(Hipocricy removed)
Hi. I see you are replacing your old name with your new name in your comments on various talk pages. I don't see the purpose for this, but I guess it isn't too disruptive. You shouldn't be changing the dates, though, because that makes it difficult to understand the flow of the conversation. Could you please stop changing the dates? Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess you've been replacing the old sigs with ~~~~. Please don't do that, since although it's easier, it does change the date. Instead, copy-paste only the username into the old sig, leaving the old dates as they are, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, it highlights the changes you've made, which I don't think you want to happen: I see you haven't done too many of these yet, so you might want to go back and redo them all as your time allows, so the old dates are shown again. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unhappily, I have done practically all of them, which took a lot of work. I will change the few remaining ones in the way you suggest, but I don't think I will have the patience to redo all the others any time soon. Sorry for the trouble, but I didn't actually realise there was a problem there. Ninguém ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The user Opinoso is a very complicated person to deal with. He can do whatever he wants in the articles he "owns" while no one else may touch any of them. And he is always acting like he was the victim of attacks that never happened and at the same time keeps threatening me. - -- Lecen ( talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ninguem- keep up your fight against Opinoso, he's a real low life. People like this guy ruin Wikipedia. We have to find some way to stop him from changing every article on Brazil. Adios. -Vivalatinamerica —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.2.200.215 (
talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right- I got way too carried away trying to stop Opinoso. Well, that's an understatement, lol- I got far too caught up in arguing with the wacko. It just really annoys me how insanely biased he is in changing so much of wikipedia. I'll stop, and I just hope you have better luck stopping assholes like him. Good luck. - Vivalatinamerica.
You should know by now that edit warring isn't allowed on en.Wikipedia because it never helps. You've fallen back into the harmful back and forth of edit warring, moreover with the same editor, so I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)The edit wars consist in the following:
In White Brazilians:
[1] (contrary to source)
[2] (per source)
[3] (refers to Darcy Ribeiro, Varguista anthropologist, but does not even refers to a source)
[4] (per source)
[5] (now gives Ribeiro as a source, but says the information is in volume 7 of O Povo Brasileiro - a book that has only one volume).
In São Paulo:
[6] (undoes varies changes in a same edit, including restoring references whose titles don't match the sources' names)
[7] (undoes blind reversal, in order to restore proper name of references)
[8] (reintroduces references that were replaced back in December 2008, replacement that has not been objected by anyone during seven months. Summary edit talks about "unexplained changes" - the change was in December 7th, 2008, and was explained as "removing broken links".)
[9] (reverts to newer sources with corrected names)
[10] (reverts, calling reverted edit "vandalism").
With the edit war about sources, as the reverals are blind, comes the reinstatement of the "information" that there are 6 million Italians (not Italian Brazilians, but Italians period) in São Paulo...
That's the story - or those are the stories. Ninguém ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}}
So, if I make an edit, and another editor reverts it in direct contradiction to the cited sources, I should not reverse? What should I do? Ninguém ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So that someone who neither cares nor knows anything on the subject can tell me that I should "kiss and make up" ( [11])? Ninguém ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Every time I have filed a report, I have been told it's a content issue. The only times I could get someone to actually look at the dispute were when you noticed that good faith edits were being called "vandalism", and when Hoary looked at a reversal that was totally contrary to the source. But then I got enslaved to German Brazilian, while the other poster, refusing to cooperate with Hoary, was free to make whatever edit he found interesting.
If I must promise that I won't edit war, I need to be reassured that the complaints I eventually make will be taken in serious. Ninguém ( talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I know it is an English language idiom. It means that I should drop the issue and get along as if nothing had happened. Which, evidently, isn't as ridiculous as suggesting an actual kiss, but comes close. Ninguém ( talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I won't. Instead, I'm going to file a complaint against this guy. Am I going to be told to kiss and make up? Or that it is a content issue, and that no one can do anything, because no one understand the content? Or that it "takes two to tango"? Or that there are "personal attacks on both sides"? Or am I going to have to limit myself to edit one article (and then be treated as a second rate employee if I mismanage a reference) while this guy does what he wants everywhere, in spite of being told to edit his sandbox? Ninguém ( talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's easy to see: He reversed my edits, I reversed his. He reversed me back again, I reversed him a second time. He reversed a third time. Instead of doing the same, I complained to you in your talk page. What does that say about the edit war continuing or stopping? Ninguém ( talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. This means the first absurd this guy does, such as placing text in direct contradiction to the given source, I am reporting him. I hope I don't get stupid "kiss and make up" responses again, as I hope I don't get idiotly blocked by someone who can't read. Let's see. Ninguém ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, no. I am going to report his attempts to keep misinformation in White Brazilian with the "less than 700,000" thing. Ninguém ( talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, as of now I am banning you from posting about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. If you breach this ban, I'll block you for two weeks. Either stay away from Opinoso, or blend your PoV with his, or file an RfC or RfAR. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. So let's talk about content. In White Brazilian, this edit [12] introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:
"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil <ref>Darcy Ribeiro. O Povo Brasileiro, Vol. 07, 1997 (1997).</ref>."
Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:
I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém ( talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done: [14] Ninguém ( talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And more here: [15].
Is there a deadline for this discussion to happen? Ninguém ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a joke, Gwen. How am I going to "blend" my sources with his, when I can't discuss them? And why am I the only one that cannot make original research, while others can not only do original research (for instance, the article on White Brazilians if full of original research, including a whole section about "colonial Whites", a concept that cannot be found anywhere in the litterature), but quote sources as saying something that they do not actually say?
This is not an "encyclopaedia", this is a farce. Ninguém ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is one of the most difficult topics. My edits, which I try to make as earnest and sound as possible, never stand. The other editor's edits, which constantly misinterpret the sources, always stand. Perhaps the toppic is only difficult for me, but easy for him?
No, English is not my first language, albeit a have a passable command of it. The problem is not my English, or Opinoso's. The problem is your Portuguese.
There are no other imputs from other editors, nor are they going to be. I have explained this at lenght, and won't explain again. I am merely going to point to the most recent example of why nobody wants to edit those owned articles: the very effective exlusion of User:Lecen from editing them.
You have seen what happened with White Brazilian: three weeks of protection, so that there could be discussion. Where was the discussion? I pointed a series of changes that would be necessary; those were not contested by anyone. When the article was unprotected, I tried to make some of them; some of them were immediately reversed.
What I am asking is pretty reasonable. A huge 500 page book is given as a source for some information. Not even an online version, but a paper version. I am asking for a page or a chapter, so that people can more easily see this information in the source. I am being evidently stonewalled. I am asking you, who are an admin here, to put some pressure so that this source becomes a little bit more precise.
As of now, I have researched the online versions of the book that I could find for that information, and I have not found it there. What should I do? Can I remove the information? Can I replace the offline source with an online one? What else?
I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. This would be a loss for Wikipedia, not for me. If I quit, you will have to deal with the fact that the only person editing those articles will be Opinoso. The quality of those articles, in this case, will be the quality of Opinoso's contributions. Are you earnestly comfortable with that? If you are, I am going to quit. If you aren't, either give me some reason to continue, or find other editors that can contribute there. Preferably editors that know something about Brazil and about demography. Ninguém ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I know one. But you have asked me to not comment on him.
In any case, good bye. I won't waste my time any more. You can keep your "encyclopaedia" with all its factual errors and abusive editors. Bom proveito! Ninguém ( talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, you have to chose between my version or Opinoso's version of the history section in the article Brazil. Until the other editors (beyond me and him) pick a side, that guy will keep causing disruption on Wikipedia. - -- Lecen ( talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, I am having trouble with Opinoso again. He has baseless reverted sourced information at the sime time he called it "personal theories". See here. He also said that the renowned [ Barsa] is not a reliable source. See here. he also again attacked me about the history section while it was discussed and settled by other editors. See here.
He simply reverts anything without even bothering to open a discussion thread or to wait other Editors opinions about it. I can not revert it back because it will become a revert war. How can I handle someone who has no respect for rules? - -- Lecen ( talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Please join the report here if you believe you have more evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Opinoso_reported_by_User:Likeminas_.28Result:_.29
Likeminas ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I do know that Getúlio Vargas created several Concentration Camps in Brazil to keep German, Italian and Japanese immigrants. And I also know that he tried to prevent German descendants of speaking German and keeping their culture. How that was done, I confess that I don't know. Let me search about it in my books and I'll tell you. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Check it out: [16] [17] [18] -- Lecen ( talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, as I am totally ignorant of Portuguese I am not able to comment knowledgably on this recent set of edits by you, but the signs I see are very good indeed. Please keep up the good work. However, if you can please format external links like this "[http://www.blahblahblah.br/etc/etc/blahblah.html title of page]", it would be welcome; the reader will see not "http://www.blahblahblah.br/etc/etc/blahblah.html" but instead the more palatable "title of page". Of course you can vary this where common sense dictates.
(Every week, I feel depressed anew by the width and depth of my ignorance of languages. Most recently, Talk:Nikos Economopoulos.) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be mass editing the article, has there been any discussion about this? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"I am tempted": I guess that he succumbed to the temptation.
Stay cool, even though this request is hardly justifiable in the circumstances. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've brought up the matter here at "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary ( talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ninguém,
As a very Brazilian person, I have taken a look at the "ethnic" sections related to Brazil, and they are generally very wrong. They project a racialism that does not exist in Brazil (a foreign and biased racialism). Not that there is no racism in Brazil. The presentation of both the "white" and the "black" sections is totally unfair. The "white" section concentrates on proving how "non white" "white" Brazilians are (from the point of view of "real whiteness"; lol totally absurd!), and the "black" section on how "black" the Brazilians are. In the "white" section a 5% non Euro ancestry Brazilian person is labelled as "non white", whereas in the "black" section anyone with a greater than say 5% 10% African ancestry is "black". There is an aggressive mood also, making it look like as if the relative notions of "race" would be "very wrong" in Brazil, when that's very far from the truth: race is relative, it is a social construct, and this is what leading experts on the field say, not me. The "white section" could include photos of "white Brazilians" too, with their DNA tests, just like the "black section": Tiazinha, the "brown" singer from the interior of Paraíba (99,9% European, who does not know any of her European ancestors, by the way; all of them "colonial white"), José Sarney, from the interior of Maranhão (99,9% European; all of them "colonial white") and Ivete Sangalo, Brazilian singer from the interior of Bahia who is 99,2% European and only 0,4% SSA and only 0,4% Native American, along with Zeca Camargo, another "brown" Brazilian, who is about 96% European (colonial times ancestry here as well), among many others like them, Paulo Coelho, for example, totally European, colonial ancestry from Ceará and Pará. They did not know of their ancestry and they do not care about it either, Paulo Coelho said: "how boring to be totally European! I wanted to be Moorish, Jewish, "black" and native American!" :) Ivete Sangalo complained that she did not have as much African as she wished she had, and Zeca Camargo celebrated his 2% Native American heritage!!
Cheers Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk)
Ninguém,
You have must seen it. There is control, some people out there control Brazilian topics. Brazilians are not allowed to express themselves at English wikipedia. All of what has happened so far to Brazilians here at English wikipedia is only but a tiny example of how we are presented abroad, in many other circles, not only wikipedia. There are many prejudices out there against the Brazilians, and some people think they are entitled to tell us (and to tell also to the rest of the world) who we are and what is our past. Unfortunately as a whole Latin America is too weak to defend herself, we are the target of all sorts of prejudiced people from elsewhere. The "white Brazilian" topic in particular is full of mistakes, some clearly intentionally done. Just to let you know that you and Lecen are not alone out there. There are other Brazilians who have also felt the disrespect and bias that has been shown against us several times throughout several Brazilian topics at the English wikipedia.
saudações
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Okay, I will moderate myself. But still I find it difficult to accept that Opinoso is an ethnic Brazilian, that his ancestors have lived here. He may have been born at Brazil, but he probably identifies with something else. That's my impression, definitely. Besides it is not only about him. But I will restrain myself, for sure.
Cheers
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Am I the only one who still has no clue of what the hell is the problem in the White Brazilian article? I don't even know why we are arguing there! It's always the same Opinoso's tactic: keep the discussion going and going until it becomes impossible to be followed by anyone else and insinuate bad faith from other editors. Before at least he tried to bring (fake) sources, but this time, not even that. He just doesn't like anyone touching his article. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for gatecrashing, but Off2riorob has asked on my page too that if people discuss his edits they should do so in English. I think he has a point.
May I add that I'm starting to enjoy "reading" in Portuguese, especially when it appears to be about me. You're welcome to say just about anything you wish in Portuguese about my edits; and, time and energy permitting, I'll have fun attempting to guess what it means. (Above, is Rob intimidating me? Am I intimidating him? Is he intimate with me? Etc.) Please don't spoil the fun by explaining.
Amazing discovery of the day: pt:Brasileiros brancos (mostly by this fellow) has no discussion. Nothing at all. Redlinked. How was that possible? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Ninguém. I have no idea what frustrations you are going through, but my advice is to just look at this as a hobby, keep yourself cool... and avoid "tough cops" if you can :) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I need your help on article Brazil. There is an editor who is clearly behaving as he owns the article. I tried to make several changes into the article to keep it smaller and in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries rules and I also took as model other featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru. I even warned everyone of what I was going to do 24h before and when I began editing I kept reporting everything I did on the talk page. However, editor Rahlgd simply reverted everything. If yout ake a look at the history log of the article only he can make edits. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! If you want to help me keep the editions of sub-section "Culture" in the article Brazil (as they were like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=324617070), I thank you. Auréola ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't amazing? As soon as the article was unprotected Off2riorob complained of edits in it and so it became protected again. Now he simply vanished and the discussion went dead once again. And so the article stays forever unchanged. Will it take much longer to an administrator notice that this guy is only messing around? -- Lecen ( talk) 10:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are crazy or stupid?! ... added at 18:24, 28 January 2010 by Hentzer
I never realized that I could read Spanish. But I do like to think that I also never acquired an "ability" to read Spanish in perversely inverted form. Ugh! -- Hoary ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Opinoso has once again started deleting messages posted by others (me in this case), without justification. I posted genetic studies different from the ones he posted, along other with other information, all of them correct. He has opened a thread against me now. Grenzer22 ( talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Silvatici4 ( talk) 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Ninguem, I see you have changed the Political Position of the English Democratic Party to 'Far-Right' and have cited this source: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:C0khcR_wjBYJ:scholar.google.com/+%22english+democrats%22+%22right+wing%22&hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=2000
The source it too long to discuss in detail but this is the definition of 'Far Right' in the citation:
'Our model posits that extreme right ideology relies on twofundamental dimensions – a negative conception of identity, which may express itself culturally(xenophobia) or civically (populism), and authoritarianism, which may be conceived socially(reactionary), or politically (repressive). These two dimensions create four possible quadrants ofextreme right ideology: xenophobic-reactionary, xenophobic-repressive, populist-reactionary, andpopulist-repressive.'
The definition of 'Far Right' used by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison on the thesis does not agree with the Wikipedia definition of 'Far Right':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right
I am curious as to how the EDP can be described as 'Far Right' when they are part of the 'Alliance for Democracy'. May I suggest you take a look at which other parties who are in this alliance?
Do you think the citation is a good source?
To be a good source don't you think that you should use a source which is judging the EDP with the most recent manifesto?
Kind Regards
Silvatici4
-- Silvatici4 ( talk) 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Dear Ninguem,
Good idea to have a few people express their opinions about this. I look forward to the outcome.
BTW, I am rather inexperienced at how to communicate correctly on Wikipedia so I hope I am doing the correct thing by adding to this note in this way. Please correct me if I am doing this wrong.
Kind Regards
Silvatici4
I believe that you are doing a great job by editing the articles that Opinoso messed up. Everything has dubious sources and a certain ‘agenda’. Wikipedia has to be based on facts and be neutral. It is very hard to find one Brazilian editor that agrees with his writing, on the opposite side, I can name over a dozen that dislike his style. If you need any help cleaning this mess let me know. I showed a great concern regarding his sources in the past; as a result I was blocked by one of his protectors, normally clueless people. I almost lost any hope in this encyclopedia at the time, but we should not let this individual spread misinformation. If you need any help with your work, please let me know. Best regards, Paulista01 ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, European immigration to Brazil. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Immigration to Brazil. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Immigration to Brazil - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the
article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated European immigration to Brazil, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European immigration to Brazil. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
STOP removing sourced informations, as you have been doing in several articles. And STOP duplicating articles too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.172 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do me and all the other editors reviewing your work a favour and try to spend a couple minutes per page to do multiple edits at a time; it's very tedious to read through your work on so many different revisions. Thank you for your hard work. thoriyan 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this book ( [19] ). It might help you. See first page 65 and then 81. They are the most important chapters in it. I finally understood why there are several authors who came from the Southeast who treat "pardo" as the same as "mulatto" and reveal Brazil as a country divided between Whites and Afro-descendants. The Caboclos, who are the majority in the North and Northeast are simply ignored. This book will explain it. Regards! -- Lecen ( talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking and reconsidering some things. I could consider myself superior to others, but what would be the use of being superior or thinking myself superior? Thus the interest of "truth" in wikipedia seems more and more uninteresting to me - but it is very interesting to see and engage in the process, even knowing it to be finally useless. It is pleasant while it is done, and after it is done it is useless. :D Much love from the Jah Nation, heheh -- Kiyarrlls- talk 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I won't. You spend nearly 24 hours a day in Wikipedia, you have enough time to look it by youself. Thank you. Opinoso ( talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ninguém, os cara tão meio lelé aqui, querem fazer guerra pra falar que no Brasil tem 12 milhões de falantes de língua espanhola [20] -- Luizdl ( talk) 03:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that Opinion is unfamous for doing that: citing sources that do not back his claims. Wikipedia's administrators are always eager to punish editors for the smallest infractions but one has to wonder why Opiniso is still around. -- Lecen ( talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ninguém!
Please don't leave! You have done a great job. Some articles were really in a deplorable state before you started giving your contributions. Cheers! Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
Nelson is a Portuguese name, since it is included in the list of the names allowed to be used in Portugal. (Portugal does not allow people to use foreign names)
It has an English origin, but it does mean it is not Portuguese. The most common name in Portuguese is Maria, which has a Jewish origin, it comes from Hebrew Miriam. All names in Portuguese will have a non-Portuguese origin, since Portuguese itself has origins in another foreign language, which was Latin, but it also has many words from other languages, such as Hebrew, Greek, Arab, Tupi.
Portuguese last names are often of Latin origin as well. But having a Portuguese surname does not mean you have Portuguese ancestry. So Phone Books do not tell the ancestry of a population, like you tried to claim before. It that why you claim to be of Portuguese descent? You have a Portuguese last name, like Silva or Pereira and you imagined it brings an actual Portuguese ancestry? You need to study more, Ninguém! Gaúchos are a mixed population, very similar to the Amazonian population. If you want to know your real ancestry, look to an Indian tribe, not to Portuguese folk dancers. Be proud of it. Opinoso ( talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"Names coming from Latin aren't borrowings into Portuguese, Opinoso. English names are."
Who said that? You? Opinoso ( talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam, regarding your query, "Is this a joke? If they [the Jews] were expelled from Portugal by the Inquisition (in 1496), how would they come from... Portugal... to Brazil... after 1500?", I would like to respond by pointing out a few facts. First, the "expulsion" of the Jews from Portugal in 1496-97 was not as complete as one might be led to believe. To the contrary, many remained in the country, often staying as ostensible converts or New Christians. Some even continued to practice their religion as crypto-Jews. However, since the Inquisition, which lasted until 1821 in Portugal, continued its persecutory activities, significant numbers of individuals of Jewish background emigrated to other parts of the Portuguese Empire, including Brazil, long after the date you referred to. Second, as a result of the Dutch conquest of parts of northeastern Brazil (1630-1654), there was also an influx of Sephardi Jews to "New Holland", especially in and around Recife. -- Dpecego ( talk) 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, I appreciate your input. In fact, I have already made a minor change to the text that took into consideration your comments above. Specifically, the sentence regarding Sephardi Jews now reads, "Some were New Christians or crypto-Jews that had fled from Portugal in order to escape the Inquisition."
Now then, in response to your most recent query, it is rather obvious that we have different interpretations of "Portuguese Brazilian". Your own vision of the term would be perfectly valid if the article were written in Portuguese, in which case it would refer more narrowly to 1st or (perhaps) 2nd generation Brazilians with Portuguese roots post-1822. Nevertheless, the article is in English, and as a Canadian I assure you that its meaning is much broader, i.e. any person of Portuguese ancestry who settled in Brazil, including during the colonial era. When I pointed out the text on English American, by the way, my intention was not to imply it was an impeccable work of scholarship, but rather to simply call your attention to the Anglophone connotation of expressions such as English American or French Canadian, which invariably take into consideration early settlement/colonization.
To conclude, then, I humbly suggest that you direct your genuine interest in the subject matter by helping improve the article. Of course, criticism is always welcome and, indeed, can be intellectually stimulating. That being said, deletion of entire sections that reflect the collaborative work of other contributors is something that ought to be avoided, in my opinion. Personally, for better or for worse, with the limited time I have at my disposal, I prefer to attempt fixing what I consider flawed as opposed to throwing out the baby with the bath water. -- Dpecego ( talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, if I am suggesting anything it is that articles written in English reflect their general meaning in English, merely that. Let me make an analogy. As someone brought up in Anglo-America, I could compose a text called Blacks or Black People in Brazil without raising any eyebrows here, whereas if I wrote a Portuguese-language text on the same topic using the word "preto" that would have other implications. However, does the fact that lusophones take offense to such terms mean that I, an Anglophone writing for an English-speaking audience (presumably), need to change my word choice? Must I take into consideration how Portuguese-speaking Afro-Brazilians could react to my article in English? I think not.
In so far as deleting work that "should not be there" or "doesn't reflect reality" is concerned, I totally agree with you. Yet I feel that this is not applicable to the section of the article in question. Yes, it needs to be improved/expanded/sourced, yet it ought to exist....as other similar articles do (e.g. English American, French Canadian, etc.)
Regarding what you found on google for "Portuguese Brazilian", it is similar to what one finds on the same search engine when one enters the key words "Spanish Colombian", for instance. Notwithstanding that, are we to automatically conclude, just because google does not instantly produce sites on Colombians of Spanish background, that those two words---when combined---do not mean precisely that? --
Dpecego (
talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, if I understand you correctly, you are affirming that any article written in language "A" about a topic concerning country "B" (which speaks language "B") must reflect the linguistic nuances or cultural sensitivities of country "B". Based on that logic, then, if a Portuguese-language article called "Negros Canadenses" existed, then I---as an Anglophone Canadian---would be obliged to take offense to that and, consequently, either demand that it be rewritten in Portuguese as "Pretos Canadenses" (=
Black Canadians) or delete it. Likewise, because "people of colonial descent in Spanish America call(ed) themselves 'criollos'", when writing in English I therefore would not be permitted to use words such as
Spanish Argentine or
Spanish Peruvian. Frankly, that does not seem very cogent to me. As I've already stated, I argue that articles in language "A" should reflect their general meaning in language "A", even if they deal with subject matter concerning another country/language.
Getting back to the adjective + noun combination "Portuguese Brazilian", the reality is that in English that simply means a Brazilian of Portuguese descent, just as "French Canadian" in English means a Canadian of French descent, Spanish Colombian means a Colombian of Spanish descent, and so forth. -- Dpecego ( talk) 12:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think my analogies were more applicable, as the countries I've called attention to are all New World nations. Europe is a whole other can of worms, as you pointed out. Concepts concerning nationality or "ethnicity" are far more convoluted. Ireland and Switzerland are certainly good examples of that. Spain, with its Basques, Galicians and Catalans, would be another case in point. Thus, an expression such as "Catalan Spaniard" is virtually a contradiction in terms, whereas "French Canadian" or "Portuguese Brazilian" are not. -- 189.111.253.213 ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, first of all, thank you for calling my attention to the opening sentence of English Canadian, which supposedly is used interchangeably with "Anglophone" or "English-speaking". Now that, in my view, really is absurd! I will most definitely rectify the problem.
Now, to be honest with you, I believe we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The truth is that in English, at least within the context of the New World, adjective-noun combinations such as English Canadian, French Canadian, English American, Spanish Argentine, etc. all refer to citizens of nations in the Americas of "X" descent, i.e. English, French, and so forth. Even the lamentable English Canadian article you cited mentions that ("...or who is of English ancestry").
Regardless, I have a proposal to make. Why not change the main article title to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent", as Hoary suggested, then redirect the polemic "Portuguese Brazilian" keywords to that? What do you think? Thus, anyone from an English-speaking nation who typed "Portuguese Brazilian" (as I did) would be instantly directed to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent". -- Dpecego ( talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, naturally, I would be glad to do that. Where would you like me to post my comments, on your talk page or in the discussion section of the main article? In passing, I have substituted the Post painting of Dutch Recife with one by Leandro Joaquim (c. 1790) showing the splendid Carioca Aqueduct. As regards the inaccurate description of the Victor Meireles painting, I have provided a slightly less inaccurate description, I hope. -- Dpecego ( talk) 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I think the whole paragraph should be removed - and, so, I won't "improve" it, because it would only add credibility to something I believe is fundamentally flawed. As long as it isn't removed, it should be sourced. Where are the sources? Ninguém (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)"
Dear Ninguém, I have to say that removal is not the solution. Improvement is, and that is what I've attempted to do with the paragraph concerning degredados. Check out the following source, please.. It sheds new light on the issue. For instance, I learned that there were approximately 90 different crimes for which individuals could be condemned to exile, mainly to Brazil. These included crimes against the king (e.g. "...falsificar ou mandar falsificar o sinal de algum desembargador, ouvidor, corregedor ou qualquer outro julgador, ou algum selo autêntico que faça fé, com propósito e intenção de causar dano ou de colher proveito..."), crimes against morality (e.g. rape, adultery, sodomy ["...teoricamente, a pena para a sodomia era muito severa, mas, na prática penal, constatamos que os sodomitas eram quase todos condenados ao degredo...Poucos dentre eles foram condenados à fogueira."]), and crimes against 'the person' (e.g. perjury, attempted murder).
Thus, the revised information is now correct and duly sourced. So, what else needs fixing? My hope is that, if we keep this healthy dialectic between us going on, the final article will end up being, if not respectable, at least acceptable. -- Dpecego (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecego ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I see you tagged Brazilian people with a contradiction flag (along with a lot of inline flags). Could you please put a note on the talk page regarding what the contradiction is? Or perhaps use the "about=" part of the template, as it's unclear where the contradiction lies. Unfortunately, the way it's been put in with all the other tags looks a little WP:Pointy -- WORM MЯOW 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Erasing a note is considered an acknowledgment (per WP:OWNTALK). If you wish to revive recently archived discussions, remove them from the archive and restore them to the discussion page, preferably with an explanation for the renewal. Novangelis ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We were talking and trying to reach a consensus in the Brazil talk page. You just stopped talking, did not respond anymore. Why? - Eduardo Sellan III ( talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I was about to revert this edit, but I looked in the cited source and was pretty sure that it had been mis-cited before the edit. (Actually I'm not sure what it does say -- of course I can read the numbers, but I'm not certain what it is that's being counted.)
I am of course as suspicious as anyone of a brand new username who's intent on making unexplained edits that greatly boost the number of people of Arab origin, but something here is odd. Could you take a look? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ninguém, are you still editing on Wikipedia? It has been quite awhile since we've talked for the last time. I sent you an email but I got no response. Felipe Menegaz and I are trying to revive Wikiproject Brazil. We want to unite all editors interested in Brazilian history (regardles if they are Brazilians or not) and give them a place where they can feel safe and know that will have aid whatever they need. For the moment we are gathering everyone who is interested here. If you're interested, sign your name and add the pafe to your watch list! -- Lecen ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ninguém, I am delighted to reencounter you, but feel dread at the prospect of reencountering issues (or non-issues) of Brazilian ethnicity.
Suggestions:
Well, a mere glance at the article, on a subject about which I am of course totally ignorant, suggests again that part of the problem is conflation of (or confusion between) (A) actual and (B) perceived Portuguese origin. But are you also saying that the "subject" is a non-subject? I'm willing to believe that it is, but any attempt to have the article deleted is sure to end in failure. So instead silly bits should be (genially) removed from it, so that what remains doesn't mislead (even if it doesn't much enlighten).
Of course, telling other editors that they have added to the absurdity of the content is very likely to alienate them and make them harden their positions, perhaps intensifying the absurdity. If you're in a conflict, think like a judo player rather than a trench-warfare general. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(Hipocricy removed)
Hi. I see you are replacing your old name with your new name in your comments on various talk pages. I don't see the purpose for this, but I guess it isn't too disruptive. You shouldn't be changing the dates, though, because that makes it difficult to understand the flow of the conversation. Could you please stop changing the dates? Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess you've been replacing the old sigs with ~~~~. Please don't do that, since although it's easier, it does change the date. Instead, copy-paste only the username into the old sig, leaving the old dates as they are, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, it highlights the changes you've made, which I don't think you want to happen: I see you haven't done too many of these yet, so you might want to go back and redo them all as your time allows, so the old dates are shown again. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unhappily, I have done practically all of them, which took a lot of work. I will change the few remaining ones in the way you suggest, but I don't think I will have the patience to redo all the others any time soon. Sorry for the trouble, but I didn't actually realise there was a problem there. Ninguém ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The user Opinoso is a very complicated person to deal with. He can do whatever he wants in the articles he "owns" while no one else may touch any of them. And he is always acting like he was the victim of attacks that never happened and at the same time keeps threatening me. - -- Lecen ( talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ninguem- keep up your fight against Opinoso, he's a real low life. People like this guy ruin Wikipedia. We have to find some way to stop him from changing every article on Brazil. Adios. -Vivalatinamerica —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.2.200.215 (
talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right- I got way too carried away trying to stop Opinoso. Well, that's an understatement, lol- I got far too caught up in arguing with the wacko. It just really annoys me how insanely biased he is in changing so much of wikipedia. I'll stop, and I just hope you have better luck stopping assholes like him. Good luck. - Vivalatinamerica.
You should know by now that edit warring isn't allowed on en.Wikipedia because it never helps. You've fallen back into the harmful back and forth of edit warring, moreover with the same editor, so I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)The edit wars consist in the following:
In White Brazilians:
[1] (contrary to source)
[2] (per source)
[3] (refers to Darcy Ribeiro, Varguista anthropologist, but does not even refers to a source)
[4] (per source)
[5] (now gives Ribeiro as a source, but says the information is in volume 7 of O Povo Brasileiro - a book that has only one volume).
In São Paulo:
[6] (undoes varies changes in a same edit, including restoring references whose titles don't match the sources' names)
[7] (undoes blind reversal, in order to restore proper name of references)
[8] (reintroduces references that were replaced back in December 2008, replacement that has not been objected by anyone during seven months. Summary edit talks about "unexplained changes" - the change was in December 7th, 2008, and was explained as "removing broken links".)
[9] (reverts to newer sources with corrected names)
[10] (reverts, calling reverted edit "vandalism").
With the edit war about sources, as the reverals are blind, comes the reinstatement of the "information" that there are 6 million Italians (not Italian Brazilians, but Italians period) in São Paulo...
That's the story - or those are the stories. Ninguém ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}}
So, if I make an edit, and another editor reverts it in direct contradiction to the cited sources, I should not reverse? What should I do? Ninguém ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So that someone who neither cares nor knows anything on the subject can tell me that I should "kiss and make up" ( [11])? Ninguém ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Every time I have filed a report, I have been told it's a content issue. The only times I could get someone to actually look at the dispute were when you noticed that good faith edits were being called "vandalism", and when Hoary looked at a reversal that was totally contrary to the source. But then I got enslaved to German Brazilian, while the other poster, refusing to cooperate with Hoary, was free to make whatever edit he found interesting.
If I must promise that I won't edit war, I need to be reassured that the complaints I eventually make will be taken in serious. Ninguém ( talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I know it is an English language idiom. It means that I should drop the issue and get along as if nothing had happened. Which, evidently, isn't as ridiculous as suggesting an actual kiss, but comes close. Ninguém ( talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I won't. Instead, I'm going to file a complaint against this guy. Am I going to be told to kiss and make up? Or that it is a content issue, and that no one can do anything, because no one understand the content? Or that it "takes two to tango"? Or that there are "personal attacks on both sides"? Or am I going to have to limit myself to edit one article (and then be treated as a second rate employee if I mismanage a reference) while this guy does what he wants everywhere, in spite of being told to edit his sandbox? Ninguém ( talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's easy to see: He reversed my edits, I reversed his. He reversed me back again, I reversed him a second time. He reversed a third time. Instead of doing the same, I complained to you in your talk page. What does that say about the edit war continuing or stopping? Ninguém ( talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. This means the first absurd this guy does, such as placing text in direct contradiction to the given source, I am reporting him. I hope I don't get stupid "kiss and make up" responses again, as I hope I don't get idiotly blocked by someone who can't read. Let's see. Ninguém ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, no. I am going to report his attempts to keep misinformation in White Brazilian with the "less than 700,000" thing. Ninguém ( talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, as of now I am banning you from posting about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. If you breach this ban, I'll block you for two weeks. Either stay away from Opinoso, or blend your PoV with his, or file an RfC or RfAR. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. So let's talk about content. In White Brazilian, this edit [12] introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:
"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil <ref>Darcy Ribeiro. O Povo Brasileiro, Vol. 07, 1997 (1997).</ref>."
Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:
I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém ( talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done: [14] Ninguém ( talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And more here: [15].
Is there a deadline for this discussion to happen? Ninguém ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a joke, Gwen. How am I going to "blend" my sources with his, when I can't discuss them? And why am I the only one that cannot make original research, while others can not only do original research (for instance, the article on White Brazilians if full of original research, including a whole section about "colonial Whites", a concept that cannot be found anywhere in the litterature), but quote sources as saying something that they do not actually say?
This is not an "encyclopaedia", this is a farce. Ninguém ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is one of the most difficult topics. My edits, which I try to make as earnest and sound as possible, never stand. The other editor's edits, which constantly misinterpret the sources, always stand. Perhaps the toppic is only difficult for me, but easy for him?
No, English is not my first language, albeit a have a passable command of it. The problem is not my English, or Opinoso's. The problem is your Portuguese.
There are no other imputs from other editors, nor are they going to be. I have explained this at lenght, and won't explain again. I am merely going to point to the most recent example of why nobody wants to edit those owned articles: the very effective exlusion of User:Lecen from editing them.
You have seen what happened with White Brazilian: three weeks of protection, so that there could be discussion. Where was the discussion? I pointed a series of changes that would be necessary; those were not contested by anyone. When the article was unprotected, I tried to make some of them; some of them were immediately reversed.
What I am asking is pretty reasonable. A huge 500 page book is given as a source for some information. Not even an online version, but a paper version. I am asking for a page or a chapter, so that people can more easily see this information in the source. I am being evidently stonewalled. I am asking you, who are an admin here, to put some pressure so that this source becomes a little bit more precise.
As of now, I have researched the online versions of the book that I could find for that information, and I have not found it there. What should I do? Can I remove the information? Can I replace the offline source with an online one? What else?
I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. This would be a loss for Wikipedia, not for me. If I quit, you will have to deal with the fact that the only person editing those articles will be Opinoso. The quality of those articles, in this case, will be the quality of Opinoso's contributions. Are you earnestly comfortable with that? If you are, I am going to quit. If you aren't, either give me some reason to continue, or find other editors that can contribute there. Preferably editors that know something about Brazil and about demography. Ninguém ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I know one. But you have asked me to not comment on him.
In any case, good bye. I won't waste my time any more. You can keep your "encyclopaedia" with all its factual errors and abusive editors. Bom proveito! Ninguém ( talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, you have to chose between my version or Opinoso's version of the history section in the article Brazil. Until the other editors (beyond me and him) pick a side, that guy will keep causing disruption on Wikipedia. - -- Lecen ( talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, I am having trouble with Opinoso again. He has baseless reverted sourced information at the sime time he called it "personal theories". See here. He also said that the renowned [ Barsa] is not a reliable source. See here. he also again attacked me about the history section while it was discussed and settled by other editors. See here.
He simply reverts anything without even bothering to open a discussion thread or to wait other Editors opinions about it. I can not revert it back because it will become a revert war. How can I handle someone who has no respect for rules? - -- Lecen ( talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Please join the report here if you believe you have more evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Opinoso_reported_by_User:Likeminas_.28Result:_.29
Likeminas ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I do know that Getúlio Vargas created several Concentration Camps in Brazil to keep German, Italian and Japanese immigrants. And I also know that he tried to prevent German descendants of speaking German and keeping their culture. How that was done, I confess that I don't know. Let me search about it in my books and I'll tell you. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Check it out: [16] [17] [18] -- Lecen ( talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém, as I am totally ignorant of Portuguese I am not able to comment knowledgably on this recent set of edits by you, but the signs I see are very good indeed. Please keep up the good work. However, if you can please format external links like this "[http://www.blahblahblah.br/etc/etc/blahblah.html title of page]", it would be welcome; the reader will see not "http://www.blahblahblah.br/etc/etc/blahblah.html" but instead the more palatable "title of page". Of course you can vary this where common sense dictates.
(Every week, I feel depressed anew by the width and depth of my ignorance of languages. Most recently, Talk:Nikos Economopoulos.) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be mass editing the article, has there been any discussion about this? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"I am tempted": I guess that he succumbed to the temptation.
Stay cool, even though this request is hardly justifiable in the circumstances. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've brought up the matter here at "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary ( talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ninguém,
As a very Brazilian person, I have taken a look at the "ethnic" sections related to Brazil, and they are generally very wrong. They project a racialism that does not exist in Brazil (a foreign and biased racialism). Not that there is no racism in Brazil. The presentation of both the "white" and the "black" sections is totally unfair. The "white" section concentrates on proving how "non white" "white" Brazilians are (from the point of view of "real whiteness"; lol totally absurd!), and the "black" section on how "black" the Brazilians are. In the "white" section a 5% non Euro ancestry Brazilian person is labelled as "non white", whereas in the "black" section anyone with a greater than say 5% 10% African ancestry is "black". There is an aggressive mood also, making it look like as if the relative notions of "race" would be "very wrong" in Brazil, when that's very far from the truth: race is relative, it is a social construct, and this is what leading experts on the field say, not me. The "white section" could include photos of "white Brazilians" too, with their DNA tests, just like the "black section": Tiazinha, the "brown" singer from the interior of Paraíba (99,9% European, who does not know any of her European ancestors, by the way; all of them "colonial white"), José Sarney, from the interior of Maranhão (99,9% European; all of them "colonial white") and Ivete Sangalo, Brazilian singer from the interior of Bahia who is 99,2% European and only 0,4% SSA and only 0,4% Native American, along with Zeca Camargo, another "brown" Brazilian, who is about 96% European (colonial times ancestry here as well), among many others like them, Paulo Coelho, for example, totally European, colonial ancestry from Ceará and Pará. They did not know of their ancestry and they do not care about it either, Paulo Coelho said: "how boring to be totally European! I wanted to be Moorish, Jewish, "black" and native American!" :) Ivete Sangalo complained that she did not have as much African as she wished she had, and Zeca Camargo celebrated his 2% Native American heritage!!
Cheers Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk)
Ninguém,
You have must seen it. There is control, some people out there control Brazilian topics. Brazilians are not allowed to express themselves at English wikipedia. All of what has happened so far to Brazilians here at English wikipedia is only but a tiny example of how we are presented abroad, in many other circles, not only wikipedia. There are many prejudices out there against the Brazilians, and some people think they are entitled to tell us (and to tell also to the rest of the world) who we are and what is our past. Unfortunately as a whole Latin America is too weak to defend herself, we are the target of all sorts of prejudiced people from elsewhere. The "white Brazilian" topic in particular is full of mistakes, some clearly intentionally done. Just to let you know that you and Lecen are not alone out there. There are other Brazilians who have also felt the disrespect and bias that has been shown against us several times throughout several Brazilian topics at the English wikipedia.
saudações
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Okay, I will moderate myself. But still I find it difficult to accept that Opinoso is an ethnic Brazilian, that his ancestors have lived here. He may have been born at Brazil, but he probably identifies with something else. That's my impression, definitely. Besides it is not only about him. But I will restrain myself, for sure.
Cheers
Grenzer22 ( talk)Grenzer22 Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Am I the only one who still has no clue of what the hell is the problem in the White Brazilian article? I don't even know why we are arguing there! It's always the same Opinoso's tactic: keep the discussion going and going until it becomes impossible to be followed by anyone else and insinuate bad faith from other editors. Before at least he tried to bring (fake) sources, but this time, not even that. He just doesn't like anyone touching his article. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for gatecrashing, but Off2riorob has asked on my page too that if people discuss his edits they should do so in English. I think he has a point.
May I add that I'm starting to enjoy "reading" in Portuguese, especially when it appears to be about me. You're welcome to say just about anything you wish in Portuguese about my edits; and, time and energy permitting, I'll have fun attempting to guess what it means. (Above, is Rob intimidating me? Am I intimidating him? Is he intimate with me? Etc.) Please don't spoil the fun by explaining.
Amazing discovery of the day: pt:Brasileiros brancos (mostly by this fellow) has no discussion. Nothing at all. Redlinked. How was that possible? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Ninguém. I have no idea what frustrations you are going through, but my advice is to just look at this as a hobby, keep yourself cool... and avoid "tough cops" if you can :) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I need your help on article Brazil. There is an editor who is clearly behaving as he owns the article. I tried to make several changes into the article to keep it smaller and in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries rules and I also took as model other featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru. I even warned everyone of what I was going to do 24h before and when I began editing I kept reporting everything I did on the talk page. However, editor Rahlgd simply reverted everything. If yout ake a look at the history log of the article only he can make edits. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! If you want to help me keep the editions of sub-section "Culture" in the article Brazil (as they were like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=324617070), I thank you. Auréola ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't amazing? As soon as the article was unprotected Off2riorob complained of edits in it and so it became protected again. Now he simply vanished and the discussion went dead once again. And so the article stays forever unchanged. Will it take much longer to an administrator notice that this guy is only messing around? -- Lecen ( talk) 10:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are crazy or stupid?! ... added at 18:24, 28 January 2010 by Hentzer
I never realized that I could read Spanish. But I do like to think that I also never acquired an "ability" to read Spanish in perversely inverted form. Ugh! -- Hoary ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Opinoso has once again started deleting messages posted by others (me in this case), without justification. I posted genetic studies different from the ones he posted, along other with other information, all of them correct. He has opened a thread against me now. Grenzer22 ( talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Silvatici4 ( talk) 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Ninguem, I see you have changed the Political Position of the English Democratic Party to 'Far-Right' and have cited this source: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:C0khcR_wjBYJ:scholar.google.com/+%22english+democrats%22+%22right+wing%22&hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=2000
The source it too long to discuss in detail but this is the definition of 'Far Right' in the citation:
'Our model posits that extreme right ideology relies on twofundamental dimensions – a negative conception of identity, which may express itself culturally(xenophobia) or civically (populism), and authoritarianism, which may be conceived socially(reactionary), or politically (repressive). These two dimensions create four possible quadrants ofextreme right ideology: xenophobic-reactionary, xenophobic-repressive, populist-reactionary, andpopulist-repressive.'
The definition of 'Far Right' used by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison on the thesis does not agree with the Wikipedia definition of 'Far Right':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right
I am curious as to how the EDP can be described as 'Far Right' when they are part of the 'Alliance for Democracy'. May I suggest you take a look at which other parties who are in this alliance?
Do you think the citation is a good source?
To be a good source don't you think that you should use a source which is judging the EDP with the most recent manifesto?
Kind Regards
Silvatici4
-- Silvatici4 ( talk) 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Dear Ninguem,
Good idea to have a few people express their opinions about this. I look forward to the outcome.
BTW, I am rather inexperienced at how to communicate correctly on Wikipedia so I hope I am doing the correct thing by adding to this note in this way. Please correct me if I am doing this wrong.
Kind Regards
Silvatici4
I believe that you are doing a great job by editing the articles that Opinoso messed up. Everything has dubious sources and a certain ‘agenda’. Wikipedia has to be based on facts and be neutral. It is very hard to find one Brazilian editor that agrees with his writing, on the opposite side, I can name over a dozen that dislike his style. If you need any help cleaning this mess let me know. I showed a great concern regarding his sources in the past; as a result I was blocked by one of his protectors, normally clueless people. I almost lost any hope in this encyclopedia at the time, but we should not let this individual spread misinformation. If you need any help with your work, please let me know. Best regards, Paulista01 ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, European immigration to Brazil. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Immigration to Brazil. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Immigration to Brazil - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the
article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated European immigration to Brazil, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European immigration to Brazil. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
STOP removing sourced informations, as you have been doing in several articles. And STOP duplicating articles too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.172 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do me and all the other editors reviewing your work a favour and try to spend a couple minutes per page to do multiple edits at a time; it's very tedious to read through your work on so many different revisions. Thank you for your hard work. thoriyan 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this book ( [19] ). It might help you. See first page 65 and then 81. They are the most important chapters in it. I finally understood why there are several authors who came from the Southeast who treat "pardo" as the same as "mulatto" and reveal Brazil as a country divided between Whites and Afro-descendants. The Caboclos, who are the majority in the North and Northeast are simply ignored. This book will explain it. Regards! -- Lecen ( talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking and reconsidering some things. I could consider myself superior to others, but what would be the use of being superior or thinking myself superior? Thus the interest of "truth" in wikipedia seems more and more uninteresting to me - but it is very interesting to see and engage in the process, even knowing it to be finally useless. It is pleasant while it is done, and after it is done it is useless. :D Much love from the Jah Nation, heheh -- Kiyarrlls- talk 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I won't. You spend nearly 24 hours a day in Wikipedia, you have enough time to look it by youself. Thank you. Opinoso ( talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ninguém, os cara tão meio lelé aqui, querem fazer guerra pra falar que no Brasil tem 12 milhões de falantes de língua espanhola [20] -- Luizdl ( talk) 03:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that Opinion is unfamous for doing that: citing sources that do not back his claims. Wikipedia's administrators are always eager to punish editors for the smallest infractions but one has to wonder why Opiniso is still around. -- Lecen ( talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ninguém!
Please don't leave! You have done a great job. Some articles were really in a deplorable state before you started giving your contributions. Cheers! Grenzer22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
Nelson is a Portuguese name, since it is included in the list of the names allowed to be used in Portugal. (Portugal does not allow people to use foreign names)
It has an English origin, but it does mean it is not Portuguese. The most common name in Portuguese is Maria, which has a Jewish origin, it comes from Hebrew Miriam. All names in Portuguese will have a non-Portuguese origin, since Portuguese itself has origins in another foreign language, which was Latin, but it also has many words from other languages, such as Hebrew, Greek, Arab, Tupi.
Portuguese last names are often of Latin origin as well. But having a Portuguese surname does not mean you have Portuguese ancestry. So Phone Books do not tell the ancestry of a population, like you tried to claim before. It that why you claim to be of Portuguese descent? You have a Portuguese last name, like Silva or Pereira and you imagined it brings an actual Portuguese ancestry? You need to study more, Ninguém! Gaúchos are a mixed population, very similar to the Amazonian population. If you want to know your real ancestry, look to an Indian tribe, not to Portuguese folk dancers. Be proud of it. Opinoso ( talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"Names coming from Latin aren't borrowings into Portuguese, Opinoso. English names are."
Who said that? You? Opinoso ( talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam, regarding your query, "Is this a joke? If they [the Jews] were expelled from Portugal by the Inquisition (in 1496), how would they come from... Portugal... to Brazil... after 1500?", I would like to respond by pointing out a few facts. First, the "expulsion" of the Jews from Portugal in 1496-97 was not as complete as one might be led to believe. To the contrary, many remained in the country, often staying as ostensible converts or New Christians. Some even continued to practice their religion as crypto-Jews. However, since the Inquisition, which lasted until 1821 in Portugal, continued its persecutory activities, significant numbers of individuals of Jewish background emigrated to other parts of the Portuguese Empire, including Brazil, long after the date you referred to. Second, as a result of the Dutch conquest of parts of northeastern Brazil (1630-1654), there was also an influx of Sephardi Jews to "New Holland", especially in and around Recife. -- Dpecego ( talk) 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, I appreciate your input. In fact, I have already made a minor change to the text that took into consideration your comments above. Specifically, the sentence regarding Sephardi Jews now reads, "Some were New Christians or crypto-Jews that had fled from Portugal in order to escape the Inquisition."
Now then, in response to your most recent query, it is rather obvious that we have different interpretations of "Portuguese Brazilian". Your own vision of the term would be perfectly valid if the article were written in Portuguese, in which case it would refer more narrowly to 1st or (perhaps) 2nd generation Brazilians with Portuguese roots post-1822. Nevertheless, the article is in English, and as a Canadian I assure you that its meaning is much broader, i.e. any person of Portuguese ancestry who settled in Brazil, including during the colonial era. When I pointed out the text on English American, by the way, my intention was not to imply it was an impeccable work of scholarship, but rather to simply call your attention to the Anglophone connotation of expressions such as English American or French Canadian, which invariably take into consideration early settlement/colonization.
To conclude, then, I humbly suggest that you direct your genuine interest in the subject matter by helping improve the article. Of course, criticism is always welcome and, indeed, can be intellectually stimulating. That being said, deletion of entire sections that reflect the collaborative work of other contributors is something that ought to be avoided, in my opinion. Personally, for better or for worse, with the limited time I have at my disposal, I prefer to attempt fixing what I consider flawed as opposed to throwing out the baby with the bath water. -- Dpecego ( talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, if I am suggesting anything it is that articles written in English reflect their general meaning in English, merely that. Let me make an analogy. As someone brought up in Anglo-America, I could compose a text called Blacks or Black People in Brazil without raising any eyebrows here, whereas if I wrote a Portuguese-language text on the same topic using the word "preto" that would have other implications. However, does the fact that lusophones take offense to such terms mean that I, an Anglophone writing for an English-speaking audience (presumably), need to change my word choice? Must I take into consideration how Portuguese-speaking Afro-Brazilians could react to my article in English? I think not.
In so far as deleting work that "should not be there" or "doesn't reflect reality" is concerned, I totally agree with you. Yet I feel that this is not applicable to the section of the article in question. Yes, it needs to be improved/expanded/sourced, yet it ought to exist....as other similar articles do (e.g. English American, French Canadian, etc.)
Regarding what you found on google for "Portuguese Brazilian", it is similar to what one finds on the same search engine when one enters the key words "Spanish Colombian", for instance. Notwithstanding that, are we to automatically conclude, just because google does not instantly produce sites on Colombians of Spanish background, that those two words---when combined---do not mean precisely that? --
Dpecego (
talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, if I understand you correctly, you are affirming that any article written in language "A" about a topic concerning country "B" (which speaks language "B") must reflect the linguistic nuances or cultural sensitivities of country "B". Based on that logic, then, if a Portuguese-language article called "Negros Canadenses" existed, then I---as an Anglophone Canadian---would be obliged to take offense to that and, consequently, either demand that it be rewritten in Portuguese as "Pretos Canadenses" (=
Black Canadians) or delete it. Likewise, because "people of colonial descent in Spanish America call(ed) themselves 'criollos'", when writing in English I therefore would not be permitted to use words such as
Spanish Argentine or
Spanish Peruvian. Frankly, that does not seem very cogent to me. As I've already stated, I argue that articles in language "A" should reflect their general meaning in language "A", even if they deal with subject matter concerning another country/language.
Getting back to the adjective + noun combination "Portuguese Brazilian", the reality is that in English that simply means a Brazilian of Portuguese descent, just as "French Canadian" in English means a Canadian of French descent, Spanish Colombian means a Colombian of Spanish descent, and so forth. -- Dpecego ( talk) 12:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think my analogies were more applicable, as the countries I've called attention to are all New World nations. Europe is a whole other can of worms, as you pointed out. Concepts concerning nationality or "ethnicity" are far more convoluted. Ireland and Switzerland are certainly good examples of that. Spain, with its Basques, Galicians and Catalans, would be another case in point. Thus, an expression such as "Catalan Spaniard" is virtually a contradiction in terms, whereas "French Canadian" or "Portuguese Brazilian" are not. -- 189.111.253.213 ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, first of all, thank you for calling my attention to the opening sentence of English Canadian, which supposedly is used interchangeably with "Anglophone" or "English-speaking". Now that, in my view, really is absurd! I will most definitely rectify the problem.
Now, to be honest with you, I believe we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The truth is that in English, at least within the context of the New World, adjective-noun combinations such as English Canadian, French Canadian, English American, Spanish Argentine, etc. all refer to citizens of nations in the Americas of "X" descent, i.e. English, French, and so forth. Even the lamentable English Canadian article you cited mentions that ("...or who is of English ancestry").
Regardless, I have a proposal to make. Why not change the main article title to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent", as Hoary suggested, then redirect the polemic "Portuguese Brazilian" keywords to that? What do you think? Thus, anyone from an English-speaking nation who typed "Portuguese Brazilian" (as I did) would be instantly directed to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent". -- Dpecego ( talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ninguém, naturally, I would be glad to do that. Where would you like me to post my comments, on your talk page or in the discussion section of the main article? In passing, I have substituted the Post painting of Dutch Recife with one by Leandro Joaquim (c. 1790) showing the splendid Carioca Aqueduct. As regards the inaccurate description of the Victor Meireles painting, I have provided a slightly less inaccurate description, I hope. -- Dpecego ( talk) 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I think the whole paragraph should be removed - and, so, I won't "improve" it, because it would only add credibility to something I believe is fundamentally flawed. As long as it isn't removed, it should be sourced. Where are the sources? Ninguém (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)"
Dear Ninguém, I have to say that removal is not the solution. Improvement is, and that is what I've attempted to do with the paragraph concerning degredados. Check out the following source, please.. It sheds new light on the issue. For instance, I learned that there were approximately 90 different crimes for which individuals could be condemned to exile, mainly to Brazil. These included crimes against the king (e.g. "...falsificar ou mandar falsificar o sinal de algum desembargador, ouvidor, corregedor ou qualquer outro julgador, ou algum selo autêntico que faça fé, com propósito e intenção de causar dano ou de colher proveito..."), crimes against morality (e.g. rape, adultery, sodomy ["...teoricamente, a pena para a sodomia era muito severa, mas, na prática penal, constatamos que os sodomitas eram quase todos condenados ao degredo...Poucos dentre eles foram condenados à fogueira."]), and crimes against 'the person' (e.g. perjury, attempted murder).
Thus, the revised information is now correct and duly sourced. So, what else needs fixing? My hope is that, if we keep this healthy dialectic between us going on, the final article will end up being, if not respectable, at least acceptable. -- Dpecego (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecego ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I see you tagged Brazilian people with a contradiction flag (along with a lot of inline flags). Could you please put a note on the talk page regarding what the contradiction is? Or perhaps use the "about=" part of the template, as it's unclear where the contradiction lies. Unfortunately, the way it's been put in with all the other tags looks a little WP:Pointy -- WORM MЯOW 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Erasing a note is considered an acknowledgment (per WP:OWNTALK). If you wish to revive recently archived discussions, remove them from the archive and restore them to the discussion page, preferably with an explanation for the renewal. Novangelis ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We were talking and trying to reach a consensus in the Brazil talk page. You just stopped talking, did not respond anymore. Why? - Eduardo Sellan III ( talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I was about to revert this edit, but I looked in the cited source and was pretty sure that it had been mis-cited before the edit. (Actually I'm not sure what it does say -- of course I can read the numbers, but I'm not certain what it is that's being counted.)
I am of course as suspicious as anyone of a brand new username who's intent on making unexplained edits that greatly boost the number of people of Arab origin, but something here is odd. Could you take a look? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ninguém, are you still editing on Wikipedia? It has been quite awhile since we've talked for the last time. I sent you an email but I got no response. Felipe Menegaz and I are trying to revive Wikiproject Brazil. We want to unite all editors interested in Brazilian history (regardles if they are Brazilians or not) and give them a place where they can feel safe and know that will have aid whatever they need. For the moment we are gathering everyone who is interested here. If you're interested, sign your name and add the pafe to your watch list! -- Lecen ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ninguém, I am delighted to reencounter you, but feel dread at the prospect of reencountering issues (or non-issues) of Brazilian ethnicity.
Suggestions:
Well, a mere glance at the article, on a subject about which I am of course totally ignorant, suggests again that part of the problem is conflation of (or confusion between) (A) actual and (B) perceived Portuguese origin. But are you also saying that the "subject" is a non-subject? I'm willing to believe that it is, but any attempt to have the article deleted is sure to end in failure. So instead silly bits should be (genially) removed from it, so that what remains doesn't mislead (even if it doesn't much enlighten).
Of course, telling other editors that they have added to the absurdity of the content is very likely to alienate them and make them harden their positions, perhaps intensifying the absurdity. If you're in a conflict, think like a judo player rather than a trench-warfare general. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)