Talk:Paulo Francis

Untitled
The page practically slams Paulo Francis all the way and seems to be collected from a very selective variety of sources. I can tell the major author of this page is highly critical of Francis' political alignments (so am I, but the page isn't about my opinions). For instance, is it appropriate to state that Paulo Francis never achieved anything? That his journalism was nothing but cheap slandery? This seems to go against the principle of representing all relevant point of views fairly.

Some people think he's a myth, ahead of his time (as in this article in the newspaper he used to colaborate for, Estadao.

I'm adding the Check Neutrality tag. Betina (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Betina: Please read the article carefully, and you will see that it acknowledges Francis' achievments as a critic and novel writer - which in fact is an awful lot, as many Brazilian (and non-Brazilian as well) journalists have tried their hand at such fields without achieving even transitory relevance; but it also must acknowledge the fact that Francis' final demise had much to do with the dubious quality of his late journalism, as shown by the fact that his final polemics had to do with a very serious public charge unsubstantiated by any proof. Francis had a lot of friends and admirers, but the fact is that they haven't so far produced much in the way of a serious, objective analysis of his career and work Cerme (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS to Betina: I will not challenge the Neutrality tag, but I would advise you to concentrate, for instance, on Francis' commentary reproduced at footnote 29 to the article (about the "dirty presence" - in Portuguese, presença suja - of Afro-Brazilians) and then to think if being highly critical of such a commentary can be considered as biasedCerme (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS 2: A note on sources: my sources are almost the totality of sources on Francis readily available on the net and elsewhere, with the exception of the short biography by Daniel Piza, a colleague of Francis in Estadão, which, however, says nothing much new and is of doubtful value, given the author's known tendency to commit mistakes about facts, dates and names. The documentary by Hoineff mentioned by you in the link above received a critique in O Globo last Sunday for limiting itself to the usual line of saying how great Francis was and that his "mistakes" (his bigot commentaries) were only "jokes", "playing a character". At least sources more critical of Francis have the merit of taking him seriouslyCerme (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would advise you to concentrate, for instance, on Francis' commentary reproduced at footnote 29 to the article (about the "dirty presence" - in Portuguese, presença suja - of Afro-Brazilians) and then to think if being highly critical of such a commentary can be considered as biased


 * This article seems to be moved by an active lack of confidence in the reader's own judgment. The sentence you mention is elusively racist and it stands by itself. How was it received overall? Positively? Negatively? Was there, as you said, a character behind it? Was that seen as a sorry excuse by many people? Let the reader know both sides, you won't build his opinion by concealing information - e.g. Francis was indeed slapped by Tonia Carrero's husband, but later apologised. The reader will see this, and decide whether the apology was enough.


 * The documentary by Hoineff mentioned by you in the link above received a critique in O Globo last Sunday for limiting itself to the usual line of saying how great Francis was and that his "mistakes" (his bigot commentaries) were only "jokes", "playing a character". At least sources more critical of Francis have the merit of taking him seriously" It is on Wikipedia's POV policies that you have to represent the magnitude of each side properly. For instance, you see little merit in not taking him seriously. I too think sarcasm is sometimes an easy scapegoat, but the page isn't about my opinion or yours, it's about him and about the entirety of opinions available on him (e.g. something like "supporters claim he was often misinterpreted through his sarcastic persona, yet critics think said persona is used as an excuse for ignorant statements" could be helpful). People themselves shall judge which position is more valid, no?


 * Also, the Estadao article serves as an example of a supporter. Yours, of the Globo, remains as the example of a detractor - they both are biased in their own ways, they both represent a significant fraction of popular opinion on him. I am defending that you and others actively "give each side its due weight", and be confident enough in your own position that you let the overall repercussion of his work speak for itself.


 * Anyhow, thanks for keeping the Neutrality tag. Betina (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I have just looked up the statement you mentioned, which refers to Afro Brazilians. The statement in the article about "presença suja" is not referring to them, brought up when he mentions Rio, but to the "retirantes" from the North East that he mentions a sentence earlier. Unlike what you cite in the footnotes, it doesn't seem to be elusive enough of a statement to serve as a definite proof that he hated African-Brazilians and Northeasterners (doesn't he defend social development in the column?), but the opinion remains relevant nonetheless - it needs, however, to be characterised as such. While on the subject of the footnotes you left, Wikipedia is not the place for your own original analysis of his work. Costa's opinion on Francis remains, because it is indeed relevant to know why he moved from one newspaper to another. Anyhow, characterising opinions as such, and facts as such is recommendable. "There was something inconspicuous in his writing" is not factual. "He often targeted the Left" can be. Etc. 189.102.233.166 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, many of your critiques are consistent with Wiki policies and therefore I will re-edit a conclusion to the entry accordingly to them. I myself wasn't entirely satisfied, for instance, with the parallel I drew between Francis and C. Hitchens, as similarities between them exist but are to be taken as arising in entirely different environments and having entirely different consequences. What I will do is trying to draw a contrast between the rival views in the appreciation of Francis' legacy between the Brazilian Left and Right, which I think is the most relevant issue. Remember, however, that this will take time and that we are to work - as far as possible - in tandem, until we reach a satisfying middle point.Cerme (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DoneCerme (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * > The "Legacy" section is now significantly better. Thanks. Betina (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you, Betina. I will try to develop more the article in the section on Francis' novels, which I personally think are perhaps his most important accomplishment. The main difficult around this entry is that there's still too much talk about Francis as an individual and too little about his work yet. As there's no stand alone study on Francis, I shall have to search various works where he is studied en bloc with other writers of his generation. I will begin by downloading the article by M. Silvermann through JSTOR and reading itCerme (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Check Neutrality tag ever removed from this article? Consider this passage:

"Eventually he dropped out from Columbia—or perhaps was simply unable to receive a graduate degree because he had already dropped out from his undergraduate studies in Rio, a subject about which he was always less than candid[3]—showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes,[4][5]imprecision, garbled recollections"[6] - a trait of what was to become his personal "method": "the absence of careful research, established facts, precise information [...] becoming eventually - through excessive generalization and lack of patience [...] - downright bigotry".[7]"

And many others from the text are not only non-neutral: the authors were very angry indeed. Paulo Francis was a polemical intellectual, and as such, much has been written derisively of him - picking up the unkindest words of criticism and referencing them as fact, alongside original-research speculation on the author's motives and private thoughts (that pop up every then and again on the article) is hardly encyclopedic. The political subtext of the article, which associates Paulo Francis Left-Wing inclinations with a sincerity that is abandoned as his moved towards the Right-Wing, is also crude and schoolboyish. I'd suggest an almost complete rewrite.


 * This was already discussed above between me and Betina. Wikipedia cannot allow its editors to offer brand-new material in the form of previously unpublished research; however, its entrys must reflect the current scholarly consensus on the subject. The quotes offered from published works, all identified, are samples of the said current consensus, to be altered when and if such a consensus changes.Cerme (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see a "scholarly consensus" here - the article basically just reiterates Kucinsky's personal, inflammated opinions dozens of times. Moreover, speculation on personal motives, and crude, politically biased evaluations of value of the kind presented here are not object of serious scholarly inquiry, let alone of consensus. Compare this article with articles about other polemical figures - say, Tom Wolfe, or Jacques Derrida - and you will see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.88.89.233 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An scholarly consensus being the sum of opinions expressed by scholars, based on independent research, said consensus on Francis is more or less expressed by the quotes and references I have amassed. I must say that Francis' late admirers have failed so far to offer an alternative view. I do not think that Kucinski's opinions on Francis are incendiary; on the contrary, they tend to lenience: when Kucinski, for instance, "maintains that the reason for Francis' ideological shift should be sought in the 1978 South Lebanon conflict, as only Francis' shock before the leniency of liberal American media towards oppression of the Palestinians could explain his self destruction as a journalist" (cf. Kucinski, "Paulo Francis", pg. 91), he is offereing an educated guess - based mostly on post hoc ergo prompter hoc - but then he uses "maybe" in the text - as to the motives of Francis' ideological volte face, that is, in my view, possibly very much a projection of his, Kucinski's, own concerns as a Jewish leftist intellectual; the motives attributed to Francis by José Carlos de Assis (see the references), for instance, are far more common and gross and would allow for a much harsher judgement on Francis' ethics. Were it not for the fact that I have, conservatively, put Professor Kucinski's views above the journalist Assis' ones ( irrespective of the fact that Assis worked many times in tandem with various scholars), the text would be far more uncomplimentary. But then what I have tried to do, after Betina's suggestions, was to try to concentrate mostly on discussions about Francis as a writer, where there is a much more solid consensus and where positive and informed opinions about his qualities outweigh speculation about his politics - a field where, in my view, he fares poorer. But then I haven't said anything that was not traceable through the notes to a reliable sourceCerme (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant partiality and POV
I tried to fix, at least partially, some of the more complicated sections of the article, removing for example the unnecessary and non-encyclopedic titles, and bits like "One of his most infamous smears was when he expressed his desire to have the WP MP-cum-unionist, the Afro-Brazilian Vicentinho, "whipped as a slave"; in another of his obiter dicta, he stated that "the discovery [sic] of the clarinet by Mozart was a greater contribution than anything Africa gave us until today" - which is something more appropriate to a magazine or newspaper article or a blog than an encyclopedia. However, my edit was reverted with no justification, and therefore I bring the subject here so other editors may express their opinions. RafaAzevedo msg 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

POV?
"One of his most infamous smears was when he expressed his desire to have the WP MP-cum-unionist, the Afro-Brazilian Vicentinho, "whipped as a slave"; in another of his obiter dicta, he stated that "the discovery [sic] of the clarinet by Mozart was a greater contribution than anything Africa gave us until today"

Okay: What is said in this quote is that:

1. Paulo Francis wrote in his newspaper column that an Afro-Brazilian MP from the Workers' Party should be "whipped as a slave" 2. The same Francis wrote, again in the same column, that the single (and bogus, BTW) discovery of the clarinet by Mozart outshone all African achievments to human society.

The two quotes were made as examples of his late racism, and they should be deleted if proved false. However, both quotes are plain facts, as shown in the references given (Kucinski's book). Unfortunately, there are many fringe rightists in Brazil who hate to cope with sad facts about their poster-boy. Simple as thatCerme (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem obviously is not in the quotes per se, but in the blatant partial and libelous way you have chosen to present them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, newspaper or blog. If you want to badmouth people whom you disagree politically, I suggest you do it somewhere else. Things like "infamous smears", "MP-cum-unionist", "his obiter dicta", are clear examples of something that should never be in an encyclopedic text. RafaAzevedo msg 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Cerme has asked me to offer my 2c on both articles where you have both been edit-warring. I'll post my comments on the MST article there, but I will make some general points on your discussion here. First: I understand both of you are editing three articles that are by the nature of their subjects highly charged, politically. At no point should either of you resort to ad-hominem attacks. You don't need to dispute someone's motivations for editing in order to make your point. Wikipedia is built around policies which try to make one's POV irrelevant. So, let's stick to the edits themselves.

On this article: A long time ago I had a lengthy and arduous argument with a user on the Fernando Collor article. We clearly had different viewpoints. One of the ways we tried to deal with them was to separate on the talk page the points under contention. Instead of wholesale edit-warring, I ask that you both put in a little bit more effort and point out here, on the talk page, which particular passages you have issues with. It's a little bit more work, but it's worth it considering one of you has already been blocked for WP:3RR violations. I think that's a good starting point. Once that's done, I'd be more than willing to put in some work on mediating both sides. Both of you are active, long-standing editors (more than 3 years...) and I don't want you getting bogged down over three articles. Shall we give it a try? Just make a list of different passages under contention and your opinion on them and I'll chime in as well.--Dali-Llama (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just did, in this and on the previous topic. If you look at my edits in the article you can see several parts which were written in a clearly non-encyclopedic tone. Of course Paulo Francis had its detractors and critics, but Wikipedia cannot cite their opinions as its own; the article must always have a neutral tone, and let the reader make up his mind. This article, as it was, bordered dangerously on being more a journalism piece or a blog article, than an encyclopedic entry. RafaAzevedo msg 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of these parts which presented third-party opinions (almost invariably by Kucinsky or other Leftist critics) as being either Wikipedia's own, or somehow 'endorsed' by Wikipedia. RafaAzevedo msg 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Striving at reaching a consensus.
Okay, let's begin to do the homework at Dalilama's prompting:

1. I have been charged with selecting sources that "detract" Francis, which is not the case: Kusinski is a great admirer, who calls Francis a "genius" and puts him in the same intellectual level as Glauber Rocha. I must admit myself to be a big fan also, as Francis offered me the opportunity to develop various intellectual interests. Blind approval isn't the only form of admiration.

What is the relevance of Francis in Brazilian intellectual history?That of a superb essayist and critic and an intriguing fiction writer who becomes one of the most admired figures of the 1960s "New Left" (i.e, not formally connected to the various Left parties) intelligentsia and suddenly in his middle life makes a sharp and ill-explained volte face and turns into a poster-boy of the most conventional conservative views, defending them with all the old language resources directed towards opposite goals. To his late rightist admirers, this is usually treated as a kind of revelation, to be accepted without reflexion - therefore the fact that fans of the late Francis have done next to nothing in order to evaluate criticaly his career - in the process, BTW, consigning his early work to oblivion. His Left admirers, howver, cannot afford the luxury of an uncritical acceptance and must examine his work and deeds more closely - hence my abundance of critical (but in no way libellious) sources.

Now, going into particulars:

2.Since the career of Francis is defined in terms of his intellectual history, I do not see why not to describe it in the terms of his intellectual development, instead of simply offering a dry chronological titling (which would be, by the way, inconsistent with his chronological age: Francis "early period" ended in his mid-thirties, his "middle period" extending into his late fifties). If this is an interpretation, so be it, for without it the article would amount to something like: "Francis, Paulo (1930-1996): Brazilian essayist, journalist and novelist".

3. I see that the episode around Francis smearing the MP-cum-tradeunionist (which means simply MP & tradeunionist: in Port. that would go as "o parlamentar-sindicalista") Vicentinho with racist fumes was suppresed. Yes, blind acceptance has this dead end, as one must suppress (Stalin-like, BTW) anything that does not makes the admired one the sum of all human perfections and genius.... Not only is the episode a fact, but it had nothing of an accident: it was only one of a spree of racist and ethnocentric rants directed, in both spoken and written form, toward Amerindians ("not even fit to be slaves" - another suppressed episode), Arabs, people from the Brazilian Northeast - in short, all who were not "Western Whites" such as he wrote in praise of Fernando Collor ("Strong, comely and Western White"). Say what you like, these were an important part of his late intellectual life and of his conservative views as he saw them. Whan I call such views "infamous" (dictionary.com definition: "of ill repute, with a bad reputation") I'm only echoing present-day common sense, something admited implicity by the editor who suppressed these...infamous declarations, who were one of the chief varieties of a Francis speciality: his obiter dicta (i.e. his remarks "by the side").

4.That Francis' fatal heart attack was somehow triggered by his plight as defendant in a libel suit, is Kusinski's view and also quite probable, if only on a post hoc ego prompter hoc basis, but I make no bones about that.

I rest my caseCerme (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I even hint that the article should be only made up of "blind approval", or that the quotes should somehow be hidden or eliminated. What I opposed then, and I continue to oppose, is that these quotes be presented with your (or even Kucinski's) personal point of view about Francis' words. To call a statement 'infamous', 'racist' or any adjectives of the sort based solely on an editor's opinion (one's "present-day common sense" isn't always another's) is not something an encyclopaedia, let alone one governed by WP:NPOV, should do. In the same line, your opinion that the earlier, 'leftist' part of Francis' career somehow is more 'memorable' and praiseworthy than his later, 'rightist' years, is, with all due respect, merely that, your opinion, and the article should not make such assertions of value unless if it is quoting someone relevant discussing the subject. RafaAzevedo msg 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My reply:

1. To call a racist outburst racist is not an "opinion" it's fact: we have a fact - that Francis expressed, in print, the desire to have an African-Brazilian congressmen flogged (or better, expressed a desire to personally flog him) as a slave. A consequence ensued: the statement raised a scandal at the time - that is, was generally seem as infamous (again, the meaning of "infamous" is clear: something that has a bad reputation)and that is also a fact.

Its also a fact that this particular outburst was not directed solely at a particular individual: it expressed Francis' general convictions at the time about the lack of culture and achievments of the whole entity generally known as "black race" (as expressed in the comparision between Mozart and Africa). Such convictions are generally seem as racist, and that's not my particular "opinion", it was simply the objective commonsense view expressed at the time- as well as today. I could, by the way, quote sources among Francis' late admirers saying this multitude of opinions disparaging and vilfying non-Europeans and non-Whites were simply ironies directed against "politically correct" stereotypes, but in this case I will have to mention the fact that many of Francis targets, including the congressman Vicentinho, didn't take such "antics" lightly and had him sued for racist libel, something that was left undecided by courts at his death. If these are opinions, they are not simply mine or anyone else's: it's a whole climate of opinion. And a generally held opinion is as much of a reality as a rock or a tree.

2.I don't remember expressing the opinion, in the article at least (as opposed to the discussion) that Francis' earlier work was more noteworthy than his later one: that is actually a question of personal taste. What I remarked is that the objective existence of his Far Left phase (to which belong the bulk of his written corpus, the totality of his non-posthumous fiction and of his theater criticism as well as most of his essays) is as much a fact as his conservative phase. In fact, I have abstained from mentioning others' opinions that simply say that the incoherence of Francis political shift made the whole of his work useless and bound to eventually go down the drain of oblivion, an extreme view I find personally most unfair - however, I admit that, all things considered, it's an understanable one Cerme (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To say that Africa never yielded anything more culturally significant than the work of Mozart is not a "racist" statement; that is, as I said, merely your opinion, one that many people (myself included) disagree, and hence cannot be classified as "commonsense [sic] view". I doubt that Francis, a man who notoriously loved the jazz music sung by Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald and many black singers and composers, would say that the "black race" has a "lack of culture" or "achievments" [sic]. RafaAzevedo msg 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Francis' racism
My exchange of opinions in the preceding section is currently becoming bogged because I'm facing an ideological commonplace still current amid the Brazilian middle and upper-class: the inability to accept the racist character of much of their ideology, something that puts me in the obligation of proving the obvious. But then, patience, and here we go:

1 Even to "compare" Mozart's achievements to African cultural achievments in general is comparing two non-commensurate qualities, something akin to say that bananas taste "better" than apples - unless one assumes thare exists something as an hierarchy of cultures. Perhaps I should even decline to make a list of African cultural achievments, basing on the fact that drawing such a list would be to consider lack of knowledge in the field legitimate, but, however, I would like to point, e.g., that all of Modern art as we know it wouldn't be possible were it not for the influence exerted by African art on Picasso's painting; that a Nigerian writer like Wole Soyinka is long in the list of Nobel Prize Winners (something no Brazilian writer has so far attained), etc., etc.

2. Paulo Francis loved jazz, so he cannot have been a racist...Wow! C'mon, please, this is like the proverbial line of the antisemite saying that "some of my best friends are Jews". Let's keep it simple: Francis countless times argued for the overall cultural inferiority of Blacks, although he conceded that "Negroes [and I believe he was not above using the infamous term crioulos, which in Port. is similar to nig***] sing and dance a lot, and should confine themselves to it", something like that (that's is in his quarrel with Caio Tulio Costa). But then that's the problem about Brazilian commonsense ideology, who refuses to admit that the writer Monteiro Lobato was a racist - even when he argued for a "final solution" through massive sterilization to the negro problem - because one of his children's books characters was a sympathetic (and entirely submissive) female black cook. Well, perhaps a Black editor could know better, but I'm doing what I can.

That's itCerme (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you like African culture or music does not make anyone who doesn't like it a racist. This is, once again, your personal opinion on the topic, and should not be, in any shape or form, in the article. Your attempt to label me as "middle-upper class" only serves to show very clearly the ideological imprint you are trying to place on the article. If you have some kind of problem or grudge against Brazilian society or some of its members, Wikipedia surely is not the proper place for you to try to 'fix it'. RafaAzevedo msg 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Practical tasks
The cuts done in the article were so extensive that even info on Francis' pro-American view about Brazilian cultural heritage being that of the USA was deleted. What I propose to do is simply to restore the article to its original form and change its wording a little bit: for instance in the place of "infamous" remark, I will put "controversial", or "scandalous", in order to leave no doubts whatsoever about the objectivity of the editor. With this, plus a few more changes in vocabulary, I think we shall have the relevant info restored. Since I will not have time for that in the next few days, that will allow other editors to make additional comments & suggestionsCerme (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As no additional suggestions were offered, I restored the article to its ancient form, with a more non-controversial wording of the sections' titles, and some additional info in support of some points. I look foward to discussing further editingCerme (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I haven't been in enwiki for quite some time, therefore I couldn't proceed with this discussion. I'll look at the changes made and see if they're appropriate; in any case, the article should 'not' be restored to its ancient form, as it contained several issues. RafaAzevedo msg 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I replaced the version previous to this discussion. Things like "A controversial personality, Francis became a highlight of modern Brazilian journalism through his essays, in which he showed multifarious intellectual references, at the same time developing a variety of literary journalism noted by an intriguing and complex meld between the vernacular and literary language, biting wit and sarcasm - such characteristics being taken for granted by friends and adversaries alike, but which eventually came to be considered by his critiques as a bonus as well as a limitation. The fact that late in middle life he performed a sharp political shift - from the Extreme Left to the Extreme Right - also contributed to fan controversies around his personality, his intellectual consistency and reliability." are merely unsourced opinions, and should not be in an encyclopedia. RafaAzevedo msg 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This part has the same problem, it is nothing more than the editor's opinion: "showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes," RafaAzevedo msg 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As is to be seem at the head of the talk page, the article received peer-review after a request, and it was suggested that the first paragraph, being a lead, should contain a summary of the article as a whole, which of course would have no references, which should be offered in the following paragraphs Cerme (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, wherever they are in the article, opinions should not be presented as if they were "Wikipedia's own"; they should always be attributed. It seems clear to me that in an encyclopedia (especially one that follows WP:NPOV) these kind of personal stances pro or against the author should not be presented in its first paragraph. RafaAzevedo msg 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Facts and opinion
What the summary contain is the following, IMHO:

1. Paulo Francis was regarded as a journalist with high stilistic skills; 2. He performed a political shift in his middle life; 3. That rendered him a controversial personality, who during and after his lifetime offered opportunity to in various polemics between him and his peers, and/or between hios admirers and adversaries.

I would like to know what is "opinion" in these statements; to me, they are simply public knowledge Cerme (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole bit shown on the previous topic is riddled with POV, albeit disguised in a quasi-encyclopedic text. I see no need to repeat everything here in a new topic. RafaAzevedo msg 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to rewrite the opening bit, removing what I thought was either too opinative or too irrelevant for the introduction. RafaAzevedo msg 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "whole bit shown in the previous topic" is simply a summary of an opinion on Francis expressed by an authority - in the case Professor Kucinski, who is BTW followed in his general apreciation of Francis by other authorities, such as Professor Isabel Lustosa and Darcy Ribeiro, whose commentaries (by menas of actual quotes) were removed. The "impartiality" asked for in the case, methinks, is to refuse as "opinative" everything that cannot be used to extol Francis as the poster-boy for the RightCerme (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is an opinion. Whether by an 'authority' or not, Wikipedia should only quote opinions if it lets the reader know it is exactly that - an opinion - and attribute it to whoever made it. And I am yet to see a serious and impartial encyclopedia that has opinions on the introduction of its articles (maybe a 'Leftpedia'...). The quotes you mentioned, such as Darcy Ribeiro's, were being presented in a clearly biased and non-contextual way, - once again - to serve as a 'prop' for a totally partial text which insisted in transpiring the editor's personal (negative) views of Francis. RafaAzevedo msg 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again on bias
It's difficult to discuss with people who don't realize what an encyclopedia is, exacly; every presentation of a life, an historical event,etc. is, by its own nature, biased. What Wikipedia requires is not an absence of opinions (and to portray, viz., the late Paulo Francis as a serious intellectual, and not as someone fond of producing libel in behalf of various interests, is an opinion also), but that the opinions presented are those backed by known authorities in the field and in the public sources available - therefore, new research is banned. If "opinions" were banned as unencyclopaedic, I wonder what would happen with the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica ed. where the article on Freud was written by his friend Ernest Jones, as the biography of Lenin was written by Trotsky. I admit I may have a very poor opinion on the late Francis' politics, but then I have the authorities on "my" side, as apparently no one, even his friends, has seem fit to describe his later pieces of libel as some kind of high Literature or Political Science - at least in the sources available. However, if someone appears with other sources, I would argue for including them in the text alongside the other sources; what I cannot admit as serious is the exclusion of sources whose "flaw" is only that they oppose attempts at whitewashing someone's biographyCerme (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The obviously growing personalization of your 'arguments' ("It's difficult to discuss with people who don't realize what an encyclopedia is") just shows that the user doesn't really have rational reasons to support the maintenance of those problematic issues in the article. Again, I don't understand what was the purpose of opening up a new topic. RafaAzevedo msg 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We must apply WP:NPOV, particularly "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." and "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By the way, Active Banana, would it be suitable to please ask you to restore what you deem suitable to Wiki standards amid the sourced information I provided in earlier editions of the article? That would include topics such as: (a) why was the magazine Senhor considered "legendary"; (b)Francis' connections to American diplomats and the poetress Adrienne Rich; (c) Francis role in upholding American cultural influence in 1950s and 1960s Brazil; (d)Darcy Ribeiro's estimate of Francis, etc.Cerme (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Legendary" rarely has any excuse for being in an encyclopedia article. Fame by association is not appropriate. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but could it be said (with the adequate quote to support it) that Senhor was praised for the quality of both its graphic projet by the Brazilian graphic writer Bea Feitler and of its literary pieces (including, as is said, various world-class Brazilian writers as Lispector and Rosa)? That's why Francis' joint editorship (with journalist Nahum Sirotsky) is so important in his biographyCerme (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about Francis and so all the content should be directly related to him/his impact/responses to him. So the sourcing would need to directly cite something like "under the editorship of Francis the magazine did/became/was known for/published the first works of ___" or "Francis took the magazine from point A to point B". The focus being on Francis and objective, meaningful descriptions of what he did (or what others did to him or in response to him) Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Lead (1)
The previously lead ran thus:

"Although initially a sympathizer of left-wing ideologies, describing himself as a trotskyist,[Paulo Francis] late in his life, after living for years in the USA, he performed a sharp political shift, advocating and supporting a more right-wing and liberalist stance, pro-capitalist"

I have revised it, for the following reasons:

1. He was not a sympathizer of "Left-wing ideologies": he was a sympathizer of a particular variety of Left politics, and opposed himself to Stalinism as the ideology of the CP-based intelligentisia of his time.

2. That he lived in the US when he performed his political shift is immaterial: many others made a similar shift living elsewhere.

3. The remainder of the phrase would be okay, if we were describing the intellectual trajetory of a scholar and/or political thinker. Francis wasn't any of these: he was simply a jornalist (albeit a well-informed one) and his early leftism was as intellectually patchy as his late conservatism.

That's enough, for a startCerme (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't possibly agree with your 'newer' version of the lead since it's virtually identical to the previous one. Since you insist on removing everything I added, I am keeping the core of the old text but removing the unnecessary and biased adjectivation and unattributed opinions ("such characteristics being taken for granted by friends and adversaries alike, but which eventually came to be considered by his critiques as a bonus as well as a limitation", "also contributed to fan controversies around his personality, his intellectual consistency and reliability"). RafaAzevedo msg 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Part I
In revising the part about Francis early life, I have tried to explain, with the help of RS, (1) his early upbringing; (2)his professional choices leading from promising actor/director to paper critic; (3)His role in a process of Americanization of cultural life in Brazil; (4)His anti-academic stance;and his consequent carelessness. I have left particular examples to the footnotes, as what interested me was not to show what he knew or didn't know about Ancient History or the History of the Pacific War (he was no scholar in neither field), but his general modus operandiCerme (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The so-called 'carelessness' and other judgmental statements made in this section (as in the rest of the article) are merely Kucinski's own opinions on the matter, and should be either attributed to him (or to whoever he is quoting) or should be removed. I simply can't understand why you insist on placing these opinions as if they were being made by Wikipedia itself, despite pillars such as WP:NPOV. RafaAzevedo msg 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also removed certain expressions which are definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia, such as "he earned kudos". RafaAzevedo msg 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to dictionary.com, "kudos" means simply "honor, glory, acclaim" and is dictionarized since the XIXth. Century and common in a journalistic context. To say that "he earned kudos" means simply "he was praised"; only, since Francis was a journalist himself, why not to use a journalistic expression? Stylistic-based choices should be avoided on Wiki?Cerme (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they should. Have you ever read an encyclopedia? It is a media completely different, stylistically speaking, than a newspaper or a magazine. What does it matter that he was a journalist? If he was a comedian would the text of his article have to be funny? RafaAzevedo msg 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to grasp what is the point. Specific differences notwithstanding, the fact that an encyclopaedia should be serious and scholarly does not preclude that it should be well-written when possible in order to enagage interest. Well-written, as far as I know, includes a careful choice of words and stressing the riches, the various choices of vocabulary, of the language employed. As "earned kudos" has an unambiguous meaning ("to receive praise") it doesn't suffer from vagueness. The phrase means only that Francis was praised by his fellow-journalists for his theater criticism, and "earned kudos" would stresss that such praise came in the first place from his colleagues, as well as from the general public. And yes, if Francis were a comedian, describing his funniness would require the text to be, to a certain extent, funny itself in order to convey the specific aspects of his comicityCerme (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ~But then I will let the change stay, pending on third-part counselling. It does not change content, only leaves the text somewhat unimaginative as far as vocabulary choices are concernedCerme (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Part II
In this second part, I intended mostly to describe the intellectual influences that shaped Francis mature career, such as (a) The Trotskyst movement, therefore the mention to members of the Braz. Left Opposition; (b) The Brazilian contemporary cultural movement, therefore the mentions to Senhor magazine and Bea Feitler; (c) The Cold War and Francis' position as a Trotskyist, which stranged him from the pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese Left of the time and attracted him to the US. I mentioned Francis connection to John Mowinckel, the cultural attaché of the US embassy in Brazil between 1967 and 1969, because he was mentioned by Isabel Lustosa as a friend to various Brazilian intellectuals and also because he was obviously engaged in the Cold War cultural front (he was former OSS, and therefore, mostly probably CIA) and must have been, for good or evil,a fascinating personality, well worthy of subsequent research - and a Wiki entry of his ownCerme (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, several opinions are 'thrown' at the reader, without being appropriately attributed. There are also a couple of statements with no reference whatsoever. RafaAzevedo msg 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I must admit, unfortunately, that I don't realize exactly what the editor is talking about: my abridgment at the talk page, or the article itself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the general trend of my editing of the article, which was concerned with offering an intellectual biography of Francis: what he did as an intellectual and the various responses to it. Such responding to his intellectual production couldn't have other form but of opinions about his work. In my abridgement at the opening of this talk page section, what I tried to do was to explain that I tried, in the article, to expose the basic idea, expressed by Isabel Lustosa, about the apparent contradiction contained in the fact that the 1950s/1960s Francis was, at the same time, an extreme leftist as well as being pro-American in cultural matters, and that this is what explains his ultimate choice for moving to the USA in 1971, instead of, say, France, Sweden, Cuba, the USSR... (all places of destination of various other contemporary Brazilian exiles). That's it, and I don't know of any alternative explanation to this fact - Francis decision to move to the USA, that is; but then if I'm offered one from a reliable source, it shall be included in the article, by me or my any other editor. After all, I do not own this article. That's why I nominated it for GA status, in order to have various third-part views that will undoubtely contribute to our common interest of having the best article possible. Personally, I think that the best to do now would be to await the results of the reviewing process from the "outside" in order to work anew on the article around some form of a consensus, and I apologize beforehand for any possible shortcomings in explaining my editorial choices.


 * Before a final statement, as my reply is already to long, I must open another paragraphy for the sake of clarity and state that, neverthless, there's something we "inside" editors could maybe sort out by ourselves, about how this article should look like: fact is, Francis' public persona was that of a highly controversial personality, that triggered various, heated and bitter exchanges of opinions around his views and statements. Therefore, how could his biography, up to a measure, do not convey some of the controversial character of his actual life? After all, he never was one, AFAIK, to try to avoid such controversies, quite to the contrary! Cerme (talk)

Point-to-point discussion- Part III
In discussing the reasons for Francis' political shift, I have decided to underline the intellectual causes envolved, therefore giving preference to Kucinski's and Lustosa's explanations - although I had, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to acknowledge the existence of explanations that see the whole thing as simply a case of selling-out. Be as it is, all views I could find that had a reliable source behind them are presentedCerme (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I also reduced examples of Francis' racist smears to the barest, most representative minimum-not least because of the necessity not to have such statements given much opportunity to propagate from the WP siteCerme (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Part IV - Last Year.
In describing Francis' last year, I think it would be important to show how resistence to him hardened in his last year of life, as well as the fact that he was eventually lost support from his Establishment connections - one can hardly say that his last episode was unexpectedlyCerme (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please withdraw GA nomination
This article needs images, copy editing and a longer lead that adequately summarizes the content. The refs also don't seem to conform to standard formats. Please withdraw the nomination unless you can make these changes in the coming week. Otherwise it will be failed for now. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis: copy-editing, relevance and politics
The article needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker. Also,there have been heated discussions about its relevance - since it refers to a personality who is virtually unknown outside Brazil - as well as to various issues related to the political bias inevitable in a biography of someone who took various (and mutually contradictory)partisan stances throughout his live. It would be better if the editor who will do the copy-editing were to some extent familiar with Brazilian History and politicsCerme (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article already has a template box at the top: Template:Copy edit, and that is all that is needed to draw attention of other editors to help with copy editing.  An RfC should be used if there is a particular issue with the article's content.   Is there some specific problem or question that needs help?   If so, what is it?  If not, the RfC should probably be removed. --Noleander (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The most pressing question to be solved in the article seems to me its use of the English language - i.e. adapting it to standard Anglophone usage by pointing which sentences and paragraphs do not conform to it and what alternate forms should be usedCerme (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I'm just pointing out that the RfC process is best suited for content/factual problems, not for copy editing.  I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to see if anyone else can help out. --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed RfC. Will be added again when the copy-editing issue is solved and we can discuss the substance of the articleCerme (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The prose is strange, is it translated from Portuguese sources? Nearly every sentence needs development. I am happy to make the effort to anglicise this article if someone convinces me it won't then get deleted as non-notable. Can someone do that? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, translation problems are one of the issues. I would add the fact that most contents were so contested (see the various discussions above) that I tried to add as much information as was available and that "overloaded" every sentence with subordinate clauses. As to relevance, let's say that the importance of Francis as an author in Brazil is equivalent to that of Christopher Hitchens in the Anglophone world - with the difference that, in terms of style, Francis was far more unconventional than Hitchens is. One could also say that Francis was also something akin to a Brazilian V.S. Naipaul - as far as their politics are concerned, that is Cerme (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if notability in Brazil means notability for the English Wikipedia, but let's assume it does. I'll start now. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, after all the English Wikipedia is the most international of all wikis. BTW, I have seem your copyediting of the first sections. It's very goodCerme (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep an eye on me. I am not sure about some of the meanings. Rumiton (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read the article - your copyediting was great! I had only to add a precision about the meaning of a single phrase. Thanks a lot Cerme (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let me know if I can help further. Rumiton (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When did the American Midwest become the Rust Belt?
Francis offered as a reason for his political shift...

..."a (supposed) trip to the American Midwest, "the industrial center of the country" where he allegedly had seen "nothing to equal it, in the way of progress and workers' welfare".

I have added the "supposed" for the fact that I suspect the trip to be bogus, as Francis never mentioned it before his shift. But he could have been to the Midwest innumerable times, given the fact that one of his regular duties as foreign correspondent was to cover American primaries and presidential elections. But then, could a Brazilian journalist who had already toured contemporary Japan & Western Europe see the 1970s American Midwest and be flabbergasted by it? Wasn't the American Midwest of the 1970s already the Rust Belt?Cerme (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)