Talk:São Paulo/Archive 1

Conflicting weather data
In the text about the climate it is written that the highest ever recorded temperature for the city is 35.3 °C-->' The recorded high was 35.3 °C (95.5 °F) on November 15, 1985[12]', however if you take a look at the weather table right below, it says that in September a temperature above 37°C has already been reached, and the month of December also has a record high that is higher than 35.3°C. If anyone out there knows which data is accurate, please correct it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grlima (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong data
I removed the following passage: * Buildings: the city is the 3rd in the world in number of highrise buildings with 5,644 losing to only Hong Kong and New York City. The number cited refers only to the buildings registered in Emporis' database, and is thus irrelevant.

As of 07/02, the aforementioned lines have been restored to the article. However, I still disagree with their inclusion. Please reer to the cited website (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/). It is written there: "[_the list_] is drawn entirely from statistics in this website's database, and reflects only completed high-rise buildings as defined by the Emporis Standards Committee (ESC)". São Paulo has way more than 5,644 'buildings' (as the original line said in the article; the term 'highrise' was included by me, since a floor-level house is also a building)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.125.232 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan/Extended Urban Area
The Brazilian stats agency (IBGE) just put out updated data for the metropolitan and extended urban area of Sao Paulo. The inner city pop is estimated to be 12,000,000+, metro area 16,000,000+, and extended urban area (equivalent to the urban area used by US Stats to define NYC) @ 24,000,000+ inhabitants. This actually makes Sao Paulo the second largest urban area in the world, and not the 7th, as written in the article. Shb103b (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sao Paulo's metropolitan area population according to IGBE is a little less than 20 million. The article states that Sao Paulo is the world's seventh largest metropolitan area not the 7th largest urban area. It's going by source listed by Forstall. There's a difference between a metropolitan area and an urban area in that an urban area's definition usually constitutes the built-up of area of a city while a metropolitan area constitutes areas both urban and rural, not just built-up area. Please also see List of urban areas by population for other comparisons of urban areas. There are many cities that rival Sao Paulo such as Jakarta, Mumbai, Seoul, and Manila. An extended definition would easily put any of these cities well over 30+ million people. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 16:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to IBGE (Brazilian_Institute_of_Geography_and_Statistics), Sao Paulo metropolitan area population in 2010 was 11.244.369. The reference is the "Municipio 2010" table on the IBGE web site http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1766&id_pagina=1  raajneesh  21 september 2011, 12:05 —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

English, please
This is the English Wikipedia article for São Paulo, so could editors with fluent grasp of the English language please be the ones who do the editing? There is so much editing being done by Brazilians who barely know how to write English that often I've noticed perfectly sound passages being replaced by incomprehensible, elliptical texts that don't add anything to this article. I suggest that Brazilians without fluent written English capabilities try to limit their editing to the Portuguese article for São Paulo. 193.37.153.13 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes!!!!! --200.204.51.72 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

YES!! This article needs a full revision in order to eliminate all of the so many errors in English grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.245.64 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when I g(sic)oogle.BR, Goggle.BR shows me wp results in Portuguese but not Esperanto in the first page. What grammar you're talking about? An actual one by the land of the Anglo-Saxons or some of the ones from the Greater India? Or what about restricting the article to Portuguese? On "adding" something, will never know the actual meaning of the web slang "relevance", might someone please display such beasts in decimal form with marks? Perhaps one-language people care to much about mere opinions, France and Mexico roles apparently are different (!!!!!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.248.102 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

THE POLICE!!!
Guys, remove the photo from the Police! The photo you guys put, are photo from Policeman of the BARRO BRANCO ACADEMIA, that is a university to make important cops The real cops, you didnt put The ones that appear in the photo are STUDENTS, not real policeman!

Ethnic diversity
The general numbers maybe are a near estimative, but the 7.5M italian descendants are ABSOLUTELY overestimated, they really are much, but not THAT MUCH. I ask who inserted that information to quote a truthful source, please
 * The estimated number of Italians was changed to 3 million in the article, but the 7.5 million was for a much wider area (the state) than the city. However, no mention was made on Americans also immigrated to Sao Paolo in the late 1800s. Sao Paolo was said to had 10,000 Confederate citizens came after the U.S. Civil war, partially due to Brazil allowed slavery (until 1888) and massive land booms brought attention to Americans in the U.S. as much it had in Europe. + 207.200.116.68 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Descending Brazilian of Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.212.77.9 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool
On my last edit I removed unsourced and POV statements such as: "São Paulo has one of the most sofisticated, and one of the best nightlifes in the world, considered to be the best in Latin America." "The city is also one of the main business capitals in the wolrd, and the tourism regarding this area is one of the main economic activities in São Paulo, however, cultural tourism is increasing, due mainly to the 70 museums and more than 100 theathers that can be found in São Paulo. People come speccially from South American and also from African and Asian countries to go to São Paulo´s highly developed cultural life." "In spite of all problems, the city and state governments have been working hard to decrease the numbers of violence and poor housing. On the last years, homicide has decreased in 36%, and crimes regarding robery have also decreased. The São Paulo police is more efficient when it was 10 years ago, and the works on housing, pollution (water and air) and the flooding are also making effect. Although, the problems are still very present on the city´s life, but it is safe to say that the major part of São Paulo has the same problems as every city in the world." They all came from the same IP: 201.51.49.219. São Paulo City Hall? Tourism Board? I don't know. Maybe just a São Paulo enthusiast and fan of the current administration. In any case, this is an encyclopedia, and statements like those don't belong here. Daniel Trielli 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC) "The city is considered to headquarter more German companies than any other single city outside Germany. Likewise, it is also considered to headquarter more American companies among any other city outside the United States." Either these facts are way overestimated or whoever wrote this please provide some reliable sources.
 * I kinda agree that this article puts the city in a light that is a million times better than it actually is. There really needs to be sections in this article about the outstanding problems that the city has yet to repair, such as the horrible state the waterways are in (it is barely mentioned), awarenesses tourists need, pictures and metionings of the favelas on the edges of the city, and differences between this city and other developed cities throughout the world. Some other things that should be included is the huge differences in wealth distribution that is hardly noted, police corruption and the reasons behind it, etc.

Charlesblack 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we add a box to the page that notices the user that the page reads like an add or there are disputes on the neutrality (would it be considered neutrality???)

Charlesblack 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's stop with this small-village mentality of believing that everything that comes from Sao Paulo is the best or the largest in the world. So petty and yet so appealing. Unverified stories and legends become actual facts in this webpage. Please check your sources before editing.

TOTALLY AGREED! Many sentences seem directly transported from a tourism agency brochure. All the superlatives do compromise the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.245.64 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

German article
The german article looks really impressive. Has anyone discussed the possibility of a translation yet? PHF 15:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The german article is way much better than the english one. Besides, it's dozens of pictures give the viewer a much better first impression of the city. Can't we post these pictures on this article? Native_earthian 1352, May 19 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, looks like a start PHF 00:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * these new pictures are great!

General Mistakes
Please, post here the small mistakes you find on the page (mistakes you couldn't just erase or fix because it would afect other parts of the article):

Mexico city is not located on the [southern hemisphere] as it was claimed on the airspace section. native_earthian 1346, 5/19/2006 (UTC)
 * I got one, your spelling on affect. Just kidding of course... : )

Charlesblack 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In the part where it talks about the climate it says "Snow occurs between May and October", but it NEVER snows in São Paulo. NEVER, my friends. Now I don't know what whoever wrote that meant, but maybe anyone with better knowledge of the local climate might have a clue on that. However, I think someone should erase the sentence, because it's grossly wrong information. Even I might. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.20.148.30 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article is says that the Sao Paulo Stock Exchange is the second largest in the world in market value. The source is from 2012 and is no longer available. However, if the link to the stock exchange is clicked it can be read that as of 2011 it was the 13th largest. If the wiki article for stock exchanges in general is opened it lists the top 20 exchanges in market capitalization, which I assume is synonymous with market value. In this listing the Sao Paulo exchange is listed as 18th as of Sept of 2014. I used the source referenced in that article and looked up the Sao Paulo exchange market capitalization for 2012, and although not listed in order of size, it was clear that the Sao Paulo exchange was nowhere near number 2 in 2012 either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:83E1:2F00:DDBA:A3E3:E26A:DEA7 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No location map?
This article doesn't actually show me where in Brazil São Paulo is located. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just added a pic in the geography section. PHF 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think GTBacchus meant where in Brazil Sao Paulo is located, not where in Sao Paulo state.

This isn't really germane to Sao Paulo per se, but recently I was looking up Sao Paulo and Rio and wanted to see on the map just how they relate, spatially. Of course, Wikimedia maps don't show you any such thing. This is something that has bothered my about Wikimedia for sometime and I have mentioned it to "Big Brother" to no avail. Therefore I want to post the following:

All Wikimedia maps that I have seen are basically worthless. I have never seen a map with more than one city showing. If I segue back and forth between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, I can get a rough idea of how their locations correlate, but even that is vitiated by the placement of "Sao Paulo" on the map. Why can't Wikimedia maps show nearby cities, at the very least? WickerManRalph —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerManRalph (talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

About the vans
I know you are somewhat aware of such rosy views of São Paulo despicted above, but this one is for sure. Since 2004, there's not anymore unregistered vans in the city. But I have to add that this kind of tansport is operated in a very suspicious scheme by semi-mafious "cooperatives", which some people believe - until now, without a proof - to be related to PCC. I can find a source, but probally it will be worthless for the article, as it will not be in English. NeedABrain 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Up until now I thought sources in portuguese were fine? Be bold! Do it anyway. PHF 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Observation points
Are there public observation decks on some skyscrapers? If yes, on which?
 * Yes, but I think São Paulo skyscrappers are quite frustrating. There are rooftop bars in the 45-story Italia Building as well, nearby Paulista Avenue, the famous The View Bar (that one at a modest 30th floor, but in the highest part of the city's plateau). You find free observation posts in the ludicrous Banespa Building (a.k.a. Pocket Empire State) and the crappy highrise favela Zarzur Kogan (this 55 story eyesore is the tallest building in the city. Makes me sick.). NeedABrain 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or... that´s just your opinion...dear... need a brain. Dornicke
 * Buildings in Sao Paulo are not tall due to very restrict city laws about construction and land use. Some fire disasters in the 70´s forced the administration to change the laws, focusing more on security and safety. There´s a relation between the height and the width of the building - the highest the construction, the wider the building base and the land required, even if it´s technically possible to build it in a smaller area. In São Paulo, building a 70-floor building is more expensive than bulding two 35-floors high-rises, so the number of buildings increase drastically in the last 20 years (today there are 5200 building above 10-floors, or 25 meters, in the city). Buildings in São Paulo are recognized by their shape and architecture, not height.

New Page
I've completely reorganised the once hectic page according to Wikipedia's style guideline for cities, WikiProject Cities. I also removed many of the images as some are irrelevant and there were far too many. There are enough great images in this page as it is now which fulfil Wikipedia's role to draw the reader in, not show him a poster design competition! See Images for more details. I have done some copy-edits but this page is in need of a thorough copy-edit as there are many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Please all memebers of the Brazil Wikiproject or indeed anyone continue with the copy edit. Jaw101ie 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As suggested by Wikipedia's style guideline Manual_of_Style and hence followed by many other articles herein, I'd recommend that each entry should be defined (and linked to other articles) only once, preferably on the first time it appears on text. I've lost count of how many times the word "italian" was linked to its respective article "Italian people" in the Sao Paulo page.

Source for Complexo Metropolitano Estendido definition?
I noticed the information about a definition of São Paulo's metropolitan region here called Complexo Metropolitano Estendido. The source says IBGE but I couldn't find anything on their webpage about this. When I searched the web it seems that as good as all pages having this information are either Wikipedia pages (in different languages) or pages clearly having Wikipedia as their source. Can anyone confirm (with direct source) that this definition is an official one by IBGE? I feel that this definition is too optimistic and just a try to give São Paulo a higher ranking amongs the world's cities, and that the official definition of Região Metropolitana de São Paulo is the only correct one as it is now. If no-one can come up with a good source to confirm the existance of a Complexo Metropolitano Estendido, I suggest that this information shall be erased. --Pjred 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That should be Complexo Metropolitano Expandido, not Estendido. I'll try to find a reference later. Fvasconcellos 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried the spelling Complexo Metropolitano Expandido instead and found this page . Still, an increadibly optimistic definition with a total area of 42 737 km&sup2; :-O! This definition can only qualify in a discussion of Megalopolises, and not in a comparision of Urban agglomerations and Metropolitan Areas around the world. I suggest to erase the line "more than any other city in the world except Tokyo, Japan with 35 million." because if this generous definition should be used for other similar areas around the world, São Paulo would get surpassed in comparision with at least some Indian, Chinese and U.S. areas. And, I can't find anything about this definition on IBGE:s webpage so maybe IBGE is only the source for the basic population statistics, with another source responsible for the definition itself? --Pjred 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this should be reworded. The reference you found clearly states that the definition of CME is still under development. An aside: 35 million is the population of the Greater Tokyo Area; the population of Tokyo proper (Tōkyō-to) is about 12 million according to the Tokyo article. If the info stays, the lead should clearly state that Complexo Metropolitano Expandido is a megalopolis, not the city's official metropolitan area—see the New York City article and how the lead refers to BosWash. Saying "The region forms an almost large urban corridor, or megalopolis, with Rio de Janeiro and Volta Redonda" (?) isn't telling anybody anything. Fvasconcellos 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now changed the information so it don't compare the population figure of Complexo Metropolitano Expandido with other areas - it just mentions the existence, and I have made it as a red internal link for anyone who wants to write an article about this area. My Portugese is too poor for me to be able to work with the information on the linked page ;-). --Pjred 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

-To put this to case to rest, the Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo megalopolis contains: cities such as Juiz de Fora, Tres Rios, Nova Friburgo, Greater Rio de Janeiro, Angra dos Reis, Greater Volta Redonda (including Barra Mansa, Resende, etc), Cruziero, Guaratingueta,  AND the Complexo Metropolitano Expandido, which itself is composed of Greater Sao Paulo, Baixada Santista, Greater Sorocaba, Greater Campinas, Greater Jundiai (including Várzea Paulista, Campo Limpo Paulista, Nova Odessa), Greater São José dos Campos, Atibaia, and Bragança Paulista. Thus, the Complexo Metropolitano Expandido is like the US definition of Combined Statistical Area, it forms a ring around Sao Paulo city, of course not perfectly round in shape, but maximum of 70 miles radially or so from SP city. (Yes, SP is like NYC core with LA suburban sprawl). HOWEVER, the megalopolis is entirely different in shape, it long and narrow and a series of metropolitan areas, and streches over 300 miles, from Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo, with a bulge at the end around Sao Paulo because its is more ringlike. Los Angeles has the same problem, is the metropolitan area defined as LA County and Orange or does it include Riverside and San Bernardino counties too? Well...the answer is both, See metropolitan area and Combined Statistical Area if you don't understand it, but neither are megalopolises. An example of two megalopolises include SouthernCalifornia and SanSan, which includes Northern california to SF as well. San Diego under no circumstances could be considered part of CSA-LA, as under no circumstance Volta Redonda would be part of Complexo Metropolitano Expandido Sao Paulo (CSA-SP). San Francisco people can't be lumped into Greater LA, but it could be considered part of the SanSan megalopolis. So Rio is part of the megalopolis, but not CSA-SP. Get it? In the case of Brazil, Rio-Sao Paulo megalopolis itself is just a part of built up region around Southeastern Brazil which includes Belo Horizonte, just as SoCal is part of SanSan. --Mr.GeoFreak -As to specific ranking, No Chinese, Indian or other 3rd world city for that matter, not even Mexico City, have built out suburban areas like this. Indian and Chinese cities have very little car usage compared with Brazil until recently, and haven't had time to make vast sprawling suburbia. No doubt they will with time, but sprawl is not something that characterizes poor nations with little fuel to waste, they often have compact cities for this very reason. US cities(car, especially NYC, LA, SFbay, Chicago), Tokyo (rail) and Sao Paulo (ethanol sugar cane powered) are the most sprawling cities on earth today. --Mr.Geofreak
 * Honestly, I don't see why anyone should be proud of piling up a lot of people in a bunch of buildings. Who wins? We lose. Lose in the queue for the bank cashier, in the waiting for cinema sessions, in the amount of garbage produced by the population, in the horrible traffic that no-one knows why it has to be so bad... Should the population be half of what it is now, we'd be much happier people.
 * Still, I don't consider the CME definition to be anything else than another megalopolis-like definition. It's useless for size comparisions with other worldwide megacities because when the definition starts to go beyond the boundaries for the Região Metropolitana of São Paulo, there's not much of continuous built-up areas connected with the central urban agglomeration (except perhaps for the extension to the area around Santos). To mention its existence is fair, but to use this definition to rank the São Paulo area as 2nd in the world is to take this too far. I consider IBGE to be the only reliable source for official Metropolitan Area definitions for Brazil, and I haven't seen CME mentioned by them so far. But, perhaps someone has other information about this? --Pjred 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to "São Paulo City"
Anyone interested please check Talk:São Paulo (state). Raphael.lorenzeto 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it still needs saying at this point in time, against. No one calls it Sao Paulo city in English. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Surface area
I believe a rewording is in order for this section of the introduction: "According to the IBGE, around 19.7 million inhabitants (2006) live in the greater São Paulo metropolitan area (Região Metropolitana de São Paulo) as defined by the government, making it the fifth most populous metropolitan area in the world, but it's the fourth biggest one in area." List of cities by surface area clearly shows that São Paulo is not 4th, but 39th in surface area. The person who added that tidbit of information was probably looking at the List of metropolitan areas by population, which does show that in surface area, São Paulo is the fourth largest metropolitan area of the top 5 in population. But only of the top five. If you move down the list, you'll find that quite a few more metropolitan areas are larger. Perhaps it should be changed to state that "of the top five metropolitan areas in population, São Paulo is the fourth largest in area." LeviathanMist 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

-You are right...this has been removed. It is a statistic based on mismatched information --Mr.GeoFreak

Citing the sources
Please don't input information for which you can't cite the source. You may find out that it's "common sense" - or put simply, random information collected by the Brazilian media by cutting and pasting, and you may have been brainwashed for believing every word they said.

For the "citation needed" geeks - I don't believe air pollution requires a source citation. I thought this is something you can feel by living in town and having your car completely mudded after a rain shower? In any case, I've found a study case of children with respiratory problems over the course of 10 years. Horrible.

Montevideo?
What the hell is town twinning and why is Sao Paulo compared to Montevideo, Uruguay when both cities have nothing to do with each other?
 * "Town twinning is a concept whereby towns or cities in geographically and politically distinct areas are paired with the goal of fostering human contact and cultural links." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_twinning

How about actually using wikipedia for clearing things out ocne in a while?
 * I think those comparisons do not improve the article. A.Z. 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Favelas
There are serious problems in the content of this page in what concerns to encyclopedial content. It looks like the text were written by the Tourism Bureau. There´s almost no references to favelas and poor neighborhoods. I am pretty surprised... didn´t know this is the city where I live!Dornicke 01:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree! A.Z. 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, all pictures currently on the page depict places as much more beautiful than they actually are, especially Masp, Paulista Avenue and the Ipiranga Museum. A.Z. 23:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn´t bother me. It is pretty difficult to find a less beautiful image than the Ipiranga Museum - it is a beautiful place, the picture must show that. The same to MASP. But it is necessary to show the other side of the city too. Favelas, for example. And typical locations, instead of

touristic points. 201.52.160.128 04:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There´s no mention at all about favelas in São Paulo... not even in the part of crytical problems... 201.52.160.128 04:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article should also show some pictures from the other, decadent, impoverished, farwaray corners of the city like Jardim Ângela, Paraisópolis, the favelas of Guarapiranga, the plattenbaus of Cidade Tiradentes at the east of the city, the giant elevated expressway Minhocão, Cracolândia, etc.--MaGioZal (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to include these pictures in the correct parts of the article. Opinoso (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyline picture
I would like to ask for not using this image - Skyline from São Paulo city.JPG - as a title for the skyline of São Paulo. This picture doesn't depict a global vision of the city, only some buildings in the 23 de Maio Avenue. The current image, showing the downtown (including Copan and Edifício Itália) depicts more properly the skyline of the city. Fsolda 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, please discuss this issue. I see Opinoso has not responded to commentary at his Talk page, so I hope there will be no more reverts tomorrow. Please do not let this deteriorate any further into an all-out revert war. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it takes a third opinion to break this revert war, I prefer Opinoso's picture. Having said that, both images need a review of their copyright status.--Dali-Llama 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like this picture not to be called a "skyline"... It's not a skyline, but rather an "aerial view"!!... -- NIC1138 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay Parade
I've seen that three or four differnet users have identified the inclusion of this section as "vandalism" and have deleted it. I have read the section and it is well written and referenced. Is there a reason -or a previosu discussion you can refer me to- as to why this section needs to be deleted? I just hope that it isn't due to some unacceptable reasons.-- the D únadan 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know which revision you're reading, but as of this revision it's still there.--Dali-Llama 02:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gay Parade section has been entirely removed before at least one time, but probably more than that. This diff shows me reverting it. A.Z. 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And here you see it being removed 45 days before I restored it. A.Z. 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep—I've reverted its removal a couple of times myself. Sort of a recurring theme of vandalism, if you will. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gay Parade/protestant parade one right next to the other doesn't smell very academic to me. Seems like people are using this encyclopedia to pursue their religious/gay rights agendas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abedholm (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gay rights supporters/protestants use their parades to persue their agendas. As they managed to make huge events with millions of people, this encyclopedia documents it. A.Z. 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument is getting old. For eight years this section of the article gets completely deleted; it is ridiculous and transparently homophobic. You don't have to agree with the parade or what it stands for, but it exists and it is the largest such event in the world. That is encyclopedic. Stop blanking this section, please. —giso6150 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Paulistas vs Paulistanos
I am almost entirely sure that, contrary to what this article states, the inhabitants of the City of Sao Paulo are commonly called "paulistas" whereas those that live in the state of Sao Paulo are known as "paulistanos." Can anybody confirm or falsify this? Dschumacher 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is correct. I'll look for sources. A.Z. 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See here and here for dictionary entries. A.Z. 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to pay to access those, but there's free Wiktionary: paulistano, paulista. A.Z. 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Next time you have questions like these, I highly recommend asking at the Wikipedia language reference desk. A.Z. 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.Dschumacher 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Paulistanos = inhabitants of the city of São Paulo Paulistas = state of São Paulo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.12.16.206 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. The inhabitants of the City of São Paulo are called "paulistanos" and who lives in state are called "paulistas". I'm pretty sure about it, because I was born in the City of São Paulo, and I'm a paulistano (well, and a paulista too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.2.133 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article could use some emendation. While posters above are right about current usage (whatever third parties might think about which version makes more sense ;), paulista did originally refer to the inhabitants of the city (it wasn't even the name of the original province) and especially to the bandeirantes slavers. This could be noted, along with when the term paulistano began to be used to refer specifically to the urban residents. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Metro Population
The Metro population is shown as 500,000,000, which clearly cannot be true. Please someone change the population back to the correct number. BigEyedFish (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime
Seriously, a city in Brasil with nothing on crime?? Come on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Have you been reading the news? São Paulo is ranked 492th in homicides per 100 thousand inhabitants. Actually, I'm adding that information to the page. Perhaps we should expand it and make it a full section. 189.62.57.146 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Education
The whole section on education in the city is missing, there's no information at all on the universities and other educational institutions. Probably the largest city in the world not to have this rather standard and important chapter included in the article. JdeJ (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Current critical problems - POV?
I read the "Current critical problems" section and it seems SO POV. How do we make it NPOV? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the section and it seems to me it could use more references. It looks like standard criticism of many large cities. If these cities really did grow without significant overall planning, are traffic congested, have polluted air and water, impoverished quarters, etc. it is not POV to state the fact. However, in my opinion, a reference is needed for each such assertion. Gallador (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Section about crime & PCC Attacks
Currently there's only one paragraph regarding the violence in São Paulo. I think it should be expanded into a full section, as this is a very important aspect of the daily life of the city. Most importantly to begin with, there should be information about the May 2006 PCC attacks, and about the decrease in crime rates that's being observed for the past 8+ years (ie "Mapa da Violência" (violence map; all newspapers published January 30 08 have articles on it). These are the fundamental topics any decent article should cover, but there are many others. Budsbd (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, while the recent progress with homicide has been remarkable, an article about the city without even a mention of the worst outbreak of violence in recorded Brazilian history is very wrong. Additionally, a better description of the heavy kidnapping that occurs in the city is needed. SieberNewsAt7 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Italians
The number of Italians (including people of Italian origins) is NOT overestimated. Sao Paulo does have the largest Italian population in the world and the number of Italians or partialy Italians is indeed around 6 to 7 million. Also, there is no mention that Sao Paulo is considered the gastronomic capital of the world. Someone here said this is not a marketing site and therefore such things must not be included. I say that if you think so, then other features on articles about other cities must also be changed, since several city articles explicitly talk about the great points about those cities. Tango —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.79 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Violence
Is it written in English?Opinoso (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I erased it, because of its poor English and no sources at all. Opinoso (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not enough on problems
I have posted a neutrality warning on the page as there is not enough about Sao Paulo's problems. In comparison to the rest of the article, the section on issues is very small. Posted at 7:58 on Saturday 22nd March
 * yes, in São Paulo aproximately 60% of the population are from italian descendents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.54.198 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

education/literature/press
the area of literature is very poor, São Paulo has a very important literature, there are no education area and it don't tell about the press in the city, wich is very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.54.198 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in Sao Paulo
This article states that 13.3% of the inhabitants of Sao Paulo "lived in poverty". The source provided for this information has been misinterpreted, in my view. The table in the website referred to as the source of the information only shows the distribution of family income among residents of Sao Paulo in minimum wages. 13.3% is the proportion of families who live with an income of less than 2 minimum wages. One minimum wage in Sao Paulo is currently R$415.00 per month, or around US$252.00 in today´s rate. Considering the average size of a Brazilian family at 3.3 people , we see that those 13.3% of "paulistanos" are actually living in extreme poverty. I think a more accurate figure for "paulistanos" living in poverty would include those families living on up to 5 minimum wages, which would total 37.69% of the population. This is no doubt a much more reallistic figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athaydesbr (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement above is wrong. Using US$ to make a point is useless since the cost of living in Brazil cannot be compared to American Standards, if so, exchange currency rates fluctuations would alone be a factor of social mobility (that´s why in a macroeconomic level we have the GPD PPP – Purchasing Power Parity). For example: R$ 830 (two Brazilians minimum wages) is not as low to be considered “poverty level wage” since a typical “Cesta Básica Paulista” - All the food, personal hygiene and cleaning requirements (basic level of comfort and nutrition) for a standard São Paulo family (3.8 people) in a month costs approximately R$ 172. A Big Mac, Fries and Coke costs in São Paulo like R$ 5.5, so with R$ 830 a family can eat approximately 40 times at McDonalds (they would also need to live there since all money would have gone). Brazil divides families by income in A, B (High and High Medium Class - 15% of total population), C (Medium Class - 46% of total population), D (Low Medium Class 23% of total population) and E (Low Class “Poverty” - 13% being 2.2% (estimates for 2008) living in ONU´s “Extreme Poverty Level” – Less then R$ 50 per month). The 2 to 5 minimum wage is in the D Class Level "Low Medium". A better approach for Americans (after years living in Brazil) is thinking as 1:1, a thing costs in R$ (in Brazil) the same amount would cost in US$ (in the US). You can sustain a family of 3.8 with US$ 830 in the US with the same level of live you would sustain a family of 3.8 with R$ 830 in Brazil. (DANIEL) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Public transport
The public transport section states that São Paulo's underground train system is modern, safe, clean and efficient, considered one of the best subway systems in the world.

I would like to suggest this text be replaced with a more unbiased, realistic text like Sao Paulo is served by a metro rail network that is comprehensive and expansive by Brazilian standards, though somewhat undeveloped in comparison to comparable cities elsewhere in the world.

It is not acceptable for Wikipedia to paint such a fake picture of the city of Sao Paulo, which is known for rampant crime, widespread poverty, traffic jams and a overcrowded public transport, if anything really. To say that Sao Paulo's subway system is among the best in the world is an insult to other big cities in the world which, unlike Sao Paulo, have been investing heavily in public tranport for decades. Sao Paulo is one of the 5 biggest cities in the world, although its Metro doesn't even rank in the top 20 []!

No word is mentioned about the 130km of traffic congestion faced by motorists every day in the city, or the precarious state of the comprehensive, but insufficient and overcrowded bus network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athaydesbr (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand that "insult" thing... ackward. But the proposed section is better indeed. I would remember that the metro system is in fact considered as efficient and clean as other world standard subways. Paulistanos are used to have that idea about the metro and to show proud for that. Dornicke (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Subway systems from New York, Madrid, Barcelona, Santiago de Chile, Berlin or Munich are efficient and dependable. Not the São Paulo subway system, which clearly doesn't have the capacity for all of its users. Public transportation in São Paulo is a problem, not a feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.148.131 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The public transport section states that São Paulo's underground train system is modern, safe, clean and efficient, considered one of the best subway systems in the world.

I would like to suggest this text be replaced with a more unbiased, realistic text like Sao Paulo is served by a metro rail network that is comprehensive and expansive by Brazilian standards, though somewhat undeveloped in comparison to comparable cities elsewhere in the world[11].

It is not acceptable for Wikipedia to paint such a fake picture of the city of Sao Paulo, which is known for rampant crime, widespread poverty, traffic jams and a overcrowded public transport, if anything really. To say that Sao Paulo's subway system is among the best in the world is an insult to other big cities in the world which, unlike Sao Paulo, have been investing heavily in public tranport for decades. Sao Paulo is one of the 5 biggest cities in the world, although its Metro doesn't even rank in the top 20 12!

No word is mentioned about the 130km of traffic congestion faced by motorists every day in the city, or the precarious state of the comprehensive, but insufficient and overcrowded bus network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athaydesbr (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am Brazilian and my English is not very good! I want to clarify that the subway in São Paulo is the cleanest in the world and one of the most modern, though it is small. But there is the CPTM (metropolitan train), which has 261.7 kilometers taking more than 20 municipalities of the Região Metropolitana de São Paulo, in addition to the subway with its 61.3 km. And in recent years the City and the State Government is investing more heavy building 6 lines of the CPTM and Metro, and extend further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Dias (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrogant, bragging Brazilians... What a bad example. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note about page history
I've tried to do a history merge on this article to fix some cut and paste moves so everyone gets credit for what they've done in the article. However, I couldn't do a history merge beyond September 2002 because this article was in two places before then. The history for both of them is now at Sao Paulo and São Paulo (disambiguation). Also see the message at Talk:Sao Paulo. Graham 87 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the City
The current article needs far better treatment of the city's early history which atm is completely whitewashed. Far from going from a Catholic mission to a slave-free town that just so happened to be a business hub, the Sao Paulo mission was destroyed and then the city built on the backs of legendary and feared slave raiders (bandeirantes) who depopulated entire provinces of their natives. See, eg, the Jesuit reductions of Guayra, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Mamelucos, the Sao Paulo state article...

I understand that the Jesuits and the CE are not unbiased sources, but certainly slave raiding was incredibly important in the development of this city and it should be represented in the article, or a longer one on the city's history. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are free to include those informations in the article...Opinoso (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on Museums
seems too long and wordy. If the museums are so notable it should have its own article. excessive text is not appropriate for a high level city article. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why nothing about the bad things: high crime rate, favelas, pollution, poverty?
The article should not be written by the tourist board, but give a balanaced view of the place as it actually is. 78.151.147.68 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

HDI is grossly inflated
The reference cited for the "0.951" figure, a report by PNUD 2000, indicates an HDI of 0.841 only. What is the reason - if there really is one and that not is just a case of careless editing - for that grossly inflated figure?189.81.113.87 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's careless editing. From what I've seen, people want to show that a place such as a country or city is better than it really is by grossly changing the figures. The best example I've seen was when a person changed Brazil's HDI to 0.961, higher than any country in the world. It's just not careless editing, it's the deliberate attempt to make something look better than it really is. Elockid (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Landmarks
According to the article: ''The city has many renowned landmarks. The Immigrant's Hostel greeted millions of immigrants as they came to Brazil in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Paulista Avenue, in Downtown, is the most important financial center of the country and South America. The city is home to the São Paulo Stock Exchange (BOVESPA). São Paulo has been home to several of the tallest buildings in Brazil, including the Mirante do Vale Building.''

Well, the city really has many renowned landmarks. But they don't seem to appear in this paragraph, except for the Paulista Avenue and perhaps the Immigrant's Hostel. Mirante do Vale Building isn't known even by paulistanos, it is far from being considered "a renowned landmark". I wouldn't call BOVESPA a landmark either. And the tallest buildings in Brazil aren't that tall... I don't think this need to be said in the introduction. We should have this section for real relevant aspects about the city. Dornicke (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

HELLO? Does anybody visit the TALK PAGE?
I hope so. I found this in the article

''Intolerance The largest concentration of Brazilian neo-Nazi Skinheads is in São Paulo.[81] According to Decradi (Department of Police for Racial crimes and Racial Intolerance), there are approximately 3,000 gang members listed in their database, who are involved in some type of hatred activity. The article goes on to say that Punk Threat, Punk addiction, Hooligan Impact. Front 88 are some of the names. Gang members normally wear steel boots, camouflage shirts and suspenders.[82] Crimes of violence are intrinsic to the lifestyle of Brazil's Skinheads. Most such crimes are not reported, for the same reasons that crime generally is under-reported in the country. The criminal episodes listed below are but a portion of the whole. In March 1994, members of the Carecas do ABC Skinhead gang murdered a 15-year-old black youngster, one of São Paulo's "street urchins." The Brazilian federal government and the State of São Paulo have officially condemned Skinhead offenses, and, in many cases, have taken effective action against the gangs. In April 1994, the federal police began operating a new department specializing in crimes motivated by racism.''

Are you kidding me? Does anyone really believe NAZISM is a CRITICAL problem in São Paulo city? ONE murder and 3,000 skinheads? This section should be removed or completely rewritten. It's pure POV. Nazi violence is occasional, eventual, like in any other big city in the world. It's not a mass problem, the article would be much more balanced by simply taking it off. Dornicke (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nazi is not a critical problem in São Paulo or in any place in Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilionaires
According to Forbes, this is the list of the cities with most bilionaires

1. New York, New York: 55 2. London, United Kingdom: 28 3. Moscow, Russia: 27 4. Hong Kong: 21 5. Los Angeles: 17 6. Dallas, Texas: 14 7. Istanbul, Turkey: 13 8. San Francisco: 12 9. Chicago, Ill.: 10 10. Mumbai, India: 10 11. Sao Paulo, Brazil: 10 12. Tokyo, Japan: 10

So, although the source doesn't claim "São Paulo is the city with most bilionaires in Latin America", it's pretty obvious that it supports this sentence, as it was in the page previously. That's why I've reverted the changes. Dornicke (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Demography and sources...
As usual in any article that deals with the demographics of Brazil, sources are a big problem here. First, of course, there are the cases where the article refers to a source that absolutely does not support it. For instance:

Article:


 * Today, people of 100 different ethnicities make São Paulo their home

The following is given as a source:

http://www.brasilescola.com/brasil/populacao-etnias-sao-paulo.htm Ethnicities of São Paulo

There are many problems with this source, but the main one is, it nowhere talks about 100 ethnicities.

A second problem is when the source is assumed to state something, when in fact it is merely reporting a statement by a third party. For instance:

Article:


 * The main groups, considering all the metropolitan area, are:




 * 3 million Portuguese (including descendants).

The following - Radiobrás, an official news outlet - is given as a source:

http://www.radiobras.gov.br/especiais/saopaulo450/sp450_mat10_2004.htm Especiais - Agência Brasil

And, in fact, the source includes this paragraph:


 * A comunidade estima que cerca de três milhões de portugueses e descendentes vivam hoje em São Paulo, mas não há como precisar. “É como a gente brinca muito aqui em São Paulo: quem não é português, é brasileiro. Falamos três milhões, mas deve ser muito mais”. (The community estimates that three million Portuguese and descendants live today in São Paulo, but there is no way to make it precise. "It is like we use to joke about here in São Paulo: who isn't Portuguese, is Brazilian. We say three million but it must be much more.")

But this is clearly attributed to the "community" and its spokesperson, Arnaldo Lopes Batista (the person who says what is between quote marks). What Radiobrás is saying here is not "there are 3 million Portuguese in São Paulo", but rather "Arnaldo Lopes Batista says there are 3 million Portuguese in São Paulo".

Now, of course, the credibility of Radiobrás and the credibility of Arnaldo Lopes Batista are two very different things, that get mixed up by this sourcing "technique".

A third problem is with the sources themselves. For instance, we have this nice table:

Radiobrás is again given as the source: http://www.radiobras.gov.br/especiais/saopaulo450/sp450_mat15_2004.htm

There is some original research here, of course, because the source does not refer to this as "ethnic groups", but rather as "cores étnicas", "ethnic colours", which isn't the same thing and may be a poetic invention of the source, not used elsewhere (we may notice that if the "ethnicities" of São Paulo are those listed in the table, then they are by no stretch of imagination as many as 100, as we have seen the article claims a few lines above). But the real problem is much worse; the figures above seem to have been adapted from the IBGE 2000 Census, that gives us very similar numbers:

The exception being the "Asian" category (for the IBGE, amarelos, "Yellow"). Where our source has a figure of 456,000, the IBGE reports a very different number, 208,677. So while our source has copied the other figures from the IBGE, it has, for some strange reason, actually invented (or copied from elsewhere) a different figure for Asian Brazilians. Ninguém (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Zoo
What size is the zoo really ? 700 square meters sounds like a large garden (say 25x25m) Surely it's much bigger? Does it mean 700 x700? Zagubov (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, 'the' Zoo is not the same thing as Museu de Zoologia (Zoology Museum). The first has no less than 824.529 m2 (link in Portuguese) while the other is just a small university museum. Incidentally, refer to this official page for some evidence that this article indeed was edited by (someone at) the government's tourist board (as others have suggested, considering the overall optimism shown towards the city and considerable lack of non-touristic information). --Rhwinter (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Richest city?
Some Brazilian nationalists seem to want to claim that São Paulo is the richest city in the Southern Hemisphere The source used doesn't say that and, what is more, it deals with the largest economies, not with the richest. For those unable to understate the difference: China's and India's economies are larger (measured in GDP) than Switzerland's and Norway', but Switzerland and Norway are much richer countries (measured in GDP per capite). São Paulo probably has the largest economy in the southern hemisphere but it's not the richest. Find a source (preferably in English) with GDP per capita if you want to make that claim.Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.citymayors.com/economics/usb-purchasing-power.html OK? --Pedu0303 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. But SP is the second richest city in the Southern Hemisphere, Sydney is the first:


 * I'm afraid we cannot say that. This list is very good and measures exactly what we are interested in, but the "problem" with this list is that it only measured a few cities. It's not a list of the 73 richest city in the world (then Jakarta would be nowhere near top 500) but rather a selection of a few cities around the world. What we can say is that São Paulo is richer than all those cities in the Southern hemisphere that are below it on this list. So SP is certainly richer than Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. We can also say, based on this list, that Sydney, Auckland and Johannesburg are richer than SP. We cannot say anything about cities not on the list, and there are some very rich cities in the Southern hemisphere missing. Melbourne is about as rich as Sydney, Wellington about as rich as Auckland, while Pretoria and Cape Town even are a bit richer than Johannesburg so it's likely they would be high on the list if they were included. What we can say, I think, is that SP is the richest major city in South America and in Latin America as well.Jeppiz (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I accepted this.--Pedu0303 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages and accents
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Brazilian Portuguese, which somewhat relates to the section of this article, although there isn't much about the accent here so far. &mdash; Sebastian 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

stop biased information
Sure Sao Paulo is one of the largest cities of the world and has many landmarks and important events. But we must warn that wikipedia is not a marketing tool. From time to time we find misplaced sentences and information in this article, and most of the time they don´t have encyclopedic content, but content based on the personal opinion of the one who wrote them. Please, let´s keep this article clean and unbiased. Information here must be impartial and stricly related to official fonts, like it´s mandatory in any wikipedia article. I suggest to anyone who wants to contribute with this article to: - avoiding any kind of sentence comparing the city with other cities/countries/regions. - avoiding the use of irrelevant superlatives, - keep the focus of every section of the article and - NEVER use texts extracted from tourism websites, books or guides.

Sometimes there are so much misplaced information in this article that I feel maybe it would be better to skip it all and start it all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.97.159.163 (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Black population
"5.7 million people of African descent" It's a mistake to say that, because in the census "pardo" (4.823.979) can be miscegenation between others races then black/white... can be indegenous/white, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.222.193 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
This has got to be one of the WP:LAMEst disputes I've seen. Please bring your concerns to the Talk page for discussion. Edit warring harms the encyclopedia and is a waste of time that could be used for constructive editing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * User Heitor is reverting this article to a very old version of it. Many informations and corrections were missed. He is claiming he is reverting "vandalism", which is not true. — 200.150.46.20 (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2010 (2 revisions) see history, sig added by Mirokado (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * agree with 200.150.46.20. The reversions affected many contributions from different users, came after edits from several different users and apart from the mention of vandalism there is no further explanation in the edit comments.
 * Heitor did leave the following comment on my talk page:"I'm not removing valid content of the article São Paulo. An IP insists on replacing improperly loaded images to the Wikimedia Commons, so I'm reverting your edits, and so I asked for the protection of the page. I hope you understand. Regards. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)"Well, Heitor, I'm afraid I don't understand: if there is a problem with some images you must explain what the problem is and which images are affected, not revert unrelated changes; you should not have repeated the action about which you had been warned and then requested protection of the page, you should have discussed and/or requested protection without making further changes.
 * In view of the indiscriminate effects of these reversions it is impossible to guess exactly which pictures might be problematic, or why. It is thus a waste of our time to talk about the currently-displayed, out-of-date page. I recommend that we ask an administrator as follows:
 * suggestion: restore version 386757682, the next-most-recent version, by Leszek Jańczuk. We can then discuss any further changes which might be necessary to provide a reasonably stable basis for further editing. I will wait four hours for any comments about this suggestion, then make the request if there are no unresolved opposing comments. — Mirokado (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please restore version 386757682 of this article, by Leszek Jańczuk. Background, comments, justification immediately above this request. To summarise: Thanks. If you disagree with this it will be helpful to suggest how we should proceed further. – Mirokado (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * we need a reasonably up to date page as a basis for discussion here
 * the current page is the result of indiscriminate reversion affecting many revisions and many users
 * there have been only two comments (one from me) in several days since the page was locked
 * I suggested this change several hours ago based on those comments and there have been no further comments
 * no response here from the person responsible for the reversion to the current page


 * Agree with Mirokado. Blind, unexplained reversals are not useful. Ninguém (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My last two editions before the page protection did not eliminate any content or reversal, I just deleted the images that were uploaded without permission from the Wikimedia Commons. However, I was again reversed by an vandal IP and without any justification. I agree that, previously, I should not have reversed the previous turn, but my intentions are good. Finally, I disagree on the reverse page for that version, since the problems in the images will continue. The right way is to revert the article for this version. Regards. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Heitor. Well, as well as swapping some images, you removed a whole gallery. If that is not "removing content" I don't know what is. I have checked some of the gallery images: they have valid free licences; were created and uploaded by different people so there is no conflict of interest in adding the gallery; nobody needs "permission" to use images from Commons, that is the whole point of it.
 * The top-right picture you have been reverting to, on the other hand, is created and uploaded by yourself according to the license details. Although I accept you mean well, it is a clear conflict of interest if you try to impose this picture by repeated reversions as you have been (of course you can add one of "your" pictures if it gains consensus).
 * Your diff link implies that 200.150.46.20 is a vandal. I have checked the talk page and talk history and there are no vandalism warnings.
 * Frankly, an attempt to make all the changes in your reversions at once is never going to be accepted, in my opinion. I suggest you concentrate on the worst problem, one at a time, and persuade by details and fact-based arguments that it should be corrected. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is simply ridiculous. I'm not trying to keep "my" images, if this were the case, I'd be putting just pictures of my own. The collage that I'm trying to remove the article contains no photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In my opinion, galleries are for the Commons, but if they do so to maintain that question, I can not do anything. By the way, I will not allow false accusations like that. I regret that the en-wiki is steeped in mediocrity of its editors. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do the following: keep the gallery but I replace the images without license were in the article were without deleting any content. Agree? Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that any unlicensed file should go.
 * We should raise the issue of any files with license problems at Commons (unless you have already done so.) We need a list of files with a problem description for each.
 * To help our discussion, I have prepared a table of the image differences between the previous and current versions (see ). We can add brief comments to the notes column to track any problems or keep/remove decisions. Let's continue any more general discussion here, and break out other sections if necessary? -- Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

✅, please continue to discuss the images. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, discussing images in next section. Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can think about editing conventions for this article if when it is freed again. An example of a per-article rule is the "only one reversion per day" rule (1RR instead of 3RR) which was imposed successfully on Gaza flotilla raid, but I hope that would not be necessary here. We could state clearly how we expect changes to be made, for example (mainly good WP practice anyway of course): Clearly stating such expectations would enable us to maintain the integrity of the article by addressing changes for specific reasons rather than appearing to say "my way is better". For example see this change to London, with the edit summary "Reverted to revision ... by ...; revert undiscussed wholesale changes to images - please take to talk first." — Mirokado (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * always provide a clear edit summary (exception: rollback accompanied by a user warning in the case of clear vandalism)
 * generally, restrict changes to one section at a time
 * generally, change one picture at a time, and discuss changes to pictures on the talk page first

Image diff table
This table lists the differences (only) between the images appearing in the current and previous versions of this article. I suggest that editors comment on pictures they think should either be retained or be removed from whatever next version there may be. Please continue the conversation under the table and we will work out how best to update the table as we go along. I've added Heitor's suggestion about the gallery from above to show how this could be done. Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the conversation about these pictures here... Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a few comments, stating a reason for each suggestion. Mirokado (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No further comments on those removals, so I have done those, see (done) tag above. --Mirokado (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added suggest remove gallery, further discussion needed about that. --Mirokado (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LMB, 9 November 2010
edit protected

There are a few things to correct, editorial (not factual):
 * "São Paulo has a fairly good developed " -> "São Paulo has a quite well-developed". Or course the use of "quite" instead of "fairly" is optional, but English does use adverbs.


 * some "it's" are "its" actually. LMB (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

LMB (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) ✅ - Yeah, that wasn't worded terribly well.
 * 2) ❌ - Could you be more specific? I'm not going to read through the entire article to figure out which need to be corrected. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. is ✅ now too. The "Find" function on your browser is a very useful tool. —Angr (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate source for Largo São Francisco foundation date needed
This link requires some sort of authorization, I've removed it for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.3.216 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Football Teams
Santos FC is not a club from São Paulo city, they not be put with the other teams of the city, however the club has a lot of suportters in this town — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.148.11.131 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexico City x Sao Paulo
On the article concerning Mexico City, it's said that the city is the financial center of Latin America, because it's GDP (nominal) is about 200b USD. Howerver, it's usual in Brazil to read that Sao Paulo is the actual hub of the region and the article of SP states that the city's GDP (probably PPP) is 500b international dollars (by this standard, Mexico City's GDP would be about 300b intl.$). So, once SP's GDP is clerly superior to that of Mexico City, shouldn't the "title" of financial hub of Latin America belong to SP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.106.192 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Helicopter use
I just moved text to this article from a stub page called Helicopter use in Brasil that is VfD. See the section on Transportation. The page is up for deletion, so I refactored the text, what I could, moved it here, and deleted it there. You may notice a "fact" tag on the opening line about per capita ownership of helicopters. It was this assertion, in part, that caused the controversey. Questions, let me know. Paul Klenk 12:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As noted on Votes for deletion/Helicopter use in Brasil, the newspaper article which has been cited as the source of this claim doesn't actually support it, and probably isn't a very good source to cite anyway. So I'd recommend removing this claim unless there is better verification available. Otherwise we will find ourselves cited as the source and it will become an urban legend.


 * If you want to preserve the claim and encourage other editors to work on it, put it in the talk page (here), or just link to it in the article's history from the talk page. Then, if it can be verified, that's the time to put it into the article. Andrewa 20:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias
I would like to thank the Sao Paulo tourism board for such a great Wikipedia entry. 69.196.182.171 03:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes... same pattern applies for other articles related to Brazil (mostly the 'Brazil' article itself, of course). In Wikipedia, historic backgrounds and plurality of thinking seem to be an exclusivity of isolated subjects like Marxism or whatever. What is outside the most accepted word of order seems to be cut, disassociated from the main, most general topics. This is extremely serious, since it means disallowing the still not completely formed minds to acquire social criticism and independence of thinking based on what they read on Wikipedia (aka guides for tourists).


 * A Businessman's Encyclopedia?


 * Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brazil (specifically the last topic) --Ww2 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems on Current Critical Problems
On the crime rate paragraph, added ANOTHER Citation Needed tag, since people insist on placing data without sourcing it. Let's help this page by finding souces for these informations and linking it to the text, please.

For the same reason, removed this unproven passage: "It is safe to say that violence in São Paulo is as normal as it is in every big city around the globe, with more critical problems on peripherical areas, like occurs in every city that has the size of São Paulo."

Also, I know most of us working on this page are brazilian and lacking full skill at the English language, so please let's take extra care when editing. Daniel Trielli 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed an extra paragraph by the same user, 201.51.0.66, also condescending of São Paulo's problems citing the "normal for every big city" excuse. There is no need to de-emphasize the critical problems of the city, and it is also a matter of opinion to determine what is normal and acceptable. The purpose of that section is simply to state what is happening without making judgements. PHF 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On current critical problems, the "fact" that many migrants, especially from the north east of Brazil, do not find job opportunities more often than not, then go live in slums or back to where they came from, is extremelly prejudicial and biased. Sao Paulo was not solely built upon foreign immigrants' work, but it also has a great debt to migrants from all over Brazil, who compose a large percentual of the city's population nowadays.

I strongly suggest that such comment is deleted, since it does not even provide a decent source of information to back it up and is totally based on a sad personal opinion.

Infobox
I believe this article could benefit from the addition of an infobox. I have posted an "Infoboxed" version at the sandbox, and intend to add one to the actual article as soon as I have worked out all the kinks (sources, accurate data etc). I would appreciate comments on this, whether supportive or critical. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 22:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Move
Cantus… &#9742;   09:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better to move São Paulo to São Paulo (state), as you've suggested elsewhere, then move São Paulo, São Paulo to São Paulo (city)? São Paulo can then either be the disambiguation page, or redirect to São Paulo (city). The naming seems a bit clearer that way. KeithD (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would support either of these alternatives, both of which seem sensible; "Sao Paolo" should be either the city or a disambiguation page. Enchanter 11:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PMLF 04:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the following:
 * São Paulo = the city
 * São Paulo (state) = the state
 * I seem to remember that there was a similar situation surrounding Rio de Janeiro, which was eventually resolved by moving the city article to Rio de Janeiro and the state article to Rio de Janeiro (state). — Dale Arnett 21:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the following:
 * São Paulo = the city
 * São Paulo (state) = the state
 * I support this for consistency with Rio de Janeiro (city and state). "Sao Paolo" should be a redirect, as the name is completely wrong. Carioca 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the following:
 * São Paulo = the city
 * São Paulo (state) = the state


 * Support I support this proposal and concur with other users. Moreover, as this is an English article/encyclopedia, consideration should be given to thereafter renaming all appropriate items Sao Paulo (no accent) unless there is some legal or other precedent or it is part of an untranslated name; e.g., even the article for Montreal in Canada (officially and bilingually Montréal) is generalised this way. E Pluribus Anthony 05:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Canada, one might point out, is an English-speaking country, despite its wayward province. São Paulo is spelled São Paulo in the geographical entries section of Webster's and all other standard references. Chick Bowen 12:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Canada is actually officially bilingual: English and French. While 'wayward' Quebec is largely francophone (and your comment is mildly denigrating), both languages have equal status at the federal level.


 * All references? I don't deny yours, but please cite 'em.  Oh, I can too: head on over to the entry for Brazil in the World CIA Factbook for unacccented examples.  More to point: Zurich, Switzerland as well is not English-speaking: Oxford indicates usual English and Webster's indicates versions with and without the umlaut.  Whether this is because English and German are common Germanic languages I'm unsure, but I doubt it.  E Pluribus Anthony 18:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wayward" of course was a joke, and I'm sorry if my comment was flip. I had assumed you weren't particularly serious. Yes, some outlets continue to use the spelling without the diacritic, though outlets of record, including the New York Times, increasingly use the spelling "São Paulo." Particularly in an educational context (and Wikipedia is intended, more or less, for education) I think a spelling that is more accurate and more culturally sensitive should be preferred. I would point out the CIA is behind the rest of the government here: the US consulate at São Paulo spells it with the diacritic, unlike the US consulate in Zurich (it doesn't have a webpage, but trust me, it doesn't). The balance between expectations and accuracy is a tricky one, but we owe it to the world to lean toward accuracy whenever possible. Chick Bowen 19:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there; thanks for your reply; understood! I'm not wholly serious, but I could have been and your comment could've been construed as being derogatory: "backward" would have been truly contentious. :)  I also concur with your summary of the prevalence of one term over the other and do not dispute your citations.  I merely suggest that, while we have a duty to truth, we also have a duty to verifiability and the unaccented version is still common in English.  Besides: George Orwell advocated for simplicity in writing; shouldn't we in our attempts to educate? :)  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, I have no problem with the explanation currently at the end of the first paragraph. Thanks for the clarification.  Chick Bowen 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! Given all this, I still believe though that consideration should be given to renaming the article (ultimately) to Sao Paulo for the simple reason that a user/visitor (if searching) will likely type the usual a instead of (perhaps not knowing how to generate) the Portuguese letter ã easily.  São Paulo can still redirect to Sao Paulo.  E Pluribus Anthony 14:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is better to simply redirect Sao Paulo to São Paulo, as São Paulo is the correct city name. According to Encarta enclyclopedia, the city is named São Paulo. Encyclopædia Britannica also uses the name São Paulo. Carioca 23:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, don't dispute that, and I'm generally OK with that. My desire for a switcheroo more stems from the fact that English visitors may not tend (or novices know how) to type the Portuguese letter, not so much that it is used more frequently.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the accent during searches, I am sure. Google, for instance, just ignores them and Wikipedia also does it. Therefore, if search is your problem, the accent can be mantained. Fernando 15:37 NL, Dec 31 2005

Result
Consensus for page move: page moved. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that's been done, someone should really take a look at "what links here", on both this article and the state one, fix the double and triple redirects at least. It's a bit of a mess. –Hajor 14:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)