Talk:Brazil/Archive 5

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

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

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

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)

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

Do you people agree? Opinoso 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Slavery is mentioned in the demographics section. The argument for me is whether or not mentioning slavery in the history section is too specific for inclusion in the main country article. My opinion is that while it should be included, we should keep the article relatively stable for the time being, and establish a consensus of what is to be included before it is actually included.--Dali-Llama 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics has nothing to do with the History session. Remember: many people are only searching for Brazilian History, many do not take a look at the other sessions. Opinoso 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would assume if that was the case they would go to the History of Brazil article. Like I said, I agree with you that it should be included, but we we need to establish consensus. Let's let others chime in...--Dali-Llama 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

As my name was mentioned, I might well jump in :-) Slavery is a very important element in Brazilian history and deserves a mention in this article IMHO. If you're concerned with size you can delete the sentence The period of sugar-based economy (1530-c.1700) is known as the "Sugarcane Cycle" in Brazilian history which is redundant. The following sentence Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed as being of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries seems contradictory with the previous one, was the sugar industry in crisis for two centuries? Then, how can you speak about a "sugarcane cycle" for this period? BTW, this whole paragraph lacks sources. --Victor12 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me Opinoso.--Dali-Llama 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Reasons for their deletation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All these celebrities pictures should be out of this article.

What do you people say about it? Opinoso 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good, efficient picture and it should stay. If it is a source of conflict with other editors (besides yourself, Opinoso), then I believe we should err on the safe side and replace it.--Dali-Llama 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * 5) True, this picture should be removed.


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


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


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


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


 * If we will use celebrities, they don't need to be beauty, just famous.
 * The article says we are 49.9% white, 43.2% brown, 6.3% black 0.7% yellow/indian, so a image in the same section must represent this.
 * In a group of 10 images, 5 whites, 4 mulattos and 1 black is more accurate, but we can also be more diverse with something like 4 whites, 3 mulattos, 1 black, 1 ameridian, 1 asian. 5 men, 5 women, at least 2 whites and 1 brown of each sex.
 * For whites, we should not use only "european" pale blondes. A "white" brazilian can be very tan.  wildie · wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Opinoso, the images of a article are not the right place to start changing some information you disagree.
 * If the article uses IBGE's data in its text, we should change the information for a better source, and latter represent it in the images; or accept what we have and represent with the images.
 * I think, Opinoso, is what you call "black" and "pardo", and what IBGE call. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I have direct acess to IBGE's method), but in PNAD and the census and every other that researches people's races, is the person who indificates himself as one of the choices provided.
 * So, if IBGE says whe have 50% of whites and 6% of blacks, it is not saying that 6% of Brazilians have black skin or looks like a african, it is saying that 6% of Brazilians think himselves has black person.
 * But maybe I'm a little biased, has I do works in IBGE (not as researcher, but in the IT area, but I think I know well enough the other areas).  wildie · wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * You two, please, don't be uncivil. It just worsen the sittuation. I found myself uneasy with your particular attitude, Sparks, maybe because I sense this more personal to me, maybe because I already knew as Opinoso can be agressive. Whatever, don't use fire against fire.
 * However, Opinoso, even with the bad attitude, I must agree with Sparks central argument: Wikipedia uses the information from the right sources, not the "right" information you, as smart as you are, agree with.
 * DNA studies are "better"? I would be myself glad to include this in the article if you show us a valid, relevant source about this. And I'm not talking about "I read in this newspaper".
 * Want to talk about the "white-washing" attitude of the people in the research? OK. You just showed a good source about this. But we still have IBGE's numbers as the only valid ones.
 * This is not a dispute, Opinoso. We don't care for your personal, previous knowledge about the subject. We care about what the valid, verifiable sources you can find about the subject. We will use IBGE for now, that's all.  wildie · wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * 1) I didn’t harass you in your talk page, because I’ve never made any offensive statements towards you. Harassment = offensive statements. Sending you messages does not equate to harassing you. I can send you messages in your talk page whenever I want to. What I can’t do is offend you. If you think I’ve offended you in your talk page, call a Portuguese-speaking administrator (Carioca) to read the messages I sent you and let him decide. If you want to report me for writing in Portuguese, I remind you I’ve seen you writing in Portuguese too.
 * 2)You sent me a warning to stop personal attacks. I sent you a warning to stop personal attacks too, because in my view, you attacked me in our long discussion a few topics above in this page. You called my opinion a “vanity show” and you wrongly accused me of rule infringement.
 * 3)You can warn me and I can’t warn you? How does this work?
 * 4)I send you a long message in your talk page trying to put an end to our mutual animosities. You didn’t even bother replying, so don’t come here trying to play the goody goody boy on me.
 * 5)I always assume good faith. But when clearly good faith isn’t there, I’m not forced to assume otherwise.
 * 6)I don’t have a problem with Opinoso not agreeing with IBGE. I really believe he thinks the DNA studies are superior. What I have a problem with is the fact he tried to  impose  his opinion, as well as the fact he tends to go personal on people. Anyway, I’ve just sent him a long message in Portuguese where I try to put an end to this. A message any of you can read, since I know all of you speak Portuguese.
 * 7)You are not an administrator, so you don’t get to decide whether people get blocked or not. You have a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia rules, but, I’m sorry for saying this, I find your interpretation of the very same rules quite poor. Sparks1979 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)Last but not least, I didn't personally attack Opinoso, although I think I was a bit over the top while commenting his replies. I've apologized to him in his talk page. Still, no rule breaking from me, at least not in my view. Sparks1979 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

How about the obssession with selling the idea that Brazilian citie's are full of beautiful buildings, like First-World ones. Where are the pictures of exotic Brazilian beaches in this article? The only one is the Recife one, with buildings in the back. It looks like a dirty beach. This is incredible! Opinoso 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to the actions required by the GA Review. When you look at the "Done" marks, there's an overwhelming number of contributions by CarlosGuitar and some by Felipe as well. So yes, congratulations to both for making the changes required to bring the article to GA status. The rest is argumentative.--Dali-Llama 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Sparks1979 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan to me. Before we start, the only thing I'd be worried about is some time limit between GA and FA to demonstrate stability. We should probably grab a couple of FA reviewers and clear it with them. Once we get clearance on that, I'll feel far more comfortable making those changes.--Dali-Llama 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need time between a GA nomination and a FA nomination. I only want to establish some guidelines for our work. For now I think we could work on citations, but I’m sure there must be other aspects bothering editors. For now, there’s no hurry, let’s do things calmly. Sparks1979 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also, until today you did not explain why you are not following WikiProject Countries guideline, why no one FA country have Social issues section, and why professional encyclopedia Britannica does not have any citation about Brazil's social issues. Not only a ownership, but also disruption. Carlosguitar 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I can't justify the changes made by Sparks, I have to state that the Wikiproject Countries guidelines are not set in stone, as can be seen in different FA articles. Therefore, I think that even a section such as social issues, if properly referenced, NPOV and not putting the article over the magical 85kb, is beneficial. A lot of people are talking about major changes to the structure of this article, and we need to be careful to gradually ease into these changes, giving people time to reflect and react on these changes.--Dali-Llama 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dalillama, all sections are important to this article, but is impossible to cite here, you know. We still need to merge some statements to not prejudice others like the recent Slavery statement in the History section. Carlosguitar 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

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

I expect you to do the same.

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

So let’s analyze this point by point.

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

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

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

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


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


 * True, but that doesn't mean the information we've gathered under "social issues" isn't scattered around in other encyclopedias. We could do this as well. We could transfer the "poverty", "minimum wages" and "social security debts" information into the "Economy" section. "Inefficient public institutions" fits in "Government". "Violence" could be pushed into the cities paragraph in "demographics", as a typical problem of big cities in Brazil. I would then also mention transportation issues. I prefer keeping it in the "social issues" subsection, it just feels more organized. If you prefer to scatter the info around, we could consider it, if other users also agree. What's your preference? Sparks1979 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Sparks on this one. I prefer to have it in it's own section. At the same time, I'd like to remind everyone we're inchng further towards a large article. We're in zero-sum mode. Considering the GA status quo had a social issues section, I don't see why we should remove it. And remember: WikiProject Countries is a guideline and a suggestion, not a rule.--Dali-Llama 19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

2. First and second sentences:

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

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

3. Third and fourth sentences:

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

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

4. Fifth sentence:

>>>This is the first controversy.

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

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

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

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

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


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

5. Sixth, seventh and eight sentences.

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

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

6. Ninth sentence.

>>>Second controversy.

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

7. Tenth sentence.

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

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

8. Eleventh sentence.

>>>Third controversy.

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

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

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

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


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

9. Twelfth sentence.

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

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

10. Thirteenth sentence.

>>>Fourth controversy.

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

You wrote: you deleted the line.

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

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

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


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


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

11. Fourteenth sentence.

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

 Comment : again, no controversy here.

12. Last sentence.

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

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

+ + +

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I tried to explain what I mean here. I don't know if you read that page. Anyway, it would be enough to read WP:PEACOCK. The link to that page is one reason why the template is useful. A.Z. 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's what I thought. I'll work on it in a bit, and see if the other editors can pitch in as well.--Dali-Llama 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

1. “Etymology” >>> It can be expanded or removed.
 * I disagree it can be removed, per the GA review.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


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

2. “History” >>> It can be summarized.
 * 2.1 “Colony” >>> It can be summarized
 * 2.2 “Empire” >>> It can be summarized
 * 2.3 “Republic” >>> It can be summarized


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

3. “Government and Politics” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 3.1 “Foreign relations and the military” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 3.2 “Law” >>> It doesn't need alterations.


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

4. “Administrative divisions” >>> It can be expanded. In my opinion, the section would have to be divided in the sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". Currently it only speaks of the regions, of "geographic" form, when I found better to be portraied of "historic" form. As in other FA, the section it would have to deal with as the e regions the states had appeared, on the territorial conquests and the different introduced forms of division already in Brazil.
 * 4.1 “Regions” >>> ???
 * 4.2 “States” >>> ???
 * This was the original state of the article prior to size reduction. I don't feel any content is lost by having just one section, so I'd consider this a stylistic change. I feel the status quo is appropriate, and dividing it into two would tempt people to increase their respective sizes, which is the last thing we need with the size of the current article.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand...
 * First > The "regions" aren't a political division and yes geographic, promoted for the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States of each region.
 * Second > The only “senão” is that in this in case that we would have that to give more emphasis for the States, that are a division politics.
 * Therefore they need to be separate. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


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

5. “Geography” >>> It can be expanded. An important section for a country as Brazil, and extremely poor. Content very reduced, the introduction was minimum. Not yet I found the best form to describe, plus who knows somebody has some idea.
 * 5.1 “Climate” >>> It can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities seem superficial to me, mentions for "climate of monsoons" of the North and "climate of (polar) masses" of the South it would be better. Torrential rains of the Amazon Rainforest, the dry and barren climate of the Northeastern hinterland, the intense cold of the Southern mountain ranges would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil. Citations of the record temperatures already also registered.
 * 5.2 “Environment” >>> It can be expanded.
 * Zero-sum argument. If we feel it needs expansion, we need to remove content somewhere else.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


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

6. “Economy” >>> It can be summarized.
 * 6.1 “Energy policy” >>> It can be expanded. The section speaks only of ethanol. Cite the energy matrix of the country also is important, giving reference to the image. (Dali-Llama revert my editions)
 * 6.2 “Science and technology” >>> It can be expanded. For the same reason of "Energy policy". The sub-section need of reference to the image.
 * My reversion rationale is as follows: Energy policy is something very specific to Brazil (IE: it would not be noteworthy enough for any other country, with the possible exception of the Low Countries and Scandinavia, which have considerable renewable energy resources), and is typically not in main articles. I agree with its inclusion, but this should be a very short section. Consider this a "bonus" section. Felipe proposed to delete the Social Issues section, and then expand Energy Policy. I am against this suggestion, as if we consider both sections "secondary" or "non-standard" sections, I'd consider social issues in Brazil to be far more important to understanding what Brazil is like than our energy policy.--Dali-Llama 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not accurately thus. I only suggested, in Dali-Llama's talk page, the removal of the section for controversial reasons that come causing disputes. In the place would be placed the "Languages" section. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * About violence, nice they are saying on accurate form about: São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and not the simple: "High level of violence" or "comparable to war zone". Which are biased. But, I will not oppose the "comparable", since comparable never means equal.
 * A small citation about favelas, yet no statistics or rate as we have here. They lose credibility? Never.
 * Yes, there is false dilemma argument here. Oxford University Press, no citation about violence, and a small citation about street children. They lose creditability? Never. Catholic Encyclopedia, no citation about violence and poverty. They lose creditability? Never. Columbia Encyclopedia, no citation about violence and poverty. They lose creditability? Never.
 * Yet, no one encyclopedia and FA country article with "Social issues section". Carlosguitar 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I understand Sparks your inquietude about False dilemma, you used a fallacy argument to only give credibility to those which have Social issues statements: "We have credibility with Social issues or we do not have." ;)
 * Anyone in a easy reasoning, know that we do not need Social issues to have credibility. Carlosguitar 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I have to side with Sparks on this one. WPC is not a straight-jacket and Britannica is not god (if it were, why are we all here?). If we're agreed that the article can go to 50kb of readable prose, then social issues would be my first section for a scrubdown and expansion.--Dali-Llama 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the first? Brazil has the most biodiversity in this world and Environment section is still small. You may not like WP:WPC, but a number of editor established a consensus to "easy" feature a article by following their guideline. If you strong disagree with "inaccurate" of their guideline, you need to discuss with them.
 * And we should maintain article below than 49-50KB not go to 50, going to 50KB is problematic. Carlosguitar 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's plenty about biodiversity in the article right now. And regardless of WPC's actual requirements, there are enough country FAs with non-standard sections that makes me think that even they don't always agree (or contribute) to particular articles' individual requirements. South Africa has a section on AIDS, Nepal has "Recent Developments". I think it should be the first priority since that section, while controversial, needs to be thoroughly devoid of OR and present facts as NPOV as possible.--Dali-Llama 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious Dalillama? Did you see Indonesia and South_Africa? We not even talk about Atlantic Forest, Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado how do you think that there is "plenty" about biodiversity? Ah I got, there is no "plenty" citation about social issues. Anyway, I will start working on Environment section, now. Carlosguitar 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


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

7. “Demographics” >>> It can be summarized.
 * 7.1 “Education and health” >>> The sub-section only speaks of Education and little of Health, without expanding it, the two sides could be balanced.
 * 7.2 “Social issues” >>> It can be summarized.


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


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


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


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


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

8. “Culture” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 8.1 “Religion” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 8.2 “Sports” >>> It doesn't need alterations.


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

9. “References” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 9.1 “Footnotes” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 9.2 “Further reading” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

10. “See also” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 10.1 “External links” >>> It doesn't need alterations.
 * 10.2 “Internal links” >>> It doesn't need alterations.

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

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


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


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


 * According to Article size the 32 Kb rule has been relaxed: "With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size." Most featured articles on countries have more than 32 Kb of readable prose. The rule clearly states readers will tire after reading much more than 30-50 Kb of readable prose. Thus, 30-50 Kb is a general guideline for limits. Sparks1979 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote is that it's okay to go up to, but not passing 50kb of readable prose, so I agree with Sparks.--Dali-Llama 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, where I said to stay with 32KB? We should not go to 49-50KB, due to problems which can pop up, trying to maintain below than it. Another important point: the problem of WP:SIZE is not us who will decide, but the editors at WP:FAC, so it is still recommendable to maintain prose below. Carlosguitar 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dali-Lama. 50k of prose as limit, below that no removal of content based only on size arguments.Chico 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes:

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

45 Kb – 1 vote >>> Sparks1979

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * It’s also quite funny you ask me to “drop the stick”, when you are the one who started every single argument connected to my work in “social issues”. Sparks1979 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems my ill-fated attempt to halt this discussion has proved useless. Here's one more try: the size issue is solved. You're now addressing personal issues, which this is not the forum for. Doesn't matter who started or who finished, take it to your respective talk pages.--Dali-Llama 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

Gangs, Drugs, Crime, Robberies and Police Corruption
Why is there nothing on this topic in the whole article??

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

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


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


 * I would like to make the american press pay for all this vandalism that they have done to our international image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.30.2 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazil's indigenous inhabitants
This particular edit 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? - Caribb e a n ~ H. Q.  21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the inclusion of pictures of indigenous people in this article. They represent less than 1% of the population according to IBGE. Therefore, they generate a false and stereotypical image of Brazil for casual readers trying to learn more about the country. Sparks1979 00:00, 7 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)
 * Opinoso--you really don't learn, do you? The first half of your comment was perfectly valid! And then you got personal! Was it really necessary to attack João Felipe just now? I mean, you could've just as easily made your point without poking João Felipe? Your attacks are so gratuitous I'm getting offended by osmosis! Please refrain from comments like this.--Dali-Llama 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS: Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm support Sparks1979. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The image wasn't "sandwiched", I moved it down so it wasn't parallel to the one on the other side. - Caribb e a n ~ H. Q.  01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my browser no... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring
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)

Pictures
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)

Nomination
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting

 * Opition 1 >
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] The image is not good. Very noise. The landscape is ugly, exists two cars that intervene with the vision of the main object of the image, that is the airplane. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Picture demonstrates the most advanced Embraer aircraft produced yet, with the paint scheme of the company itself and on a publicity tour abroad.--Dali-Llama 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Opition 2 >
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] This image is pretty, has good quality and doesn't make advertizing to any airline. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Doesn't really show anything other than a dark belly of a plane.--Dali-Llama 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Opition 3 >
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] As per Option 1.Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Doesn't really show anything other than a dark belly of a plane.--Dali-Llama 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] You don't see the airplane? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Opition 4 >
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Look at the caption: and used around the world. This image is pretty and has a good quality. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Nothing wrong with this one, but I prefer No. 1, again because of the Embraer colors and it actually gives a much "fuller" view of plane.--Dali-Llama 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Again: and used around the world. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:06, 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)

Discussing
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)


 * Would you care to suggest some pictures then?--Dali-Llama 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. A picture of Embraer's assembly line would be more interesting. Something like . I just created that Google images template to use here, by the way :-) A.Z. 05:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps... one is the production of the successful product, the other one is the product itself. Either is perfectly valid.--Dali-Llama 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There must be some better picture, but the assembly line would be more interesting than the airplane because we don't see them all the time. A.Z. 03:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Text changes
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.
 * "Etymology" >


 * Agreed. I suggest we eliminate it or expand it. Sparks1979 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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.
 * "Administrative divisions" >

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.


 * If other people agree with this proposal, I don’t mind reviewing the section accordingly. Sparks1979 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opnion, this section can be expanded. The content is very reduced and the introduction is minimum, the section needs alterations urgently.
 * "Geography" >

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.


 * I don’t think we need a subsection on “climate” at all. Why is “climate” more important than “topography”, for instance? In Brazil, Geography books normally encompass the following topics: “territory”, “demography”, “industry”, “energy”, “transport”, “topography”, “climate”, “hydrography”, “vegetation”, and “production”. In theory, we could have at least 5 subsections. Alternatively, maybe we should simply merge everything and avoid subsections in “Geography”. Whatever we do, we need to organize this. Sparks1979 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find a good idea, some articles possess the "Climate" section, I don't see the reason of removes it. It is a sufficiently important section, and the other topics related to geography can be presented in the main article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not an old picture, it is de current team it has all the Brazilian superstars Kaka, Ronaldinho, etc. of course every team change some players, but it is the current team.


 * There is no sport more representative for Brazil than soccer, they’ve won the World Cup five times, but of course since they are black now you want to put a picture of some other sport showing white athletes.


 * There is no link because it wasn’t taken from the internet, AlexCovarrubias put the correct licensing.


 * About the Maracana picture, tell me isn’t it a soccer stadium as well? So why is it that you want to show the buildings but don’t want to show the people because they’re black? Again many people here have accused you of racism before, it’s become quite normal for you.


 * And finally, this discussion is about Brazil, if you want to open a discussion for Mexico, go ahead. Supaman89 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Football Team Picture
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)
 * Supaman, voting is not the first step to start a discussion. In fact, voting is the last resource we should use. We first need to try to reach a consensus, and if the discussion is biased, we can file a Request for Comment, and finally a votation. I'm also concerned about the racism in this page. There is not a single picture of a black person, and the black/mulatto people is the second largest majority in Brazil. So that seems biased. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 19:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a bad picture, but I oppose because this is not a section about “football”, it’s a section about “sports”. Thus, it’s better to have a more generic picture such as a sport facility, and the Maracanã stadium seems adequate. Besides, if the success of the team is the reason behind your choice, the Brazilian men’s volleyball team is much more successful than the men’s football team, so we might as well have a better option in the volleyball team. Brazil is quite successful in various sports, so I think placing a picture of the football team undermines other sports. That picture fits the “Brazilian football” article better. Sparks1979 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me guess. Is the volleyball team composed of only white men? I thought so... Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As per Sparks1979.
 * First: Can you show the source (link) of this image?
 * Second: What is "escrete de ouro"?
 * Third: This is a old picture.
 * Fourth: The current image show the Brazilian soccer.
 * Fifth: Maracanã Stadium is one of the most important stadiums in the world. Also home of the National team.
 * Sixth: Why you don't put a picture of the Mexican Team in the place of Estádio Azteca picture? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism... Well, look at Mexico article.


 * I added a image of Native mexicans, and it was inexplicably erased. Racism?
 * The article shows the traditional customs of the country with two blond people. Where are the natives? Racism?
 * The article is full of POV such as: The country has the largest Hispanic-American economy...
 * And more... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Joao, just to discredit some of your tendencious lies above. The traditional costumes shown in that picture (Mariachi and China Poblana) were created after the arrival of the Spaniards to Mexico. Those traditional costumes are not inspired/used by the ancient civilizations (you should study more the topic before you talk without knowing). The picture of native people was not erased, it was replaced by the old picture of two Aztecs wearing beautiful colored traditional costumes, performing an ancient traditional dance infront of some tourist in Mexico City's main square. And finally, effectively, Mexico has the largest Hispanic-American economy. The question is do you know what Hispanic-American is?


 * To resume, I don't know who erased the picture of the Aztecs, because I just returned 1 month ago to edit in Wikipedia (my PC was broken, I got a new one) but I happily added it back after you told me it was missing. Unlike this article, the Mexico article do show the ethical diversity. But also, what happens in the article Mexico or any other article, doesn't have to affect this one. It seems to me that you're only looking for excuses to argument your racism. Answer, why this article do not have a picture of black and mulatto people? Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Covarrubias. Your affirmation of traditional costumes is correct. But, you replaced the native people picture (represents the Ethnography) with a picture related to culture, a dance, and this image don't show the people.


 * Effectively, Mexico has the largest Hispanic-American economy, but most of the article insists on saying that Mexico is exclusively pertaining the North America. This is a Point of View. Why they don't say that Mexico is the third largest economy of North America? Or better: Mexico is the poorest country of North America. It could still be: Mexico is the second largest economy in Latin America.


 * You cannot accuse me when you practice the same thing in the article of your country. The article can be show a black or mullato picture, but the image that you want to place has source suspicion, low resolution and bad quality. Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside opinion. I am commenting as a representative of "the eyes of the world", not as a Brazilian.
 * I love this photo! I like the eagerness! I like the diversity of the faces. I would be proud to say that these young people represented my country.
 * Without the players, the stadium is nothing? Besides which, the building may be grand but the photo is deadly boring unless reproduced to a very large scale.
 * Why is the "face" of this country dominated by white politicians and lawyers? How very strange!
 * The photos of cities are boring. Rio has one of the most beautiful aspects of any city in the world. Why such a poor shot oof it's CBD?

Amandajm 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abertura Jogos Panamericanos 1 13072007 edit.jpg


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)


 * First of all, it is not an old picture, it is de current team it has all the Brazilian superstars Kaka, Ronaldinho, etc. of course every team change some players, but it is the current team.


 * There is no sport more representative for Brazil than soccer, they’ve won the World Cup five times, but of course since they are black now you want to put a picture of some other sport showing white athletes.


 * There is no link because it wasn’t taken from the internet, AlexCovarrubias put the correct licensing.


 * About the Maracana picture, tell me isn’t it a soccer stadium as well? So you want to show the buildings but don’t want to show the people because they’re black? Again many people here have accused you of racism before, it’s become quite normal for you.


 * And finally, this discussion is about Brazil, if you want to open a discussion for Mexico, go ahead, why are you mixing Demographics with Sports? The image is purely a sports related matter. Supaman89 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The current team? You watched the Copa América?
 * The Brazilian volleyball team won the World League 7 times, won the Olympic Games 2 times, won the America Cup 3 times and won the Sudamerica Championship 26 times; and?
 * Wow. Where it obtained then?
 * Kaka is black? Cicinho is black? Lucio is black?
 * Many people? (You, Covarrubias and Opinoso)
 * Finally, We go to open a great discussion in Mexico Talk Page, later that to finish with this discussion.
 * Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:13, 26 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:


 * At his main page, he says that prefer cold weather (which is not part of Brazil, not even in the South, that has a cool wheater, not cold at all).


 * His old profile sayed that he "As a patriot Brazilian I want the world to really get to know my country, the present-day Brazil, specially because Hollywood cliches tend to give people a very bad, totally wrong idea of what Brazil is''.

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)


 * Hello Opinoso. As you are a well known Brazilian editor and contribuitor to this page, your opinion here clearly demonstrates that this is not a "Mexico vs. Brazil" crusade as some editors want the rest to believe. This matter is serious. When you can't place a picture of the most internationally-recognized symbol of Brazilian culture (the National Soccer Team) in the Brazil article, well, then something wrong is going on.


 * In the past, some other editors have pointed the same problems that you indentify in this article, most notable the racism shown by some editors. I completely agree with you. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 21:54, 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)


 * Exactly, his behaviour clearly demonstrates, without a doubt, that he thinks that adding a picuture of natives is something bad that can demerit a country. That shows his bias and, above of all, his racism. In the same way, he thinks that adding a picture of black or mulatto people is something bad for Brazil. That is very wrong and sad. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Opiniso, you may not care about FA criteria, but other editors want this article Featured, we will follow the whole criteria, including the problematic WP:SIZE. By the way, Mexico is far away to be a Good article and Featured. Carlosguitar 22:23, 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)

Uncivil behavior
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. 

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?

What is this obssession with Europe? Opinoso 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncivil behaviour? Bravo that’s an excellent way to escape from this debate, please go and contact an administrator so we can really solve this issue once for all; actually I would like to invite more users to this discussion as well, so they realize all the racism that’s been going around this article for quite a while, and we can all decide a more objective decision about the picture.Supaman89 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say Opinoso. I have already contacted an administrator. Let's see if you can explain to him why you and Covarrubias have the "right" to offend people that disagree with you by calling them racists. If you two think other people are racists, keep it to yourselves. You can think whatever you want to think, but you can't say whatever you want to say. In this talk page we try to reach a consensus when there is a disagreement, we don't use it to attack people. We can criticize other user's opinions, not other users themselves. Sparks1979 23:23, 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)


 * Let's let administrators decide that. You and your friends have been blocked several times. I've never even received a warning. Your "records" speak for themselves. Sparks1979 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's always a first time to be blocked, Sparks1979. By the way, why don't you argue about your racist comments and your obssession with Europe? It is better than to play the victim. Opinoso 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Another image dispute? people you must remember that if the article has any chance of getting to Featured Article it must be stable, something this page hasn't been in months. Now everyone stop the uncivility, the next person to bash another user will get a warnig for uncivility, In cases like this sometimes the best solution is to seek neutral help, maybe opening a WP:RFC will help. - Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit warring continues, if this goes further without any discussion I will remove all of the disputed images and protect the page to prevent further edit warring until this is settled the way it should, by reaching a consensus. - <font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree, that’s why we are discussing the issue right here, to stop the edit-wars, again as I mention before this is not about Demographics, so I don’t know what the mention of indigenous peoples have to do with this, it is purely about the Sports section, and how can some people argue that is it okay to put the Brazil National Volleyball Team (mostly whites), but it’s not okay to put the National Football Team, without a valid reason, they argued that that picture only represented Soccer, and then put the Maracana Stadium picture instead… like that’s not a soccer stadium, I’m not the first one to notice all the discrimination going around in this article so now they try to escape this discussion saying that we’ve been acting with “Uncivil Behaviour”…Supaman89 01:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted the reasons for my disagreement in your talkpage, in Covarrubias's talkpage and in my vote in this page. I think a picture of the soccer team would be appropriate in a section or subsection about "soccer". The section is about "sport", so I prefer something more generic. I'm not the only one saying this. Dali-Llama also doesn't want the picture, as well as Felipe C.S and now Guilherme. Guilherme didn't want to post his opinion here because he felt he would be called a racist if he did. See how the "racism" accusations have ruined the debate? Sparks1979 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're being hypocritical. Our arguments to place the picture were that the National Soccer Team is world-wide famous, successful and respected. But you and Joao thought that our intentions were based on race. Proof? Your racial comemnts on my user page, and Supaman89's user page. Proof? That you and Joao asked us to "add images of indians/natives to the Mexico article instead" to be  "fair" and to not play "double standars" by "adding a picture of the Brazilian soccer team".


 * Clearly, you and Joao were motivated by a race and clearly you both thought that adding a pic of mostly black soccer players was a "bad thing". Joao even went further and modified the Mexico article, because he felt "so ofended that we added a picture of black pepople but none of indigenous people in the Mexico article". So, don't play the victim and don't blame us. Our motivations were purely sportive. Clearly, you and Joao made this a racial issue. Now, I don't feel comfortable with this "debate". After all it seems that you guys end up doing what you want. How sad and biased. Bye. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 05:17, 27 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. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal
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)
 * I agree with it as a compromise.--Dali-Llama 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would get the job done, so why not? <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Here are some preliminary candidates of licensed pictures:

1.

2.

3.

I will look for more tomorrow. Sparks1979 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather see a picture of the opening rather than of athletes.--Dali-Llama 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a section about the sports, so I feel that a picture of the athletes would be the most appropriate choice. Any one of those would do fine. The Brazilian government does license all images under a free use license, correct? <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the athletes represent sports better than the opening of a ceremony. - <font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  04:23, 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? <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid   —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the perfect solution for me would be a picture of a stadium with a football match. The whole team thing doesn't seem right for me, considering the Brazilian football team changes every single game and we couldn't put a picture of other athletes without having the other people call everyone else a racist.--Dali-Llama 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still can't see how this got degraded to a racism related thread, if the desicion was mine just to avoid the issue mentioned above I would put up a image of a sports icon such as Pelé, but in here it will probably end with people complaining about race again. - <font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  06:20, 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)


 * They aren't real? Which are the really Brazilians for you? This comment is really racist.
 * I agree with this picture... But the image of the Stadium or of the Ceremony are neutral. They don't show black or white people, simply symbolize the sport. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Supaman, stop lumping everyone together as if this is some big conspiracy. I never gave an opinion on the volleyball thing and I'm only saying I'd rather have a picture of a large sports event (such as a football match) than athletes. I wouldn't even have a problem with a picture of a match by the Brazilian national football team, but it's just seeing a row of athletes standing up doesn't help illustrate anything besides who's on the team.--Dali-Llama 16:26, 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)
 * Well I didn't put anything--I'm suggesting, that's all. My point is that it's different showing a participant than showing the action. I think it's fair to say that if we had to choose one image to illustrate "Sports" in a country article, the actual sport being played is more important than its participants. And I have to say this seems to be what is done in other country articles with sports sections: United Kingdom, France, United States and yes, even Mexico. The sport is emphasized over the athlete--that's my rationale for having a picture of a match rather than a team. --Dali-Llama 22:34, 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. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is a fantasy
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. 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)

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)
 * I see your emotion, and I empathize with you. However, I am afraid that there is no way to post my response in a sensitive way. You are assuming bad faith, and cite other assumptions of bad faith to back up your view. You feel offended, and I can see why, but I don't see an intentional attempt to offend you or anyone else. The user had an incorrect statistic, and tried to change the article to reflect this bad statistic in good faith, as he was trying to make the article more accurate though he himself was inaccurate. Racism did not motivate his edits; it was misinformation, plain and simple. I am an outsider to this dispute; I am neutral, and I can look at this with fresh eyes unclouded by emotion. I do not see racism; I see a simple misunderstanding that caused serious accusations and many hurt feelings. If you do not believe me, then file a request for comment on his user conduct. Let the larger community decide if this user is a racist. However, your refusal to take part in this discussion and not make accusations of racism are hurting the article that you so desperately want to improve by preventing the content dispute theater of this dispute from reaching a conclusion. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a second external editor I see no racism involved either. To me the picture of Maracaná is as representative as the picture of the Azteca in Mexico. Moreover I see a double standard: the involved Mexican user deleted the picture of the Central Market of Mexico City (probably the largest in LA) because it wasn't "modern" enough, and vehemently opposed the inclusion of of the native Languages of Mexico in the main article. . This whole argument seems to be motivated by a sheer competition between the two countries (which has been carried on to Talk:Economy of Mexico, Talk:Economy of Brazil, Talk:Argentina, Talk:Latin America, Talk:North America, etc.) from both parties. In my opinion, both pictures, Maracaná and the football national team (the majority "Afro-descendents") are perfectly acceptable. This is not an either-or issue: both represent Brazil in different ways. -- the D únadan 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To Opinoso
All of you could look at this?


 * May 2007
 * June and July 2007
 * August 2007

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)


 * You understood me... :D Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. I still do not know why you keep writing here, since you don't even know what we are talking about. lol. Opinoso 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha... (or in Spanish for the our Mexican friends: Jajajajajaja...) Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposals
First Proposal
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - The team changes constantly. This picture is already outdated by two years. 2)Showing the team doesn't help to illustrate sport in Brazil other than who was once in the national team.--Dali-Llama 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - I support this picture because it is the most powerful soccer team in the world, and most importantly, it would represent Brazil very well, since Brazil's National Team and the Rio de Janeiro Carnival are the two most world-wide recognized symbols of Brazil. Alex C. (Talk?) 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the most powerful soccer team in the world, but lost the 2006 World Cup... Lol Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - Brazilian sport is a lot more than only football. Brazil has the best volleyball team in the world (which is more dominant and successful than the soccer team), and it is very competitive in many individual sports such as judo, swimming, sailing, MMA, motor racing sports, indoor soccer (which is a different sport), etc. I think a picture of the Brazilian national soccer team is not so bad, but I think it makes the casual reader think Brazilian sport is only about football, when there is a lot more to it. If we had a section about “football”, then, logically, I would agree with a picture similar to this. Since the section is about “sport”, I don’t. Anyway, if it wins, I really don’t mind, since I don’t think it’s so bad. I will think about the other pictures later. Sparks1979 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support- Brazilian soccer is known all around the world and our players are the best ones. They need to be in the article.Opinoso 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - As per Dali-Llama and Sparks1979. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - I've plenty of paragraphs above explaning my reasons. Supaman89 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose A football team does not represent sports, it represents simply football. Sports is more than a group of 11 athletes running after a ball. Sports includes every physical activity. A stadium is the house of the great majority of these events. It is the landmark of sports. -- the D únadan 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - Per Sparks1979. — Guilherme (t/c) 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - The image of Brazil 'Samba and Football' MUST GO. We are not just football in sports and we are not just samba in music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs)

Second Proposal
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - While this is a bit more interesting as it's the Pan-American game athletes, they're not at a sports event: this is a political event. It does not illustrate any sporting activity in Brazil whatsoever. This would be a great picture to demonstrate demographics, but that's not what the Sports section is about.--Dali-Llama 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - It addresses the race issue brought up in this dispute in addition to representing athletes from all sports, which is one of the main criticisms of the football picture brought up by Sparks. I think that this picture would make the most people happy, while adequately dealing with the Sports aspect of the section. I think that this picture is every bit as encyclopedic as the third proposal, as you can't play sports without athletes. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid ''' 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - I've plenty of paragraphs above explaning my reasons. Supaman89 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support - I still think that nothing represents the sports community better than the athletes themselves. - <font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose A volley ball team does not represent sports, it represents simply volleyball. Sports is more than a group of 6 athletes hitting a ball. Sports includes every physical activity. A stadium is the house of the great majority of these events. It is the landmark of sports. -- the D únadan 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]]Comment - This is not a volleyball team... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]]Comment - Yeah, actually Felipe is right this time, the picture is not about Volleyball, it is actually about ALL the athletes from various sports that participated in the Pan American Games.Supaman89 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - Same reason that my vote for the 1st proposal.  Alex C.  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  07:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - Same as The Hybrid — Guilherme (t/c) 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support This represents the reality, we are much more than good footballers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs)

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 D únadan 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose While a stadium is more representative than a single team of a single sport, the quality of this picture is not as good as the fourth proposal. In fact, the fourth proposal is better because it pertains to an event of all sports, the Pan-American games: the event that gathers all athletes of diverse sports from diverse ethnicities. -- the D únadan 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*Support - As per Dali-Llama and Dúnadan. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - The picture of a stadium doesn't represent sports, but only a building. A building doesn't represent sports, athletes do. Alex C. (Talk?) 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - I’ve seen a lot of comments above arguing that the first picture only represent soccer, but isn’t this picture about a soccer stadium as well? Aren’t they playing a football match? How is that different from the first one? The only difference is that this one doesn’t show up the player’s faces which are mostly black, and some users here have been trying to hide any trace of Afro-Brazilians and are only showing the white ones, which by the way already have four pictures denoting a white-brazil.Supaman89 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]]Comment - Supaman89, please! Everybody is starting to get along, we've had enough fighting already. Don't start talking about racism again! The pictures of "white people" are actually pictures of authorities: the Emperor, the current President (Lula), and the President of the Supreme Court. Every article about countries has pictures of authorities, this is 100% normal. In Brazil, we've never had a major political authority (Presidents) that wasn't white, so what do you expect? Currently, as far as I know, there isn't a single Governor or Mayor of large cities that isn't white. 90% of celebrities are white. It would be great if there were more celebrities of other ethnical groups, but there are only a few - this is the way it has always been in Brazil. There may be racism in Brazil, but this is not our fault. The important thing is that there is no racism in Wikipedia. Calm down man. And no hard feelings. Now it's time for peace. Sparks1979 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]]Comment - I will take this to ANI if any more allegations of racism appear. That isn't meant to be a threat, but I'm sure you all understand that there will probably be at least two blocks resulting from such a thread. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose Represent soccer as the only sport in Brazil. — Guilherme (t/c) 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Proposal


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - Supaman89's deletion of Sparks1979's fourth proposal is unethical (despite him claiming otherwise). Are we really interested in improving the overall quality of the article or not? Supaman and Alex believe "people" represent sports more than a "stadium"; myself and others believe otherwise. If we are to select either one, the choice should be the picture with the highest quality. If other users wanted to include this fourth proposal that they believe would enhance the article, they have the right to do so. -- the D únadan 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If a stadium [a building] doesn't represent sports, I suppose a pic of the Stock Market doesn't represent the economy either? The argument against a building is ludicrous. The buidling is used ex professo for sports, it is the landmark of sports, the house where all kinds of sports are played. To me, it is as representative as showing the Nou Camp in Catalonia or the Azteca Stadium in Mexico. Moreover, the Pan-American games are representative of all sports and a gathering of all athletes. -- the D únadan 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - As per Dúnadan. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - The picture of a stadium doesn't represent sports, but only a building. A building doesn't represent sports, athletes do.  Alex C.  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]]Comment - Lol This is the Opening Ceremony of the 2007 Pan American Games... The second largest sports competition in the world. This, of course, represents the sports. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - I might change my mind later, but I really like this picture. First, because it represents all sports. Second, it represents a very recent event (2007 games). Third, I think this picture is really beautiful. I also like picture 2 for representing all sports, but I think this picture is better, for the other reasons I just mentioned. Picture 3 would probably be my next choice. For now, I stay with 4. Sparks1979 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - This picture is consistent with my rationale that sporting events (such as matches, championships, etc.) should be shown as opposed to individual athletes, and I would consider the Pan-American games the most important example of that. --Dali-Llama 03:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]Oppose - As Alex C. — Guilherme (t/c) 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]Support - As Sparks1979 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * It seems like we've had two more votes since my last post, one by Guilherme and the other one by Denisxavier. So now option two has more votes. Personally, I am still not happy with the choice because it's a picture at a political event featuring the president (and I'm sure Opinoso will start complaining about how Wikipedia loves Lula and how this is the third picture with him in the article). Considering the three most involved Brazil editors are in support of No. 4, I'm willing to accept whatever decision they make, be it a compromise or rejection of the poll. I'd like to remind everyone that polls are not binding, with the ultimate goal being consensus/compromise. So let's hear what the other people who did not vote for no. 4 have to say.--Dali-Llama 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While assuming good faith is paramount, I would advise a review of Denisxavier's history (or lackthereof) of contributions before jumping to any conclusions. -- the D únadan 17:19, 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)
 * True, the poll should be taken into consideration in order to reach a compromised consensus. Please read WP:VOTE and WP:Consensus. -- the D únadan 17:30, 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)
 * Good! And welcome to Wikipedia. You are invited to edit as well if you feel inclined to do so. -- the D únadan 17:48, 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)

Resolution
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)
 * Please read Dali-Llama's comments above. Wikipedia does not work by relative majority, not even absolute majority, but by consensus. Even if that is not the case, a round with the two most-voted options and a discussion of those two to reach a compromise would seem appropriate before editing. -- the D únadan 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously people have different opinions and we are not going to get everyone to accept the same proposal, hence we have to go with the majority of the people, in this case the majority of the people voted for the second option, even if it was for a just one vote; the users that didn't like that proposal have to accept the decision, because most of chose it, what’s the point of having a vote if people are not going accept the results. Supaman89
 * I repeat, please, please, read WP:VOTE. The purpose of voting is polling not imposing a decision, and neither one is substitute for discussion. Even if you want to act "democratically" (and wikipedia is not a democracy), most electoral multi-decision systems implement "second rounds" in order to get absolute majority of the winner and first runner-up. Until now, we only have relative majority (i.e. by one vote). But we are missing the spirit of Wikipedia if a decision is forced upon everybody when consensus could have been reached otherwise.-- the D únadan 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the way Wikipedia works, Supaman. The poll (not a vote, really) is designed to see if people are willing to accept a compromise in one proposal or another, and to see if there is an overwhelming majority in one alternative, which can then provide a starting point for a consensus or be the consensus itself There are instances where an overwhelming majority may suffice, but this is not the case here. This is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Again, I don't want to get into the whole editor qualification thing, but suffice to say that we some well-established editors on both sides of the argument, and both sides do not agree yet. I would be saying the same thing if it was the other way around, since I understand and respect the motivations for some members who voted for No.2. --Dali-Llama 18:21, 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 agree with you in all except in your last assessment. Lack of consensus doesn't mean the article should not be changed. Disagreement on the current status and the need for change actually motivated the discussion, and the lack of consensus simply means there is no agreement as to how to change it. -- the D únadan 18:39, 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. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote is not "against" policy, but it is not recommended. Moreover, it is still premature to conclude anything. For starters, the process was set up as a "poll" (i.e. approval voting with more than 1 selected option) and not as a single voting system. As such, I don't think it is accurate -or even fair- to infer any simple "majority" winner. (For example, more people voted against option two than against option four). If you believe that voting is the only available recourse right now, then we must clearly set up the rules of how people should vote and how to count the votes.
 * As a side note, I was astounded to read the very obvious and direct ad hominem arguments or even plain personal insults from many of the involved editors, that would have merited not just a warning, but an affirmative administrative action.
 * -- the D únadan 20:29, 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. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) We finish/restart the vote and put everyone on an honor system to obey the solution. The advantage to this being the dispute ends quickly and painlessly. The disadvantage to this is that it isn't a consensus, and it doesn't necessarily prevent #2 from happening.
 * 2) We take this through the dispute resolution process. The advantage of this being the decision is official and final. The disadvantage is, of course, it will result in several blocks, and will probably take longer.
 * Hybrid, I have to say I disagree with the way you're making your argument. You are literally saying, to a few of the users involved, "either accept voting as the method to determine consensus, or bump it to DR, where you'll be blocked for personal attacks". This is a fundamental clouding of the issue: you have to separate between personal behavior issues and article content issues. I understand your motivations that in doing so you're trying to avoid users from being blocked and giving them a chance to compromise, but in this case, given the alternative, I will not accept under any circumstance a personal behavior issue dictating the outcome of a content dispute, regardless of the outcome itself. This is penalizing users on the minority side who have no behavior problems. So let's just be clear and disassociate what is editor behavior and what is a content dispute. Everyone has valid points about which picture should be on the page, though the manner in which some may make those points is ad hominem and insulting. But when I hear comments like "shape up and shut up", I question whether or not you have the right approach to this. You have to remember that the people who started accusing others of racism are the ones in the "majority" right now--so according to your logic, it's the aggrieved editors who have to "shape up and shut up" in order to accept a majority vote. And when you say "if everyone acts with a certain level of honor, then this will bring this dispute to an end right now", "this" implies the four editors in the minority should accept a majority vote, and if they do not do so, they would not be acting honorably. I'm sure that's not what you meant in both these cases, but like I said--you need to disassociate the behavior issue from the content issue. I'm okay with a cool-off period on this, or more discussion. I am not okay with either side unilaterally "calling" a consensus (and I know you're not the one who suggested this). If anyone wants to bump this up the DR ladder, I'm okay with that too as I've stated that user behavior and content changes belong in two different places on the DR ladder. BTW, I added back the oppose votes (while clearly stating that only the support votes would count towards any majority/minority) because I do think it's important for people to voice why they oppose particular pictures. We would all like to know why someone is supporting a particular proposal, and I voted for proposal 4, for example, i would like to know why others would oppose it.--Dali-Llama 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at Spark's talk page, then you will see that I want, and have been trying to, keep the two separate. What you need to understand is that when this goes to DR it will not be separate anymore. This is because they will block the disruptive users first since leaving them unblocked to make attacks during the consensus-determining discussion would be, quite frankly, stupid. All that they have to do is look at the abomination of a discussion above this too see what would happen if these users were allowed to participate. So, if this goes to dispute resolution, then you're wishes that the content and conduct portion of the dispute remain separate will have no chance of being fulfilled. Also, whatever the outcome of this vote may be I will follow it, regardless of who wins, Libertarian's honor ;). If the aggrieved lose, then they lose, too bad, life isn't fair sometimes. I have no intentions of using a bureaucracy to deny the majority their victory just because I don't respect them as people. I'm the one who proposed the idea of a vote, and I'm not about to flip-flop on my own message. Honor isn't a word that I use lightly. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  06:02, 30 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)
 * Which two pictures you're talking about escape me, but I've grown bored and annoyed. I'm just going to be bold with what I think you were suggesting, and if anyone doesn't like it then they can say so. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've grown bored and annoyed a long time ago. I think maybe we should include the two most voted pictures, pictures 2 and 4. That should make both groups pleased and end the discussion once and for all. What do you think? Sparks1979 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having the two pics (2 and 4) is perfectly fine with me, in fact it would be a compromise and a consensus. -- the D únadan 00:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried, but Dali reverted me (again) because he believes the section is too small. I have a way to fix this, assuming I can track down the user page with the code on it :P. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it! I was even able to get 3 pics in there. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  06:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that looks horrible--you're squishing the text to force it to go down and then adding three images. We either add content to make room for the second picture, or we keep working on a consensus.--Dali-Llama 07:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it looked good; I'm going to copy the material onto a user subpage so everyone can look at it to judge it, and not just you. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:The Hybrid/Brazil is where it is located. I encourage everyone to look at this potential compromise. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I can guarantee you that any GA reviewer would downgrade the article when he saw that on account of improper formatting and too many pictures for one section.--Dali-Llama 07:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is something else that I can try, but I don't know if I can pull it off. I could use a table with no visible borders to allow us to lower the number of images to two, but still force the text into a position that it looks acceptable. I will mess around on my subpage and see if I can do it, but I'm not making any promises. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I'm not proposing this (the column setup) as anything more than a temporary fix. As soon as any content is added this setup will fail, which is what I think your problem with it was, stated in different words of course. This would work in the short term, however, and after more content is added a picture could just be deleted with the columns and it would look fine. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  07:46, 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. <font color="Steel blue">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)


 * It's incredible how Dali-Llama can't accept other people's opinion. Are you a kind of diactator or something similar? You want us to accept the picture you like.

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)


 * This is not a game, and not a either or voting but a poll. No one loses. The spirit of Wikipedia is consensus and content that is inclusive not exclusive. I invite you to read the rules, policies and recommendation that define what Wikipedia is and what we strive for. -- the D únadan 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why that won't work, but regardless I've found a compromise and since Dali hasn't replied yet we're going to use it. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, it looks like more content has been added so the table is unneeded. Good, good good good. Well, as long as someone else doesn't come up with an excuse to not use this compromise it looks like I'm done. Cheers, <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly happy with a compromise. But what I don't understand is why you selected the second and the third picture, instead of the fourth picture? Did I miss something? Selecting a picture that wasn't voted doesn't look like a compromise to me. -- the D únadan 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. That was just my own negligence fused with Dali not correcting me, or just being negligent himself. Cheers, <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, add one picture. You changed the size of the article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two images was the compromise. It doesn't appear to be causing any problems anyway. <font color="Steel blue">The  Hyb  rid  20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now.--Dali-Llama 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)