down so it didn't go parallel with the image on the other side, this leads me to believe that the issue here is actually the content of the image, wich is a couple of native Brazilians, now the section where its being included its demographics where the addition of the image makes sense, I would like to hear the opinion of both Felipe and other users on this matter, the main question here is: does somebody oppose the addition of an image with these native people? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, Brazilian Indians do not "generate a false and stereotypical image of Brazil for casual readers trying to learn more about the country". They are part of Brazil and its culture, they do exist and do represent Brazilian people.
Brazil is a multi-ethnic country, and its indigenous peoples do represent our racial base; more than all those blond blue-eyed supermodels that you people were trying to claim that represent Brazilians.
Of course João Felipe C.S would revert the Indigenous pic, and everybody knows the reasons. Just read the White supremacy article to understand what is going on inside the mind of this kind of "people".
I decided to remove the Indigenous pic and posted one that shows the racial diversity of Brazilian. It is colorfull, as Brazilians are. Opinoso 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3 editors from this article have just been blocked for revert warring for periods ranging from 24 to 72 hours. My 3RR blocks always escalate and I have now watchlisted this article. Please feel free to use the talk page rather then fighting over the content of this article. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Felipe C.S. is proposing to change the picture under the Science and Technology heading. Here are the choices. Feel free to vote and voice any reservations.-- Dali-Llama 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
All options are ok for me. If I really have to choose, I go for number 1 or number 4. Sparks1979 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I dislike all of them. They're just boring pictures of regular airplanes that add no interesting or useful information to the article. A.Z. 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The article need of some alterations for a possible Featured Article Nominee. These changes are mainly concentrated in the "Administrative divisions" and "Geography" sections.
In my opinion, this section is too short. Something needs to be changed.
This section can be expanded. The section could be divided in two sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". However, regions aren't administrative divisions, them are geographic divisions promoted by the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States.
The current text was written of "geographic" form and occults the history of the political division of Brazil, the territorial levels (captainships, provinces, territories, states, cities, neutral cities, districts), the annexation and loss of territorial areas. The different divisions in the Colonial, Imperial and Republican periods, need to be shown.
An introduction showing the general history of the Brazilian territorial politics, and the "Regions" and "States" sub-sections detailing its subjects, would make an excellent section.
In my opnion, this section can be expanded. The content is very reduced and the introduction is minimum, the section needs alterations urgently.
The "Climate" sub-section can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities aren't so important how much the climatic differences of Brazil. The text could give more emphasis to the diversity, like the wet climate of the Amazonian Forest, the Northeast dry climate, the cold climate of the South… Citations of the registered records temperatures already would be excellent. This would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil.
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all this is not a demographics issue, it is mainly a sports matter, as we all know Brazil is been known for having the best soccer team in world, that’s why we’ve been trying to put the picture of the Brazilian soccer team in the sports section, but some users keep erasing it for no reason besides “We don’t like it” seriously what kind of a reason is that? I’m not the only one that’s seen all the racism regarding this article, a lot of white-rich Brazilians have been trying to portrait it as a second Germany, but again this is not even a demographics thing, it is purely a sports related picture, but we all know the reason behind the removals but since they keep erasing it, I’m forced to open this discussion, I encourage everyone to participate, because otherwise, all the opinions here are going to come from Joao Felipe and other “anonymous” users. Thank you. Supaman89 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Racism... Well, look at Mexico article.
Amandajm 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Everybody, I propose replace the current image with this image. Rio hosted the best Pan American Games ever, and its represents all of sports. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the picture. Of course "some" users are against it, because most players are Blacks.
Brazilian soccer players do represent more than any other thing the Brazilian sport. The Maracanã picture is bad, it is a decadent stadium.
All the pictures of this article are pathetic, showing only pictures of unknown buildings to make Brazil look like Europe or White politicians. Why should these politicians be here? Are they more important than the others? Or are they in the article because they are Whites?
It should be included the old picture of Blond supermodels to complete the White-wash job of "some" users in this article.
It is impossible not to laugh when "some" users say to put the Vollayball picture there. Of course, vollayball is more "elitist" sport, and all the players are Whites.
It semms that members of the White Supremacist group decided to attack this article. Why don't they go to the Norway or Germany article and post their fake pictures in it?
It's a shame. Opinoso 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I still do not know what
João Felipe C.S is doing in the English Wikipedia. This user cannot even read or write in English. He probably does not even know what is written in the
Brazil or any other article of Wikipedia. He is always fighting with other users, destroying the articles with his project of White-washing Brazil (that is all he can do in this Wikipedia).
It is well-known that João Felipe C.S has some problems with the reality:
I do not know if he lives in a fantasy world or what he is trying to do here. Hollywood does not care about Brazil and does not talk about it. I wonder, the action movies that show the U.S as a violent country are trying to destroy the country's reputation? Of course not, they are just trying to make many.
João Felipe C.S is not patriot at all. The real patriot loves his country to the point of fighting against the bad things of it, showing the bad side of the country, he is not ashamed of it. This user, actually, is trying to hide what he considers to be bad about Brazil (favelas, Black people, poor cities, Tropical weather etc) and trying to sell a fake image of Brazil (rich cities, blond supermodels, cold weather, etc).
He is trying to fit Brazil into Europe. It seems a bit Nazi to me: the Aryan race was the best, they were perfect.
But, as all the bad people in the world, they have an end. I hope João Felipe C.S and all his White-supremacists followers leave Wikipedia. At least here, racist people should not have any kind of space. Opinoso 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why
João Felipe C.S is talking about the
Mexico article here, it has nothing to do with the subject. What he did was vandalism: as you are Mexican, Alex, he went to the Mexico article to post unnecessary pictures there to attack you.
I do not know why he thinks posting pictures of Amerindian people would destroy an article. Maybe he thinks posting pictures of blond supermodels in better.
By the way, the Mexico article seems much better than the Brazil. It is much more complete and has richer informations. Since "these users" started to post here and erased 70% of the article's information, it became pathetic.
An student who is doing a resource about Brazil will find nothing in this article. Who cares if the article was big? They just want to fit it into the best ones of article.
It is better to have a good article not included in the best, than have a poor article (as it is now) to include it. Opinoso 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Carlosguitar, at least if a foreigner wants to do a resource about Mexico they will find many information there; the same is not possible in the small Brazil article. Opinoso 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this debate is gone out of hand. I see people offending each other and making it personal, so there is no longer any possibility for a civil discussion. Nobody has the right to call people names just because there is a disagreement. We will have to call administrators to analyze the situation. Let's see if they can solve the problem.
You guys go ahead and do whatever you want with this or any other page. I think only administrators can handle it from now on. I will be contacting them soon, so good luck. I will go back to my projects in the subpages. Sparks1979 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of hand it to say that the Brazilian soccer team picture should be replaced with the Vollayball pic because the soccer players are Blacks and the vollayball ones are Whites. Opinoso 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, you should call an administrator to block youself. It is well-known that you have been saying racist things in
Supaman89 talk page, saying that he cannot post picture of Brazilian Indians because he would be creating a stereotypical image of Brazil. According to your words, Amerindians are bad and create a bad image of Brazil.
By the way, you have been conspiring an attack to the Mexico article, saying to post picture of Amerindians there, selling an idea that the Mexican Indians are a negative point of Mexico. [6]
Why can't the picture of the Brazilian Indians be posted and the picture of blond supermodels or, as you sayed, the picture of the White vollayball team should?
Amerindians are the native inhabitants of Brazil, million of Brazilians have Amerindian ancestry (not less than 1% as you are trying to sell)
This is an obvious manifestation of racism. You should be blocked.
You are the one who cannot discuss here. You act racist and is playing as the victim.
By the way, why do you emphasize you "European" origins in you main page? [7]
What is this obssession with Europe? Opinoso 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparks1979, the only one who is attacking people here is you, offending the Brazilian Indians saying they create a negative image of Brazil.
This is an obvious racism. You should be blocked. Opinoso 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing how this page always gravitates around someone calling someone else a racist. Work on the issues people, and stop assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith--that does not affect the discussion. I'll say again what what I've said countless time to Opinoso and others: when you attack someone else personally while trying to make your point, you end up shooting yourself in the foot because people won't listen to your arguments, even if they're valid.-- Dali-Llama 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
All that I have seen in this dispute is a group of users listing reasons that they feel an image shouldn't be in an article, citing statistics, legitimate or otherwise, and copyright concerns, once again possibly illegitimate, to back up their point of view. The users who disagree with them call them racist, and leave out important parts of the other user's statements to try and prove it. This is completely unacceptable. I wasn't even involved in this, and I'm offended by this conversation. I'm afraid that I'm going to be called a racist by this group for commenting in this conversation because I have an American flag on my page. I am disgusted. You have legitimate claims to put the image in the article. Brazil is known for its soccer team, and the copyright concerns are probably a non-issue. If you stop calling people racist, then you will win this dispute. I agree that the image should be in the article, but I am appalled by the claims of racism being thrown around. If you believe that the user is racist, then file a request for comment on his user conduct and make your case there, but for this dispute here and now stick to the facts of the article, and leave each other out of this. The Hyb rid 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Since many people don't seem to like the Maracanã picture, while many others don't like the football team picture, I'm going to make a new proposal: why don't we use a picture of the Pan American games opening ceremony, focusing on the Brazilian athletes? This would represent all sports and there would probably be athletes of many different ethnical groups and origins. This was Guilherme's idea and it might be a good way to end this big fight (sorry, but can't call it a debate). Sparks1979 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Here are some preliminary candidates of licensed pictures:
1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
I will look for more tomorrow. Sparks1979 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Le sigh. A recent comment shows that the picture of the soccer team is still preferred by your opponents. As a sort of hybrid (no pun intended) compromise, would putting both the picture of the soccer team and a picture of the athletes in general be acceptable to you? The Hyb rid —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I liked the second picture, it involves athletes from various sports, since that seem to be the problem that they were arguing, but again some people... still have a problem with showing real Brazilians.
It’s curious how they agreed to show people when the picture was about the volleyball team…, but when it was about the soccer players they rather put the stadium, and now instead of putting the athletes that want to put the building again. Supaman89 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Joao please do not try to put the adjective "racist" to me, you know what I meant, showing real, normal people, like those in the picture, and again you didn't even answer what I said, how is it that you guys said that it'd be okay to the volleyball team, but not the soccer one, and now that we've found a picture representing all the athletes, you change your position again saying that the building would "symbolize the sport", seriously I don't know why you keep trying to hard to hide “some” people, of course when they're white you put lots of pictures of them, but if they're brown then you rather put a building instead?
BTW, Dalillama, if it is okay for you to put a picture of a football match, then how is it different from showing the whole team? Supaman89 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You should assume good faith, if for no other reason than assuming bad faith hasn't been working up to this point. Just assume that Dalillama changed his mind, and isn't trying to keep certain ethnic groups out of the article, please. Now then, Dalillama, I ask you to remember that not everyone can have all of their wishes fulfilled in this dispute. There simply isn't a solution that can please everyone. So now, I ask, which compromise pleases the largest group: the picture of the athletes in general, or a picture of an actual soccer game clearly showing the players? I think that both are equally encyclopedic, so it is all up to personal preference. The Hyb rid 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a racist thing going on here, mainly by users Sparks1979 and Felipe C.S. We are not calling them racist to make a mere attack or obligate them to accept our pictures. We are saying this because it is a fact.
Some people arrived here yesterday and feel able to give their opinions about the case. Felipe C.S has been giving obvious demostrations of racism in Wikipedia for a long time. It all started when he came to Brazil article and posted pictures of blond supermodels and erased pictures of Black Brazilians. Then he erased all the pictures of Brazilian beaches (they still do not exist in this article) and posted pictures of a rare image of snow in a remote area of Southern Brazil.
He is trying to create a fake image of Brazil, trying to make the country look like Europe.
Felipe C.S frequently attacks articles about Black people and vandalize them. In September 7th he erased the numbers of Afro-Brazilian (45 million) to 6 million (??) in the article African diaspora. He was reverted by user Am86 who also sayed he a racist. [11] He is frequently vandalizing the Afro-Brazilian article.
The more recent racism cases were yesterday, when Sparks1979 sayed that the picture of the Volleyball team (mainly White) should be in the article, while the soccer team (mainly Black) shouldn't.
Another case was when the Mexican users posted, with good faith, a picture of Brazilian Indians, and Felipe C.S went to the article Mexico and posted pictures of Mexican Indians there. In his opinion, Indians sell a bad image of a country (statement agreed by Sparks1979 in the Mexican users' talk pages, saying that Amerindians create a bad image of Brazil) [12]
It is incredible how an article about Brazil does not have a picture of a beach (most Brazilians live along the coast). Brazilian beaches are well-known all around the world.
How about pictures of Black Brazilians, who represent half of the country's demographics? Where are they in this article? Why four pictures of politicians? Why all the politicians there are Whites?
Why not post pictures of normal Brazilians, ordinary people, who work all day to get a pathetic wage? Why post pictures of politicians who never work and steal money of the population, while most Brazilians are hungry?
Another question: why so many pictures of buildings? Who sees these pictures think they are in an European country article: modern buildings, serious politicians. In other words, this article makes anyone think Brazil is a First-World country.
But everybody knows most Brazilians live in poor conditions. Most buildings in Brazilian cities are not modern as in the pictures, but old and dirty. Most Brazilians do not live in high-tech cities as the article tries to sell, but in poor and violent places.
This article is a fantasy created by these users who are trying to manipulate it. Opinoso 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All of you could look at this?
These are previous discussions. Only look... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Learn English, then you come here a talk about it.
Opinoso 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
First Proposal | Second Proposal | Third Proposal | Fourth Proposal |
---|---|---|---|
File:Brazil national soccer team.jpg |
![]() |
![]() |
|
World Famous Brazil National Football Team | Athletes, Pan-American Games RIO 07 | The Maracanã Stadium at the Brazilian Football Championship. | Maracanã Stadium at the 2007 Pan American Games. |
First Proposal
Second Proposal
Third Proposal
*
Support - It's best to show the actual sport rather than just athletes posing for picture or at a political event. This is a picture of the national football championship in the country's largest and most famous stadium. It's a no-brainer to me, but I understand others may disagree.--
Dali-Llama 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*
Support In as much as the
Azteca Stadium is shown in
Mexico, this picture is also appropriate and encyclopedic. --
the Dúnadan 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*
Support - As per
Dali-Llama and
Dúnadan.
Felipe C.S
( talk ) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fourth Proposal
Well, with all the involved parties having voted, it seems we have a tie between 2 and 4. We still have two editors (Alex & Supaman) who want the football team picture, and two editors who voted for a compromise with no. 2. On the other hand, 4 different editors (including the three most regular Brazil editors, myself included) support no.3 (the status quo), but voted for no.4. I hate to say it, but the attempt to resolve this through a vote has not resulted in any progress. If the editors who would like to move away from the status quo would still like to do so, they're welcome to suggest alternatives, but as I imagine they would not agree with changing the current image for No.4, and the editors who voted for No.4 would not accept No.1, it seems like the status quo remains until another proposal is made.-- Dali-Llama 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I know I'm not a frequent editor (in fact I've made just small changes in other articles) but this is because I'm starting to learn how to. However, I found necessary to vote on this poll in order to show my opinion that Brazilian sports cannot be represented only by footballers. The stadium pictures as well do not represent sports as a whole, especially number 4, which is a party picture. Number two, being a political event as stated by you or not, contains athletes of various categories and represents the reality of Brazilian sports much betterthan others, having nothing to do with Lula or politics. I think the poll results should be taken in consideration. Denisxavier 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, as I told you, i am learning about how to be a good wikipedia contributor. and I shall tell you, that you should assume good faith in me. I'm not here to edit, just to give my opinion. And I must tell you that I'm not a case of sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
My point with these posts was that while we may take the vote to determine whether there is or not a consensus, in this case, a 4-to-6 vote is no consensus at all. And I don't want to start considering editor qualifiers (new account, compromise vote, established page editor) to discount some votes over others, which is why I was okay with Denis' vote. But if this is the end-result of the vote (and I don't want to see anyone canvassing random editors like some people here did), then it's really up to the 4 editors who are in the minority (however small the margin is), to decide if they do not object to the change. Otherwise, the status quo remains until someone else finds a less-divisive alternative. Personally, I do oppose option 2 for the reasons I've outline before.-- Dali-Llama 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, all the participants involved have voted, and proposal number two has the most votes, thank you everyone for expressing your opinions, now we just have to include the picture, shall I add it myself, or someone else wants to do it? Supaman89 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday picture 4 was leading, today picture 2 is leading. Considering how intense the controversy has been, I believe we should wait at least a couple of weeks before we can draw any conclusions from this poll. Many other voters may still stop by and contribute with their opinion. When the discussion reaches a stage of maturity, we will be able to analyze the results. Be patient Supaman89. This is not a competition to see who "wins". It's a debate where everybody is trying to reach a consensus. If no consensus is reached, then it means the article should not be changed. Sparks1979 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to have a discussion to determine consensus but the participants in the dispute were too angry with each other to talk without attacking each other. Therefore, a vote was the only course of action that could be taken other than going to a noticeboard, which would have gotten several people blocked. The vote will work just fine; it just doesn't have any teeth if people choose to disobey it. By that I mean since it doesn't fit into policy, if someone chooses to go against the majority then this dispute will have to go further into the dispute resolution process so a real consensus can be determined, but if everyone acts with a certain level of honor, then this will bring this dispute to an end right now. A vote is not against policy; it just isn't the official way of determining a resolution. However, there hasn't been anything official about this; this is a completely informal mediation and resolution process. I don't see a problem. The Hyb rid 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
While I don't disagree completely, I'm not sure we can say there is a consensus in a score such as 9-8 or 12-10 - one or two users would be enough to create the same controversy again. I think tight scores in polls like this are dangerous and they don't really resolve the situation. A score like that only shows the uncertainties continue, and it may lead to new disputes over the same issue in the future. Also, I think this poll is far from "over". We can't act like there is some sort of emergency or something. It's not like we need a decision asap. Let's wait a couple of weeks and see if more people want to participate. That will give an eventual decision a lot more credibility. I thought the poll would generate some sort of trend, but it seems there are still two large groups supporting different things. Thus, I admit I'm still a bit unsure about what to do in this situation. I do believe in majority and I think if the majority decides something, all of us need to accept it - however, I'm not sure a very tight score will really represent the majority in a place like Wikipedia, because in one day the score could change again - a tight score means we have a very volatile situation in our hands. When I noticed picture 4, which I supported, led the score by 1 vote yesterday, I still thought "this score is not enough, we still have a problem". I think our best chance of resolving this is waiting a few weeks to see if more people participate. Sparks1979 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested this was determining a consensus; to the contrary, I agreed that it didn't. Also, I did mean to say that I agree this needs to go on for a little longer to put more space between the vote numbers; I guess that I forgot to do so in my last comment. Anyway, as far as your number of oppose vote comments go, I think that the oppose votes should be ignored entirely. In fact, I deleted them once, but Dali added them back - much to my chagrin I might add. Now, the only reason I proposed this as a solution is because, forgive me but I'm going to be honest now, a certain group was too immature to have an intelligent and productive conversation. So, there are only two solutions to this problem:
So, that's the way I see it. The people involved can either shape up and shut up, or get themselves blocked. The Hyb rid 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think the best way to resolve this will be to put both pictures in the article, expanding the sports section a little with text that was deleted already (deleted by myself, incidentally). Sparks1979 21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Got it! I was even able to get 3 pics in there. The Hyb rid 06:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright Dali, I think that I've got it. Take a look at my subpage and tell me what you think. The Hyb rid 08:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Good to see you've reached to an agreement. But I really regret voting yesterday. I put myself into the others fight without noticing and now I feel guilty for starting a debate among you guys again... Denisxavier 14:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You lost, and you can't obligate us to accept another boring picture of building in this article. Opinoso 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good now.-- Dali-Llama 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)