Talk:Social apartheid in Brazil/Archive 1

POV notice
This article (even if biased sources can be quoted) is nothing more than mudslinging with a crassly inflammatory title. It is unfit for an encyclopedia, and can never be neutral under its present title. Haddiscoe 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per NPOV dispute
 * "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."
 * Please list the specific issues you have, and which specific policies have been violated, and how. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a breach of Neutral point of view. It doesn't present opposing views fairly, as only the pro-view encompassed by the title. The title is inflammatory and implies that there is a serious (encyclopedia-article worthy) subject to discuss, when that in itself is controversial. An equivalent biographical article would be say, Allegations that George W Bush is a fascist tyrant (and I'm sure one could come up with references to "justify" cobbling together that article). That article would be as impermissible as Evidence that George W Bush is a great and wise leader (also totally sourceable). It is the title itself that suggests that a point of view is worthy of serious consideration, and has the effect of putting opponents of that point of view on the back foot from the start. Thus there is a total lack of the detachment necessary for a credible encyclopedia - the lack of detachment that there would be in the article - Allegations that God doesn't exist, which we don't have, preferring the neutral Atheism. This article should be merged to one with a neutral title such as Race in Brazil. Haddiscoe 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Such attempts have failed at other articles, and even at this one. Wikipedia tends to take an all or nothing approach.  If you nominated them all of the "allegations" articles for deletion at once you might have a better chance, I think.  Noone has tried that yet.--Urthogie 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil; if you have any sources that contradict this view, it would be great to see them, but I haven't found them yet. In general, though, you're objecting more to the existence of this article than to any specific text found in it; the tag you're using can't deal with that. For better or worse, Wikipedia has decided that these types of articles are encyclopedic. As Urthogie points out above, there are quite a few of them around; for example, there's an AfD right now on at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) - why don't you see how successful you are in getting that article deleted; it should be instructive. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename
I think this should be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". There doesn't seem to be anyone denying the allegations. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not authorized to make an argument from silence on behalf of the proponents.--Urthogie 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly is. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV:
 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."


 * Since there are no significant views published by reliable sources given that deny the state of social apartheid in Brazil, we should rename the article. As Jayjg points out, it's pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV demands we only state they are allegations. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, NPOV demands we fairly represent the consensus of reliable sources, that is that social apartheid exists in Brazil. Qualifying it with "allegations" is an insertion of POV. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus on that point. Take into consideration that the article's only major contributors don't think it should be moved. Calling this situation "social apartheid" rather than "allegations of apartheid" requires a personal interpretation of the evidence provided. And as I argued at the AfD, this article is a case of synthesizing published material to advance a position as it is.--Cúchullain t/ c 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that either. There are plenty of reliable sources that allege there is apartheid (usually described as "social apartheid") in Brazil, so it's not a synthesis to note that in an article. The analogy is even stronger in the case of Brazil versus other "apartheid" allegations because the affected group are mostly of African origin, and the perpetrators are mostly of European origin. On the other hand, it's still just an allegation, and not every source describes this discrimination as apartheid. What I'd really like to find is some material denying the existence of social apartheid in Brazil, or taking issue with the analogy, but I haven't yet been successful. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, of course; I suspect the majority of the material on this is written in Portugese, not English. Jayjg (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather whatever salvageable material from all these useless articles be merged into more appropriate pages, and the articles themselves deleted. But that doesn't seem terribly likely.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that should happen, I don't know. I think some attention from users who regularly contribute to articles relating to Brazilian society would be helpful. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem being discussed is not a brazil problem, its a suggestion about naming guidelines. A more appropriate place to post this notice would be the policy village pump, where it can be discussed whether popular allegations deserve their own articles.--Urthogie 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is entirely appropriate to ask the Brazil project about a Brazil article. But you're correct, it's not just a Brazil problem, as several, often only vaguely related, of these "allegations" articles have been created. Several are even less encyclopedic than this one. Perhaps you should ask at the Village Pump before creating any more of these.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ashley Y. All the allegations on this page seem to be in regards to social apartheid. Therefore it would appear to be more appropriate to name this page "Allegations of Brazilian social apartheid."


 * Furthermore the article opens with the comment that "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid South Africa to those of Brazil". That is not correct. No-one is drawing an analogy between the policies of the two governments. The "apartheid" in Brazil, as numerous statements in this article attest, is attributed almost exclusively to an unofficial state of affairs, an existing social status quo, rather than to deliberate acts of policy. Gatoclass 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While most sources refer to it as "social apartheid", not all do. Also, while there may be no official policies supporting it, it is maintained by unofficial policies and police enforcement. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what an unoffical policy is, but perhaps the lead could open with, "Allegations of Social Apartheid in Brazil draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid South Africa to the de facto state of affairs resulting from unofficial policies and police enforcement in Brazil," thereby maintaining the all-important analogy with the Israel analogy, while managing to gesture (however confusingly) to the analogy that's the subject of this article.


 * Incidentally, if it's "pretty accepted in the literature that a state of social apartheid exists in Brazil," and no one's found sources contradicting this, then why does the lead speak of a "controversial analogy"?--G-Dett 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called a "controversial analogy" because the opening sentence is basically lifted from an earlier version of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page. Unfortunately it's a poor fit here. "Apartheid" in the Brazilian context is being employed only in the most generic sense, with few if any direct comparisons being made between it and the former South African regime. It's not so much about policies of racial discrimination here as it is about entrenched racist attitudes and the social divide they perpetuate. So I think even your suggested modification would be something of an overstatement.

Indeed it appears that the term "social apartheid" is a neologism specifically coined to describe the situation in Brazil, and the subject might be best approached from that angle IMO. Gatoclass 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the term "social apartheid" is used to describe situations in all sorts of countries: France, Bristol, Virginia, Venezuela, U.K., Australia, China, Ireland, etc. The fact that most sources describe the situation in Brazil as "social apartheid" doesn't mean that most descriptions of "social apartheid" refer to Brazil. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Christovam Buarque, a left-wing politician, has a book specifically called O que é Apartação Social? (What is Social Apartheid?). I know, I had to read it in high school. Assuming the references in this article are written in good faith, he is not alone. But while it may be used by some leftist writers, it is by no means commonly used and most Brazilians have probably never heard it before. Personally I dislike the term immensly because it's confusing and gives the idea of an actual policy being carried out, when really what is meant is social inequality. While there is no institucional form of segregation, this author made the case that more and more the upper classes are isolating themselves by everyday actions such as building higher fences to protect themselves from crime etc. I thought the book was simplistic, as are all other explanations in the current article. But the term was coined by someone, ergo it exists. If someone felt the need to create an article about it, so be it. Clearly it must be treated as an opinion or theory instead of siding with the authors who created it, though. Needless to say this article portrays middle and upper classes in a stereotyped and assuming manner. --Dedachan 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleanup so it isn't a collection of quotes. Sources are always good, but I am sure we can make it in an encyclopedic voice, no need to provide extensive quoting.--Cerejota 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New Navbox
I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.--Victor falk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose this decision, for reasons made clear on other "allegations" pages. I also oppose the stress you've created by acting so recklessly.--Urthogie 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is unfit to appear in an encyclopedia
The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's either rename this article social apartheid in Brazil or merge it into the social apartheid article. A name with "social apartheid" in the title is more appropriate than "Brazilian apartheid" as it is more specific and the first term is the one that's more common. What procedure do we have to follow to bring this about? Lothar of the Hill People 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid
A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the material in this article is relevant to the concept of Social apartheid
It should be merged there. This article while informative is too short, badly titled, and imminently relevant to the social apartheid article.  T i a m a t  11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your view that these and related articles should be deleted are well known by now. However, the AfD failed. Jayjg (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems ironic to me, considering Tiamut's protest of my moving her Hafrada article without going through AFD.--Urthogie 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These last two users are members of the small group of bad contributors who created the whole "Allegations of ..." articles. Their only goal is to obtain the deletion of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Poppypetty 23:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid? It should be "Social prejudice in Brazil"
First of all, I am Brazilian, from southern Brazil, of mainly southern Italian origin (or so say my grandparents). I created this account for the sole purpose of expressing my views in this talk page, though I may use it in the future. I have so far contributed here or there, nothing really big, and also a bit on the portuguese-language Wikipedia.

I would really appreciate if other Brazilian users shared their views here. I shall come here once in a while to see the discussion, because I ended up seeing this article and I believe it is not neutral, and therefore want to see the discussion on the subject.

Personally, I believe there is no such thing as Apartheid in Brazil, either social or racial. As you can easily see in the Apartheid article, Apartheid is a government policy. There isn't, and as far as I'm aware there has never been, any policy of the kind in Brazil. In the very beginning of our Constitution, it is stated that "every Brazilian is equal before the law". On the other hand, I do not deny that there is prejudice in our society. The fact that there are people claiming there is a kind of Apartheid in Brazil does not change what Apartheid is; in fact, it just shows they don't know better. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot afford not to.

Many people, including specialists, claim that there is a lot of racial prejudice. (I'm only entering this subject because someone said the article should be merged into Race in Brazil - I disagree because the two matters are different.) I think this is a bit exaggerated. There is some racial prejudice in Brazil. What I see a lot is social prejudice. I have heard young people of some wealth saying things such as "she's nice, but lives in the slum". There has been a minor scandal with a video of rich young people throwing eggs on the people in the street from their apartaments. I have not so far heard anything of the sort of "she's nice, but black". I'm not saying that doesn't exist; I already stated that there is some racial prejudice, and by "some" I mean more than "a bit of". It should be noticed, however, that race is not the "big" reason for prejudice in Brazil, and that the matter of social prejudice should not be merged into it.

With that explained, I believe the article should be renamed to "Social prejudice in Brazil" and cleaned up, expelling the Apartheid word from it; it does not belong in this article. The current title makes the whole thing look like black and white people hated one another in Brazil, which is no nearer the truth than the existance of wizards.

I'm available to any further discussion or explanation of my point of view on the subject, and would love to discuss and compare opinions on that. I do not check very often my Wikipedia logins (I haven't logged in my portuguese-language Wikipedia one for a very long time), so I would ask you to send me an e-mail when posting here. My e-mail address is vitorcassol AT gmail DOT com.

P.S.: 3 o'clock in the morning. No wonder I'm so tired.

Vítor Cassol 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not alone in thinking this article is a sham. It was written by two editors who expressed little previous knowledge of Brazil, as part of a series of similar articles claiming there are notable "allegations of apartheid" in various countries, like the US, France, China, etc. Discussion of this "series" is ongoing at WP:APARTHEID, if you want to check in, but it hasn't gotten much done. I nominated this article for deletion a few months ago, to no avail, but depending on any developing consensus at other articles, I will likely do so again in the future.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.

My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the social or race aspects in Brazil. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The "social apartheid" metaphor is widely used in Brazil, and the subject reaches the level of encyclopedic inclusion.  There's no need for a merger here.  CJCurrie 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Jossi's proposal wholeheartedly, for all these articles, but this one in particular. Doing so from here could spare us going through another AfD like with the China article. "Social apartheid" in Brazil might be worthy of encyclopedic conclusion, but the material can be included as part of fuller and better article.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment don't let Jossi do the merge. He did a very bad job on Human rights in the People's Republic of China, little more than a cut and paste.  --Ideogram 12:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not fair to tear down another editor doing a first attempt at fixing a major problem. If that's your only problem, I'll do the merge myself.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Social apartheid in Brazil" is a notable issue and there is a lot of very credible literature on it. The article should be renamed Social apartheid in Brazil since that is the more specific and accurate title and particularly since the issue is not whether or not "social apartheid" in Brazil exists - I've seen no literature suggesting it doesn't or opposing the description of the situation as "social apartheid" - but what it consists of. It's a social problem, not a debate over terminology. Lothar of the Hill People 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The material would certainly be better placed at an aricle on Brazilian society, rather than standing on its own without context.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Apartheid should only be used in describing the old South African practice. It is just empty words in all other contexts (like when current people/countries are accused of Nazism or Stalinism).  The allegations of Brazilian apartheid is only important or interesting because of the coinage of the phrase "social apartheid," and that phrase is what this article really appears to be about (within Brazil, of course).  This should be expanded upon here with information in this article.  --GHcool 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:OR. "Social apartheid" maybe in common use in Brazil, but there is no analogy to South African apartheid. Allegations to race segregation appear only in quotes meaning more or less this: "Blacks are more poor than the others just like once in South Africa". But where is the government policy to make the analogy valid? Suggest merge both articles Social apartheid and this one into one and rename it to something more neutral like Social segregation Brazilian style and list Brazil on the top of the list. greg park avenue 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Jossi, I'm assuming that since you are using the merger of Allegations of Chinese apartheid into Human rights in China as a model, you are proposing that this article be merged into Human rights in Brazil. Lothar of the Hill People 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is an NPOV and OR nightmare.--Dali-Llama 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Double Strong oppose This article probably needs a rename, but it is about notable, sourced, debate in Brazil into which even the current President of the country is engaged: "Apartheid" is precisely what the debate is about, with a clear racial component linked to the situation of black Brazilians. I also oppose all attempts to treat all of the Allegations articles as just one article: they are related as a series, but they are their own articles. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose if this is limited to Saudi Arabia Brazil, Support if its applied globally, per WP:NPOV.--Urthogie 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Saudi Arabia? What? This is the Brazil article. Are you just posting that same comment everywhere in another of your attempts to get the Israel article deleted with the others?--Cúchullain t/ c 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was copying and pasting, because I feel a global approach needs to be taken. Mistakenly forgot to replace the word.--Urthogie 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ALLORNOTHING might not be policy, but it does talk good sense. Please read it. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain with questions. Would you want the content on "social apartheid" (i.e., wealth disparities) merged into a broader article (e.g., Economy of Brazil) under the same heading of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" or a different heading? Except for the lead sentence, the article never uses the phrase "Brazilian apartheid," only "social apartheid"! The choice of "Brazilian apartheid" for a title/heading strikes me as potentially violating our pillar of neutrality in regards to NAMING, not to mention the WP:NOR and WP:RS aspects of Naming. Specifically, as I've argued elsewhere, WP Policy supports self-determination in identifying terms, and surely Brazilians -- like Vitor Cassol above -- don't think that their economic gaps, even though correlated to race, justify the self-identifying phrase "Brazilian apartheid." Does anyone, supporting or opposing Jossi, believe that "Brazilian apartheid" is a superior, more neutral heading than, say, "Social inequities in Brazil"? My vote belongs to oppose if the opposers commit to a superior title, and my vote belongs to support if the supporters commit to a superior heading (within the merged article)! If both commit to an NPOV heading/title, then I will step off the WP:NPOV pillar and weigh the decision based on lower priority policies (e.g., what is the notability or proper weight to be accorded this topic relative to its potential main articles). Thanks for hearing me out! HG | Talk 12:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning broken?
For some reason when I hit edit for sections, the previous one shows up.

I just misposted a comment because of this. Anyone has noticed this before/knows why? Thanks!--Cerejota 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, the quote farm template as a heading was screwing it up. Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other titles
I'm wondering if other titles (other than the current one or "Human Rights in Brazil") might not be more appropriate here. Ones from other countries that come to mind are Segregation in Brazil and/or Economic inequality in Brazil (see Segregation in Northern Ireland or Income inequality in the United States for examples). Are these possibilities? Mackan79 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Brazilian apartheid is a better title. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Are you maybe playing a sneaky devil's advocate? Just above you say "This article probably needs a rename, but it is about notable, sourced, debate...." But, as you know, the sources refer to "Social apartheid" not "Brazilian apartheid" which is more a WP:OR phrase. Ciao. HG | Talk 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that this is actually a notable topic in Brazil? From looking through the sources, my impression is that they are talking about the social issues generally, and to some extent using this phrase.  Related question: are you envisioning this as an article on the phrase or on the underlying conditions?  If it's on the underlying conditions, and considering there seems to be a lack of articles on these underlying conditions in Brazil, I'd think that would be the natural place to focus.  Mackan79 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I very sure this is a notable debate. People have left the party in government using apartheid as a reasoning. Use of social apartheid has gained currency as a "non-racial" argument, but it is at is roots related to the flavelas and the racial situation. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft Requested Move to Social Prejudice (or similar) in Brazil
Looking back at Vitor Cassol's plea for a name change, he may be unfamiliar with the Requested Move process. What would happen if some Brazilians submitted a Requested Move with the following statement?

A Requested Move Proposal


 * Neutrality first. Brazilians acknowledge racial and social prejudice in our country. However, the current article is not neutral because the term "apartheid" offers only a one-sided comparison of our social inequities. Don't some scholars show that "apartheid" is an exaggerated description, and that Brazil's social problems do not reflect merely government policy (as in South African apartheid)? If  reliable sources compare our socioeconomic problems to a "social apartheid," then I can live with the "apartheid" comparison as long as it is not given undue weight and it is balanced with other views. This lack of neutrality violates the pillar of  neutrality. To ensure that editorial decisions on this article advances toward neutrality, we are requesting that the article Title be given a more neutral Name.


 * Second, self-identification. Wikipedia Naming convention on identities states: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Such self-descriptions should be verifiable. In the event of naming conflicts, WP Policy specifically asks us to use the objective criterion: "Current self-identifying name of entity". This guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination for any group of people. Brazilians do not identify their nation, policies or political leaders in terms of 'apartheid.' So remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the title and any headings.


 * Against our invoking NPOV/self-identification, some Users may argue that the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" should not be censored. However, we reject this argument. First, we can live with and would not censor references to "apartheid" that give balanced weight to scholarly sources (and  less weight to exaggerated rhetoric). Second, our  No Censorship policy itself states that its own few exceptions including neutrality: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and  do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view) ...." This clearly demonstrates that the NPOV pillar may trump the censorship policy as need be.


 * Against our invoking NPOV/self-identification, some Users may argue: If other  painful  epithets violate the self-identification  of  people, then the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" should be allowed. However, we reject this argument, as stated in  this well-established essay:


 * "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons:  The generic form of this argument, that 'loads of other crap articles exist' is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS)."


 * Against our invoking self-identification, some Users may argue: If Wikipedia allows any allegations of Fooian apartheid titles, WP should be consistent and allow all such titles. However, the essay  finds: "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, ...." Therefore, Wikipedians need not say delete them all, or  keep them all, especially not if they would object to make a  point. (Even were I sympathetic to their point, such motivations have no bearing on a Requested Move.)


 * Third, WP:NOR. Specifically with "Brazilian apartheid", the article itself relies on references for "social apartheid". The phrase "Brazilian apartheid" appears to be original research.


 * Fourth, it is fine for us to revise a POV Title in this situation. Granted, "alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes." However, we are not asking to resolve any dispute through a new name, but rather continue applying WP policies to improve editing under a more neutral title. The Requested Move does NOT rule out future editing, delete, keep and merge decisions. Furthermore, to those disputing a name, the Naming Conflict guidelines say, "They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." (bold added) Objective basis here includes "Current self-identifying name of entity".


 * Fifth, no loaded, one-sided terms like "allegations". Consider WP:WTA, which is derivative of neutrality. WP:WTA rejects words such as "alleged" because "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and etc."


 * Therefore: We hereby request the Move of this article to: "Social prejudice in Brazil" or "Social inequities in Brazil" or any similarly neutral title. (Maybe even "Comparison of Brazil and apartheid-era South Africa"?) Write fairly about our problems, but give us back our good name.      

Yikes, I can't believe the Brazilians would submit such a long-winded statement! Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk
 * So: How would you advise the Brazilians on strengthening their argument for a Requested Move?
 * Can you imagine a revision that you might accept as a first step, even if you'd rather merge or delete the article eventually, and even if the selected interim name was not your ideal choice?


 * I know how. Request re-listing of AfD or post another AfD, based on the premise that Brazilians were not properly informed about the ongoing discussion concerning their own backyard, and because of that, the result of the discussion may be biased. The note Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. has not been posted. It's not fair. Plea to move as per WP:RM done by other Brazilians as Vitor Cassol could be crucial to move this article to less troubled waters. I would do that myself but don't know how to execute the AfD procedure - too complicated; never made one. greg park avenue 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the move is controversial. To give you an idea of the sources not included here, because of the language barrier, you have this, It is titled "Apartheid brasileiro: raça e segregação residencial no Rio de Janeiro" (Brazilian apartheid: race and residential segregation in Rio de Janeiro). This is clearly an in depth study at a notable analogy, which is one many Brazilians are indeed uncomfortable, but is notable and current currency in academia (it cites "American Apartheid", btw, which was unfortunately deleted). If you notice something, both in the French and Brazilian articles, when confronted with information, many nationalist editors backed down. It is natural for people to "defend" their countries and try to use the ignorance of others in their favor, however, WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are correct when they give their reasons: ignorance and dislike are not reasons to delete. Sources tell us if it exists, we must do edits. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we nominate it for deletion again, making no qualms about merging whatever material is good to more appropriate articles, and making sure the Brazil project is informed? That would ensure the useful material is kept, and relieve us of the headache of this poorly named and structured article once that is done.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we change the title and re-structure the article? Deletion is overrated. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because no matter what you do to it, the article doesn't stand on its own. Even with a restructuring and title change, there's no reason the content shouldn't be merged into the human rights article (among other places). Perhaps the case could be made that this action is unfeasible due to the amount or importance of the content, and should become a content fork, but I don't think this is the case.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain, thanks for responding. You say, "even with a ... title change, there's no reason the content shouldn't be merged in the human rights article." This means, pardon me for saying so, that logically you could concede the title change... since you still would be able to propose a merge. Currently, the merge proposal is meeting strong opposition (above), I'm sure AfD more so. So why not change the title and see if, "even with the change" whether you might THEN persuade folks on the merge? You have nothing to lose, you would satisfy WP Policy (e.g., NPOV and self-identifying), and maybe more folks (e.g. Brazilians focused first on name) would agree with a merge based on your undue or low importance? Since you'll probably need to agree on a subheading name within any merged argument anyway, isn't it consistent with your concerns to avoid a subheading edit war and make the name change first? Thanks! HG | Talk 10:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. To that end, I agree with Lothar's attempted rename.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "social apartheid" is well established by academics inside and outside of Brazil and I don't think it's appropriate to drop it just because some people are offended by it. I think "Social apartheid in Brazil" is preferable to "Brazilian apartheid" as the latter suggests there is a specifically Brazilian form of the problem where the former simply suggests it's a problem in a number of places (see social apartheid) one of them being Brazil. Also, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research since it's only used in Wikipedia whereas "Social apartheid" is not. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the article to "Social apartheid in Brazil" but I won't get into an edit war over it and would welcome further debate. In the interim, I think this name is preferable to the old name of "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" for the aforementioned reasons. If this new name is still not satisfactory I'd like to suggest "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" as a compromise. Lothar of the Hill People 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your boldness has been noted and I have boldly reverted it. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect reverted
No consensus has been established for the rename. The discussion cannot be ignored. I strongly oppose both the merger and the Social apartheid in Brazil formulation, as there are analogies held because of racial factors (ie not just social). This debate is notable in the same fashion as Israeli apartheid, but doesn't draw as much international attention. Yet WP:IDONTKNOWIT has it right when it says, "I don't know it" is not a reason to delete (or what amounts to the same, a merge). I propose Brazilian apartheid or Debate on Brazilian apartheid as possible titles, but "Social apartheid" excludes the reality on the gruond of a form of racial apartheid. Resist the temptation to allow one primary source to dominate, and to adopt the "urban apartheid"/"social apartheid" french model. These are two separate countries...

I am still hunting for additional secondary sources, but I am a bit hampered by my very weak Portuguese. I have provided a weaker secondary source titled "Apartheid Brasileiro". However, I can assure you that while the situation is indeed described by some commentators as "social apartheid", it is also described as "economic apartheid" and "apartheid" without qualifiers. We cannot act hastily and without consensus, no matter how this page was created on the first place. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's stretching it. Keeping "Brazilian apartheid" rather than "social apartheid" just because there's a racial component isn't right - the term is hardly ever used, evidently even in Portuguese. We should go with the name that's notable and verifiable. I believe that when this is done, it will become aparent that the material should be merged into human rights in Brazil, lest it hang out on its own here as a context-less stub.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Crejota, the term "Brazilian apartheid" is original research (few if any sources use that phrase), as is your reason for keeping it and I don't think we can retain it when virtually all of the sources refer to it as "social apartheid". I also don't think it's acceptable for us to wait until you or someone finds an acceptable source that refers to "Brazilian apartheid". Most of the objections are in particular to the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" so if there is a consensus it's to get rid of that phrase in the title. Can we please rename the article either "Social apartheid in Brazil" or "Social apartheid analogy in Brazil" so we can get rid of the current, really bad, title? Lothar of the Hill People 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree: "Brazilian apartheid" and "Social apartheid in Brazil" are about equally notable. I have provided sources, and have argued for involving Brazil focused editors to clarify the question. Furthermore, notable sources, such as President Lula, do not talk about "Social apartheid" but "eocnomic apartheid". I think you are performing WP:SYNTH and pushing a solution around this topic that doesn't fit sources. Your opinion of OR is a fallacious one, however you engage in clear WP:SYNTH. Please read WP:POT. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is clearly to remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the article. You are the only one arguing otherwise. Thanks! Lothar of the Hill People 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is because the consensus is informed by the fracas around AoIA instead of the actual notability of the term in the context of Brazil. Failure to consider information can break consensus. You do have a good point, however, I suggest we do not move hastily. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are a number of credible sources that use the term "Brazilian apartheid" I'd be willing to accept that (though I think "Allegations of" needs to go). However, the vast majority of the google hits for "Brazilian apartheid" are due to one article being cited in various places, "Brazilian Apartheid: Street Kids and the Struggle for Urban Space" and others are because of wikipedia. I think we need scholarly sources (more than just one article) rather than relying on google hits. Can I suggest "Apartheid analogy in Brazil" or "Brazilian apartheid analogy" as a possible compromise? Lothar of the Hill People 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "Apartheid Brasileiro"? What about other uses that are not keyword based ? This is where you guys being mirror images of the creators of this article comes into play. You know jack about this debate, its reality, and its nuances. I find it particularly interesting that my appeals to involve Brazil-focused editors (who may not share my point of view, but would certainly be able to contribute better) have been met with retorts that are less than convincing. This is not about Brazil, but about something else. I am trying to make it about Brazil. That said Apartheid analogy in Brazil is my second alternative to Brazilian apartheid. Obrigado! --Cerejota 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did anyone say we shouldn't get Brazilian editors to weigh in here? That would be great, though this is an obscure article that isn't linked to many other Brazil articles, I don't know if many at the Brazil project will find it worth their time. But their silence does not mean that you dictate consensus, whatever your assumptions about editors who disagree with you.--Cúchullain t/ c 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see Ashley Y and Lothar already inquired at the Brazil project several days ago, though they haven't gotten much response.--Cúchullain t/ c 09:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
In the talk page of Human rights in Brazil Lothar suggests that people discuss here, however it is customary to discuss mergers in the talk page of the "TO" page, not the "FROM" page, as the template mergefrom clearly shows. We should discuss mergers there to engage Brazil-focused editors, who might or might not want a merge based on very different reasons than why you nominate. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for that is that the user, Jossi, who started the merger discussion started it here without naming a target discussion and in the process of the "vote" Human rights in Brazil was mentioned. I just put a note on the target's talk page informing people that a discussion was already in progress. Jossi probably should have started the discussion there but she didn't. That doesn't invalidate the discussion. Lothar of the Hill People 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is highly unusual to force a merge upon a set of editors, and not discussing in the target page or with the target page editors smacks me of POV pushing. This is turning disruptive. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Crejota! Read what I've actually said! It's completely absurd for you to accuse me of tying to "force a merge" when I actually oppose the proposed merge. All I did was inform Talk:Human rights in Brazil that there was a discussion in progress and I don't think Jossi was trying to "force a merge" either, I think she just failed to do any research as to which article she wanted to merge into. Thanks!


 * Secondly, you are the only person on this page who wants to keep the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" in the title. Read the comments made in "Draft Requested Move to Social Prejudice (or similar) in Brazil". There is a consensus to remove "Brazilian apartheid" from the title! I'm sorry you disagree with this but your sole opposition is not enough to declare "no consensus". Lothar of the Hill People 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Word. Three editors have now moved it to this same title over several months. Consensus is clearly for retitling, unless you feel that consensus equals maintaining the status quo from when the article was manufactured by two editors with no previous interest or expressed knowledge of Brazil (the word "Brazilian" was even spelled "Brazillian" at first!) As for "forcing" a merge, that's just not what's happening - for example, Lothar, Ashley Y and myself have different opinions on this, for example me favoring a merge but Lothar being against it - but all of us agree on the title.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but I do feel that "Social apartheid" ignores other sources that speak of other forms of apartheid with equal notability as "Social apartheid", ignores sources and debate in Portuguese, and is in fact being pushed by editors that like those who created the page "with no previous interest or expressed knowledge of Brazil". Please read WP:POT.


 * I do have a rather more deep interest in the matter, and have provided sourced objections against a WP:SYNTH title "Social apartheid in Brazil". Until a better alternative can be come up with (I have suggested Brazilian apartheid) this remains the title. Obrigado!--Cerejota 12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, three almost-meatpuppets guided by concerns that have nothing to do with Brazil is not consensus. Obrigado!--Cerejota 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost-meatpuppets?! We don't even agree on anything else besides the name! You clearly have no further interest in discussing this rationally, and intend to keep reverting to get your way. I won't defend my contributions on Latin American articles to you, but this article is a problem that must be resolved - the current title is flatly unacceptable. But I've had enough of this move war. Good day, Cerejota.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I would ask you not to quote initializations for essays if you're not going to follow the policy AGF. Say I "know jack" about this all you want, but the reality is Wikipedia is now stuck with a slanderous and biased article about a South American country because two editors have a creative interpretation of NPOV. "Allegations of American apartheid" was deleted for the sole reason that we have a large amount of American editors (or editors who know about the US) to call bullshit on it. We don't have that with Brazil. At this point I just hope we can move past this and find a way to deal with it.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cool down a bit, your hyperbole gives me visual tinnitus. I assume good faith, and almost-meatpuppets is quite different from meatpuppets.


 * Your example of "Allegations of American apartheid" is precisely the point, you are transferring what you know of the American article to this one. This is in part why I have asked that more Brazil-focused editors get involved. My quoting of WP:POT is perfectly applicable, I am pretty sure this is the first time you even read an article with "Brazil" in the title, yet you accuse other editors of starting this article under the same ignorance.


 * How do you know this article is "slanderous and biased"? Even the current president of the country, Lula, while in office, has admitted there is "economic apartheid". If George W. Bush said the same thing, I am pretty sure that "Allegations of American apartheid" would still walk among the living. Can't have your cake and eat it too, what is true for those who started this article is also true for you. That is the definition of WP:POT. It all makes perfect sense if you calm down... Obrigado! --Cerejota 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I responded to some of that on your talk page already, so I'm not going to get even angrier with you for assuming what I have and haven't read, though I would ask that you not compare me to the folks who started this article in the future. Second, even if Bush (and I don't know that he hasn't! Surely parts of the US once had a system of racial segregation more severe, and official, than what is being claimed here about Brazil!) had said anything about apartheid, there are enough American editors at Wikipedia to recognize that it was just an analogy, not an indictment, and the article would still be deleted. That isn't the case with Brazil.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, did you have an opinion on Social inequality in Brazil? Mackan79 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that accurately reflects what is currently here, perhaps the article could be restructed to fit it - that is certainly a more notable topic, how is it dealt with for other countries?--Cúchullain t/ c 09:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't entirely, but seems to be the underlying topic that most of these are discussing. Some refer to "social inequity," which may be more accurate, if only slightly less common of a term.  I'd think the "social apartheid" discussion would fit pretty well into such an article, though, at probably some benefit to the material.  I don't see other countries using that title.  Income inequality and economic inequality seem to be more common, just don't quite cover the issue here. Mackan79 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really the "allegations" part that needs to get the ax. The notability of the rest is a seperate issue.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename proposal
I'd like to "test the house" and see if there is a consensus to rename this article Social apartheid in Brazil on, at least, an interim basis. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil - agreeing to my proposal. Lothar of the Hill People 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. It's really the "allegations" part that needs to go, considering that this isn't about "allegations", per say. But it's also the "social apartheid" bit that's actually notable, not the other forms of "Brazilian apartheid" that are only apparent if you synthesize peoples' statements into an argument. I'm for a rename and refocusing of our energies.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename/Merge all to the Social apartheid. It's just a term without analogy to actual apartheid definition, see Apartheid/Temporary. As long as the "Social apartheid" article stays afloat, this one also will be safe in it. As per Tiamat et al, few sections above. greg park avenue 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil. This is one of the "apartheid" articles worth keeping, along with Israeli apartheid analogy and perhaps Tourist apartheid in Cuba.  CJCurrie 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am all for a rename but "Social apartheid" is patently false. Most of the article is not about social apartheid. This fact seems lost on those editors pushing an agenda of "move at all cost". Clearly WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved per this consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. This has to be the worse railroading ever. --Cerejota 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 5 to 1 is consensus. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have content rules. You are rewriting the article to make bulk for only one view, and suggesting a title that is not supported by the sources. There is no consensus. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a democracy but you aren't the dictator, Cerejota. You don't get to unilaterally veto consensus particularly when you have failed to convince even one other editor that you're right. Now stop it before your edit-warring on this article and your violation of what is now a 6:1 consensus is brought up at Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid. Lothar of the Hill People 14:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Social apartheid in Brazil ("Allegations of" should not be in the title) and merge any content not related to social apartheid into Human rights in Brazil.  T i a m a t  11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge Allegations of Brazil apartheid is not good but Social apartheid in Brazil is worse. See WP:NPOV : does everybody in the world agree there is would be a social apartheid in Brazil ??? The only solution is to merge in Human rights in Brazil or Brazil society... Alithien 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Restore template
allegations of apartheid. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The page is only move protected. You can edit it. --- RockMFR 07:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid category
Doesn't this article belong in Category:Apartheid? Maybe they'll someday be a subcategory called Category:Social apartheid, but there aren't enough articles to populate one at this time. -- 146.115.58.152 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I've restored the category per this argument. -- 146.115.58.152 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this. The "apartheid" category is for articles that are actually about apartheid (South African). This article is not, the subject is only similar, not related.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are thinking of Category:Apartheid in South Africa. Category:Apartheid is about apartheid in general. Given the current title of this article, it's related enough, IMHO. -- 146.115.58.152 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Even so, this is not actually apartheid by any definition. It's called "apartheid" metaphorically. It would be like putting Sea lion in the category for types of lions because of the name. The other articles in the category are subtypes of apartheid and other articles relating to apartheid (and allegations of Israeli apartheid, but that's a seperate matter). This article needs to stay out of the cat barring consensus or a refocusing of what is included in the cat.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one can give a good reason for why this article belongs in that category, preferably some uninvolved third party, I'm going to remove it again.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is apartheid by definition. Your basic argument seems to come down to a desire to delete Category:Apartheid, much as only weeks ago now the template for these articles was deleted. The same argument you are using here works just the same on Tourist apartheid, and global apartheid and urban apartheid and allegations of apartheid. We do put Boston terriers in Category:terriers based on the name, and even that's disputable (they are more akin to a type of bull dog than any terrier). If you want to propose the category for deletion, do so, but arguing one away every day to depopulate the category first isn't the way to go about it. -- 146.115.58.152 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So I want to delete the category now? Sorry, anon, I just want to make sure that articles that don't belong in it are not placed in it. I have no opinion on the category, except to say that it sucks because it's so unspecific and poorly organized right now. Of the articles you mentioned, I would say global apartheid belongs in the category, as does probably allegations of apartheid. But tourist segregation (it's not "apartheid" right now), which describes a discriminatory tourism policy in Cuba, belongs there even less than this one does. If you're afraid that nothing will be left in the category if we remove the stuff that doesn't fit, well, as I said, that's a problem to deal with elsewhere. To turn your suggestion back on you, if you want to fix the category then do it, but arguing that various article with no relation beyond the name belong there isn't working. --Cúchullain t/ c 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Arbitration case is wrapping up, so we may have some closure on this soon. If not, this may require dispute resolution of its own.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid?
Of course there are social inequalities in Brazil, but to call them a "Social apartheid" is simply ludicrous, either a severe symptom of left-loonyism or pure and simple lack of knowledge about the country. In either case, this title should definitely be rethought; perhaps the article itself could be moved elsewhere or merged with another. Rsazevedo msg 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is left over from a long dispute about "apartheid" in article titles. The short version is that a number of articles were created called "allegations of apartheid in [country x]" due to some editors' distaste for the article allegations of Israeli apartheid. Most of the others were deleted or had whatever relevant content was there merged. This one, however, survived. I agree that it should be merged, the logical place is Human rights in Brazil, where the material can have some context.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Name-dropping
Who are Jan Rocha, Maria Helena Moreira Alves, Michael Löwy, Tobias Hecht, Carlos Verrisimo and Francine Winddance Twine? The article shouldn't just list their names without specifying who they are, since they are not notorious people. And as long as the article only quotes these people's opinions as references, instead of verifiable facts, it remains unreferenced -- despite all of its footnotes. Rsazevedo msg 08:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Left-wing paranoics. This article should be deleted per a collection of academic marxist essays. --201.79.203.187 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OR
Does this article seriously claim that the source for this concept is a book which is basically a travel guide ? The remainder of this article falls under the rubric of OR


 * Synthesis of published material which advances a position


 * Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research.

The claims made in the History and Street youth sections of the article are syntheses of disparate sources. These sources are more relevant to an article on Social and economic inequality on Brazil or Racism in Brazil. If the article remains, it should be much reduced, perhaps to two paragraphs explaining that the term social apartheid has been used  to describe the rift between the rich and poor in Brazil, comparing it the one found in South Africa during the height of its apartheid era. Moreover, the lead reference should be a work with more substance than a travel guide. --CSTAR (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. The page is a clear violation of SYNTH and ought to be merged into a more appropriate article. The debate/POV war that created this and so many other synthesized articles is long over, it's time to move forward in the best interests of the encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the specific issue you had, the citation to a travel guide [!]. I don't know how no one noticed that for so long, thank you for pointing that out.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Jan Rocha's Brazil In Focus is also just a travel guide, regardless of the article's appeal to Rocha's authority as a reporter. Hardly a scholarly source, one would think.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction between the text and the reference
The following statement "Despite Brazil's retreat from military rule and return to democracy in 1988, social apartheid has only gotten worse" in the article text seems to be contradicted by its own reference:

"In Brazil the military have returned to the barracks but despite their replacement by elected governments, the drift into social apartheid and moral disintegration continues. Those who continue to orientate their educational practices by the principles of popular education now face a new and more complex conjuncture." Ireland, Timothy. "Building on experience: working with construction workers in Brazil" in Boud, David J. & Miller, Nod. Working with Experience: Animating Learning, Routledge, 1996, p. 132.

The text says the social apartheid continues, nut that it "only gotten worse". What it does affirm is that the conjuncture is now a new and more complex one, and that doesn't imply the conjuncture is now better or worse. One can't find new words to describe something the reference's author expressed in clear terms as "new and more complex", before of that adding that the situation "continues". The text must be changed to become adequate, because one can't just cite a reference that doesn't say the same as the statement. Besides, since the article talks about the very close relationship between race and social class in Brazil (not that close, by the way, as I, a Brazilian, know very well through the hundreds of White poor people I know and see everyday in the streets), it should be important to add social inequality has diminished in Brazil in the last 5-6 years (that's a very known fact in the press), so actually the "social apartheid" got a little better, and not worse.201.9.215.204 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Title
Should the term used be "Apartheid"? Last time I checked, Apartheid was backed up institutionally, while Brazil's problem is more socio-historico-cultural (i.e. no institution or law was created in Brazil for the specific purpose of segregation). I'm in favour to take "allegations" off, since it is not a fringe opinion, also, if the term Apartheid stays, shouldn't it be "social Apartheid"?

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus in support of move.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Social apartheid in Brazil → Social inequality in Brazil — I think the use of 'apartheid' in this article is unnecessarily inflammatory, and something of a fringe view in any case. There are many sources discussing social inequality in Brazil, but only a few of them use the term 'apartheid'. Social segregation in Brazil would be another possibility, though it should be made clear that we're not talking about any kind of legal segregation here. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support "Social inequality" is much better, and reflects more acurately the content of this article. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is a relic from a POV war from several years ago. Now that it's been gutted of a lot of the synthesis of sources, it's largely irrelevant at this title.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The term is regularly used by reliable sources; in fact, every single source in this article uses the term. The term itself gets over 40,000 google hits, and, in combination with "Brazil", gets almost 10,000. There are many reliable sources that aren't used in the article that also use the term; for example The Observer, Government AIDs conferences, scholarly publications. They use the term un-ironically, without even scare quotes. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should certainly mention that the social conditions in Brazil have been likened to South Africa under apartheid. However, the role of journalism is very different to the role of an enclopedia, and what may be perfectly suitable for a newspaper does not, perhaps, represent the academic research on the subject, nor does it reflect the neutrality that a site like Wikipedia is supposed to uphold. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any sources discussing this issue that don't use the term apartheid? I suspect they exist, but I don't see them. If apartheid is the term that's always used then it should stay as that term. It isn't our job to decide if the sources are using a a stupid term (even if it is stupid). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Social inequality"+Brazil returns over 76 thousand google hits, plus nearly 8 thousand on Google Books. "Social apartheid"+brazil returns 8,830 hits on Google, and only 260 hits on Google Books.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should have separate articles? It may be OR to presume that social inequality and apartheid are really the same claim. Most obviously in the historical case where the term came from, apartheid in South Africa is not the same thing as social inequality in South Africa. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Social apartheid" is being used in these sources as a term for social inequality. All of the sources used here are actually about aspects of the social situation in Brazil, they are just strung together here because they happen to use the phrase "social apartheid". They are not even all about the same aspect of social inequality -- one is talking about disparity in computer access. As such they're used to draw a conclusion that is not made directly in the sources, a direct violation of WP:SYNTH. Many of them could be used on a real, descriptive article on the social situation in Brazil, which should mention the term "social apartheid", but we should not have an article synthesized from a bunch a quotes that happen to use a phrase.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jayjg --Completefailure (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think as long as the term social apartheid is found to be meaningful in the abstract, there's no reason it can't be applied if the sources support its use. IronDuke  15:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Although social apartheid is meaningful in the abstract it is a bit polemical for an encyclopedia article (although this article shares that characteristic — read WP:NOT).  —   AjaxSmack   21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Recognized construct per reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * this is ridiculous..the blacks of southern brazil have a quality of life very superior than the whites of the northern brazil..the most distances economics are the regionals differences and not "ethnics".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.201.164 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * the most correct term is the regional/geo-apartheid of brazil..northern poor (no immigrants of 1° world in the xix century/xx-i), richest southern (imigrants of 1° world in the xix/xx-i century)..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.201.164 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
The POV tag placed at this article is apt. Jayjg's claim that "there was no claim of POV on the Talk page in May 2010" is wiklawyering; this has been discussed repeatedly since 2007 and thus far the problem has not been fixed, and all attempts to fix it have failed. The tag stays until the problem is fixed or until there's a consensus that there isn't a problem.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no claim of POV in May 2010, nor are there any specific claims about POV today. Since the tag obviously didn't reflect a May 2010 discussion of POV, it is misleading at best. Are any specific claims of POV now? Specific claims will require discussion of specific paragraphs or sentences, not a general "I don't agree with this article" statement or an "I think this article is POV" claim. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The date on the tag matters very little; as you are aware, the article's point of view has been discussed periodically over a span of nearly four years. Lots of specific problems have been brought up, The sum of it all being that the article starts with the assumption that a state of "social apartheid" exists in Brazil, and then cherry picks sources that support that view. Or rather, it cherry picks sources on the social situation in Brazil that happen to use (or mention) the phrase "apartheid" or "social apartheid", and constructs and article out of that, an additional problem that has also been discussed periodically.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dates actually do matter; if a tag doesn't reflect a specific issue at the time, then it doesn't belong. It's unclear if any of these objections are still applicable. If you have a specific issue with material you think violates WP:NPOV, then please raise it in a specific section. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag reflects issues that have always affected this article, and have never been addressed. I just pointed you in the direction of more specific complaints from the last four years.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a specific issue, the tag will have to go. There's no indication that these old comments are still relevant, and the editors who made them years ago do not appear to be pursuing them; many, in fact, have not edited in years. Please feel free to open a section on any specific NPOV issue you believe exists. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that the concerns haven't been addressed, the issues are still relevant. The tag stays.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, they were all either irrelevant, inappropriate, or addressed; certainly their authors are no longer complaining that this is an issue. If you think any of them is still valid, then it is your responsibility to explain why. It might be helpful to review NPOV dispute as well. To quote your own statement from a section below, "The burden of evidence is on the one adding or restoring the challenged material, which is you." Please open a section, explaining the specific issue with POV you believe exists, or the tag will have to go. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more appropriate for you to address the issues that have already been brought up, rather than demanding that I reiterate them now.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ones haven't been addressed? I'm not aware of any, but if you think they haven't been, please open a section, explaining the specific issue with POV you believe exists. You've restored the tag, and as you've said, "The burden of evidence is on the one adding or restoring the challenged material, which is you." If you don't think this statement is appropriate, you'll have to explain why you insisted below that it was. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I started such a section. Presumably you won't object to removing the challenged category until your RfC indicates whether this article should be there.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the section. Of course I object to removing the category, because currently the category includes "non South African" articles. If the RFC concludes it shouldn't then we'll remove the category, but certainly not before. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Apartheid
Cuchullain has been removing the Category:Apartheid from this article - most recently with the edit summary "This article does not fit that category's inclusion parameters; it's for apartheid, not "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." As is quite obvious from the contents of Category:Apartheid, the majority of articles in it are not about apartheid, but about "stuff that has been compared to apartheid." I'm restoring this longstanding tag, pending resolution of this discussion. Cuchullain, can you explain why this specific article should be an exception to the category's normal inclusion parameters? Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not how it works. The burden of evidence is on you to defend the challenged material. The category's only stated parameter is that "The main article for this category is Apartheid". Most of the articles are indeed on African apartheid. A few stragglers are on (surprise surprise) Israeli apartheid, and a few more are recent creations, all up for AfD created in response to the Israeli apartheid article. No reason for an article on social inequality in Brazil to be in a category for apartheid in Africa.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Apartheid quite obviously and appropriately belongs on this article.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is exactly how it works; the burden of evidence is on you to justify the removal of this longstanding category. Most of the articles in that category are not on African apartheid, and you still have not given any reason why this article should receive special treatment. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The burden of evidence is on the one adding or restoring the challenged material, which is you. I can't prove a negative. And you're flat wrong: most of the articles are directly related to African apartheid. Did you even look at the subcats? There are 4, all on African apartheid and filled with hundreds of articles and subcats. Of the eight or so that aren't directly related to African apartheid, they are nearly all either (a.) on the apartheid analogy as it applies to Israel, or (b.) POV forks written in reaction to the Israeli articles, including 3 recently-written articles by I.Casaubon that are currently up for AfD. None of those should be there either.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed the issues, but I have. The fact that the "main" article for the topic is about South African apartheid in no way precludes articles on other "apartheid" topics being included. in addition, most of the articles in the main section (not sub-cats) are related to non-South African topic; and even if it were only 2 or 3 articles that were, you would still have to justify why this specific article should be treated differently. You actually need to do that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing to address the issues at all, except to state your opinion that the category is appropriate, and make the (false) claim that most articles in the category are not on South Africa. When you do, I'll respond.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an RFC on the topic now. Currently the Category contains article both about South Africa and not; the responders to the RFC will decide if the category should be restricted to only articles about South Africa. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And let's just be clear about what you call a "(false) claim that most articles in the category are not on South Africa". There are currently 18 articles with a Category:Apartheid tag. Of those, only 3 are specifically about South Africa. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced and relevant material
Cuchullain has removed the following material: "'The existing inequality in access to computers reflects a form of social apartheid, and private initiatives that strive for technological inclusion are making all the difference in the complex process of creating equity in our society.' Jacobi, Pedro Roberto. 'Digital Inclusion in Brazil', in Aviram, Roni & Richardson, Janice Patricia. Upon What Does The Turtle Stand?: Rethinking Education For The Digital Age, Springer, 2004, p. 221." claiming "rm source about computer access (!) That's not what this article, such as it is, is about." In the book, Jacobi argues that Brazil's social apartheid affects access to technology, and particularly computers. He lists the groups affected by this, specifically naming (among others) poor youth and indigenous and Afro-Brazilians - groups many other authors state are affected by Brazil's social apartheid. Cuchullain, can you explain why you have removed this material? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the reason I gave. It's cherry picking, and you're not properly representing the quote anyway: it actually says that "The existing inequality in access to computers reflects a form of social apartheid..." First off, he's not talking about "educational opportunities", he's talking about computer access; his discussion of education is secondary to that. Second, he does not mention the poor, Afro-Brazilians or other disatvantaged groups anywhere on the cited page. Third, his work is not on social apartheid, it's on inequality, and the abstract is the only time in the entire article that the word "apartheid" is even mentioned. This might be a good source for an article on the social situation in Brazil, but not specifically on "apartheid".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He later states that he is discussing the barriers faced by "adolescents at risk, prisoners, street children, indigenous people and African Brazilians. The main challenge is to promote information technology as a means to social development, making it accessible to sectors of society with hardly any possibility of acquiring it otherwise...". It's hard to see how that's not specifically related to this article, which discusses these same disadvantages faced by these same groups, and uses the same term, "social apartheid", to describe them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that is on the page you cited. And he uses the phrase "social apartheid", or rather "a form of social apartheid", exactly once so far as I can tell, and not even within the article itself. It's hard to see how it's relevant.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's from the abstract of the article, which describes the article as a whole - it's really odd to claim that the specific material in the article is not "relevant" to the abstract. Please present a better argument. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't use the term "social apartheid" anywhere else. could it be relevant to an article on "social apartheid"? Unless you believe the article should be renamed.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that he uses the term in the small abstract indicates that this is a central topic of his article. Please present a better argument. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An abstract is the space in which an author has the opportunity to summarize the significant ideas in the article. Any idea in an abstract is an idea central to the article, briefly stated.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea in the abstract and in the article is that there is a disparity in computer access in Brazil. That's relevant to this article how?--Cúchullain t/ c 20:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because this disparity is described by the author as an example of / contributing factor to Brazilian social apartheid. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and OR problems
This article has had problems with neutrality and original research since its inception. For the benefit of anyone new to the conversation, it was created in 2007 as a part of a manufactured "series" of articles on "allegations of apartheid" in various countries in reaction to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Nearly all the others have been deleted. Previous instances where these problems have been brought up include: For a start on some of the problems, first and formost, the word "apartheid" is inherently non-neutral. No one claims that there are official legal policies in Brazil segregating people by social status (ie, actual apartheid). It's a rhetorical term describing the rampant social inequality in the country. The term is not uncommon, but it's much less common than more neutral constructs like "social inequality". It shouldn't be in the title. Additionally, WP:NPOV requires that articles "[represent] all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." This isn't done here. Only sources claiming a state of social apartheid truly exists are represented, and there is no attempt to give proper weight to individual viewpoints. This is sometimes obscured by the fact that there is no explanation of who the holder of that viewpoint is. For example, a newspaper article by Kevin G. Hall is cited several times, while articles by PhDs receive only cursory treatment. Civil rights activist Carlos Verrisimo and French Marxist philosopher Michael Löwy are also cited; they do not appear to be experts on Brazilian society, and I do not know what relevant qualifications they have for them to be cited here. Lowy seems to be cited to pile on more information about the gated communities, discussed elsewhere, which adds undue emphasis on that particular point. This leads to additional serious issues of original research, particularly synthesis of published material. We have several sources here that use the term "social apartheid" once or twice, often in passing, to discuss the social situation in Brazil. For example this, this, and this use the term but once each, and are talking about different aspects of inequality in Brazil. However, they're all taken together to advance the idea that "social apartheid" is the usual term for what's happening. That's good for a start.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument that this article is really about social discrimination in Brazil, and the term "apartheid" is merely being used in a rhetorical way. Indeed, this argument has often been made about similar uses of the term; that, outside of the context of actual legislated apartheid (as practiced in South Africa), the term is just a political pejorative, and that this topic (and others) are simply Original Research. However, for better or worse, the term is now commonly used to describe specific types of alleged discrimination. Thus the term "gender apartheid" gets 190,000 ghits and 1,800 gbook hits, while "social apartheid" gets 28,000 ghits and 3,000 gbook hits. Authors on Brazil use the term to describe a social and physical separation between rich and poor that is complicated by the fact that those most affected are typically Afro-Brazilians and/or slum or street children (the latter are also typically Afro-Brazilian). This is not just any alleged "discrimination", but a very specific kind of separation (both social and physical), and it's not some OR invented in this article, but something that is addressed by many authors.
 * Regarding your second concern that not enough weight is given to material by PhDs, you haven't explained how or why this would create a non-neutral POV - you really need to give specific examples of a specific argument or claim that is not given enough weight for an "fails NPOV" claim to have any validity. Also, dismissing the views of (for example) Brazilian civil rights activists as not having expertise in Brazil's social situation seems odd. In any event, it would be wonderful if articles on alleged discrimination were restricted solely to academics who are experts in anthropology or sociology, and were also recognized experts on the specific countries and societies they are discussing. Policy, however, makes no such restriction, which is why the vast majority of sources used in articles on alleged discrimination have very few sources that meet these restrictive standards. The NPOV requirements for articles must be based on actual policy and practice, not on an ideal imposed by one editor on one article and not required elsewhere. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "An ideal imposed by one editor on one article and not required elsewhere"? What are you referring to?--Cúchullain t/ c 21:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That "articles on alleged discrimination were restricted solely to academics who are experts in anthropology or sociology, and were also recognized experts on the specific countries and societies they are discussing" - this appears to be the standard you are trying to impose here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All articles are bound by NPOV. Here you've inserted claims from various sources ranging from news items to sociologists who actually study Brazil, without regard for how prominent their respective views really are, resulting in a mishmash of quotes that happen to use the phrase "apartheid". One specific example of this that I gave is the Marxist philosopher. How is he a reliable source for Brazil? And assuming he is, why does he get so much space? Etc.
 * And the article isn't actually about "a very specific kind of separation", it's about various kinds of separation (racial, class based, economic, in education in housing). "Social apartheid" is a not uncommon term for that, but so is the more neutral "social inequality in Brazil". The article is actually about social inequality in Brazil, though it's currently restricted to "social inequality in Brazil according to sources that happen to use the phrase 'social apartheid'".--Cúchullain t/ c 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all articles are bound by NPOV, but you haven't really demonstrated an issue with it - is there a viewpoint that has been missed or suppressed somewhere? If so, what is it? Also, you've carefully avoided addressing the issue that the sourcing standards you wish to impose on this article don't seem to be in synch with actual policy regarding articles on alleged discrimination. In addition, the term "social apartheid" is used to address "a very specific kind of separation", exactly as described. What you are talking about is something else, and not what this article, or authors writing about Brazilian social apartheid, actually discuss. There are all sorts of "social inequalities" in Brazil and many other countries; Brazilian social apartheid is, however, a very specific discrimination; in a nutshell, a social and physical separation of and discrimination against poor Afro-Brazilians.
 * Finally, that person you describe as a "French Marxist philosopher" was born, raised, and went to university in Brazil, specializes in writing about the sociology of culture, and worked first with the Brazilian Workers Party, and now the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement. Describing him as merely a "French Marxist philosopher", and therefore unqualified to comment on Brazilian society, is a deliberate and transparent distortion; please treat this discussion and other editors here with more respect. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A complaint about "deliberate and transparent distortions" coming from one of the primary manufacturers of the "apartheid" POV forks?! Really, do you right your own material? Seriously though, I see I was (somewhat) wrong about Lowy's qualifications. You could have cleared it up by doing what you should have done when you came up with the article, and mentioning them in the text rather than just name dropping. This was one of several specific complaints you've consistently failed to address. Additionally, I didn't say he was unqualified to comment on Brazilian society, I said I didn't know what his relevant qualifications were, or why, assuming he was reliable, his opinions on gated communities received so much article space (something else you've failed to address).
 * The "sourcing standards" are the same at all articles in Wikipedia. Viewpoints are given weight according to their prominence. Published material is not synthesized together to advance an argument. End of story. Indeed, this policy is in full effect in articles on "alleged discrimination", considering that most of the other synthesized POV forks were deleted or merged in 2007, and three more are currently in AfD.
 * For "social apartheid" to be proper for the title you'd have to demonstrate that it's really the most common term for it in the literature for the subject. While it's not especially uncommon, is it really common enough to justify using such a non-neutral term in the article title? All signs point to no. As I've clearly demonstrated, many of your sources only use the term in passing, sometimes only once within the entire work, in discussing the phenomenon. Additionally here are a few books I found on Google this morning that discuss "social and physical separation of and discrimination against poor Afro-Brazilians" and don't mention the term at all.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this article or those others; please focus on the content of this article.
 * Lowy's views get exactly one sentence in this article; that's why I didn't bother addressing the complaint.
 * You have, in effect, insisted that sources allowed in this article be restricted solely to academics who are experts in anthropology or sociology, and are also recognized experts on the specific countries and societies they are discussing. These are indeed different sourcing standards than all other articles on alleged discrimination, and not in line with WP:V or WP:RS. We are not required to abide by arbitrary, non-policy-based sourcing requirements.
 * Other perfectly valid sources were deleted from the article in the past, despite giving rather lengthy discussions of this phenomenon of social apartheid in Brazil/Brazilian apartheid. This can easily be remedied. Many academic and other high quality sources that have not even been used in the article also use the term in a completely matter-of-fact way; for example, this one and this one.
 * Do those books present viewpoints on this topic that differ significantly from those found in this article? They don't agree that this discrimination exists, for example? That it effects Afro-Brazilians? That it effects slum and street kids? That it involves spatial separation too? By the way, that second book actually mentions "Brazil's well-known 'elevator apartheid'", the spatial separation in apartments already mention in the article, but perhaps worth adding to here. The point being, you have yet to demonstrate even one specific NPOV issue; not a single view that has been missed, misconstrued, given undue weight, etc. All you have shown is that you don't like this article's title. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the principal contributor and defender of this article. And don't give me a lecture on focusing on content after acusing me of "deliberate and transparent distortions".
 * Please address the specific complaint as well as the others, and stop claiming that specific complaints haven't been brought up.
 * You're not addressing the issue. The issue is weight, not whether those individual sources are reliable. That is an official policy.
 * As I stated quite clearly those books I linked to do discuss ""social and physical separation of and discrimination against poor Afro-Brazilians"" but don't mention your term "social apartheid". And those are just a few I specifically investigated after searching for segregation and Brazil, and found to contain discussion of the ostensible topic at hand. What I've shown is that not all books on the subject use your term. In fact, most appear not to. "Social apartheid"+Brazil gave me 264 hits on Google Books, while segregation+Brazil returned over 34,300. Obviously not all of those will be particularly relevant, but it suggests that there are very many sources that will be relevant to the topic that don't happen to mention your term. If it's not the most common term in the reliable sources, there's no justification for using a non-neutral title on Wikipedia.Cúchullain t/ c 14:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the inventor of the topic or the idea of social apartheid in Brazil. Brazilian elites created the situation itself, and Brazilian academics, authors, journalists, civil rights activists etc. created the term for it.
 * I've addressed the specific complaint; Lowy's views get exactly one sentence in this article; therefore the claim that "his opinions on gated communities received so much article space" is nonsense, as were the claims that he is unqualified to comment on Brazilian society. If anything, his views should be given more weight, not less. Please move on to some actual NPOV issue.
 * You're not addressing the issue. You haven't shown that any view is give undue weight. You can't just hand-wave, you have to state what the specific view is that is given too much or too little weight.
 * First of all, it is not "my" term - further statements that attempt to associate it specifically with me will be ignored, and will be taken as overt admissions that you agree with me on that point. Second, many reliable sources use the term, others do not - but there's no indication (as noted before) that these other sources are actually discussing the same phenomenon. Also, as stated before, you haven't expressed any specific NPOV issue with the content, all you have shown is that you don't like this article's title. Do any of these sources disagree with the points raised in the article? You can't perma-tag an article for "NPOV issues" without actually articulating a specific content issue. Disliking a title isn't a content issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it is reasonable to say this article would be more accurately titled Economic (or perhaps Social) Inequity in Brazil. I think that the term apartheid is pretty clearly a euphemism. The contents of the article as a whole seem fine. I purpose moving the article than creating a section for comparisons to South African apartheid. (dubious disclaimer) I know nothing about this topic or whether any of the sources are being given undue weight. --SelfStudyBuddyTALK-- 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources, however, call it "social apartheid". Our personal opinions aren't particularly relevant compared to that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There are plenty of potential sources that don't use apartheid. However, I don't have time to collect sources and rewrite the article sans mentions of apartheid. If anyone really cares about the uses of the apartheid in this situation I would urge them to do the necessary research to do the rewrite.--SelfStudyBuddyTALK-- 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Great majority of blacks?
According to IPEA, the "poor" and "very poor" are together 30% of Brazil's population (24,1% + 6,6%) source here

According to IBGE, blacks are only 7,61% of Brazil's population source here

How is it possible that "The great majority of the poor are blacks in Brazil", as stated in one of the pictures in the article? A group that represents 7,61% of the total population can never be "the great majority" in a social class that represents 30% of the total population. The great majority of the poor in Brazil are pardos, not blacks. Pardos are not black (Brazil never had "one-drop rule"). BrancoPobre (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

About the last changes
I confused myself in that article and that was I changed a quote. I tried to undone but my computer started to freak out immediately (Firefox has so many bugs nowadays, or it ever had but now they are more perceivable), there was a little blackout in my region and there goes. But I was not doing original research since the polemical accusations of that writer that Brazil had (or has) racial apartheid make not sense since is perfectly understandable that a country help their immigrants which come from major powers (even if they are presenting crisis, as happened in this case) and since is widely knowlegeable that Brazil has poors of European descent, some of them do rural exodus by the same motivations that the multiracial and black populations and fatefully will live in the poor peripheries of our metropolises exactly as it happens with people of the other races. How can it be original research? The idea that Brazil has some kind of apartheid in which race plays a fundamental factor is contamined by ideological and political meanings present in our academics for the most of the second half of the twentieth century and it is disputable even if it comes from some major scholar. Lguipontes (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should consist of verifiable material cited to reliable secondary sources. The material you inserted was not cited to any reliable sources at all, much less ones that discussed Social apartheid in Brazil. Please review the links provided in my comment. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. But you said somewhere that "Social apartheid" is a common term for a specific kind of discrimination in Brazil, directed primarily at Afro-Brazilians, and rooted in former slavery". Well, it is really discussed in Brazil, but this is not a consensus (even among left-wing scholars). Furthermore, you can prove me that White Brazilians at all (or in their most) have not slave ancestors and that Afro-Brazilians are not mostly of European descent as genetic research have shown in the last years? Well, as a minority (not ethnic or racial one) I can face discrimination in Brazil (and bullying happened to me a lot of times), and I know what "politically correct" people say because I am interested in left-wing politics. But not as happen with openly LGBQ and non-gender-conforming Brazilians in practically all nation (issue that is not discussed seriously as the "Black/White Americanized Race Relations in Brazil" despite the worse-than-American-standard conditions in which Brazilian sexual minorities live), Black and Multiracial people are not denied their basic human rights just because of their non-whiteness here (except some places in white-majority states nevertheless it is not institutionalized, but the result of racist ideologies as in much of Europe, Australasia and North America), even because they can achieve higher social standards, and poor White/Asian Brazilians are also deemed as socially indesirable in the very same standards.
 * Please, you are racializing a class issue, using a sectarian pro-Black-movement bias as a source for these allegations. I was born and raised in Rio metro and I have a lot of friends from and information about São Paulo, I know about the favelas, the poor whites, the middle-class multiracials and blacks, the rural exodus (where most of people from all races which live in favelas came from, they are not the result of slavery in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Curitiba regions proper but RURAL EXODUS from areas which were really subdeveloped and poor to our urban standards or rarely when racism was higher on that region, which won't change the perceptions of Brazilians from metropolitan regions even because they see poor from all races approximately the same, finally the massive European immigration was sufficient to long-term "racial whitening" and generated our mixed-race white people), the European immigration, and everything we have there indicates AGAINST an apartheid-like society nowadays. If the article said it happened in the 60's and early 70's, I will not complain against because our society was way more conservative and in that times most of our poor Black people was still from the regions they have been born (still, Brazil was an agrarian or mostly agrarian country and the situation was not very appealing to everyone), but in the twenty-first century Brazil, apartheid? It is an utterly absurd. Lguipontes (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Reliable sources have repeatedly stated, including in the 21st century, that Brazilian society practices "social apartheid" (or sometimes "spatial apartheid" or even "Brazilian apartheid") that is race-based. I don't mean to discount your personal experiences and views, which I'm sure you believe to be true and applicable to a broader context, but Wikipedia can't use personal experience as its guide. Instead, it can only repeat what reliable secondary sources state on a topic; this article represents that, not my own personal views, or something I'm saying. Please click on the links I've provided in this response for further explanation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions
1- What is social apartheid? In what ways does it differ from a common apartheid as in South Africa or the occupied Palestinian territories?

2 - Do those who use this term in academia mean it literally? If not -- if they're just describing, in hyperbolic and metaphoric fashion, social inequality in Brazil -- does the term apply also to, for example, former apartheid nation South Africa, which is more unequal than Brazil? Does anyone still consider South Africa as being under an apartheid regime or (non-state-sanctioned) apartheid system?

3 - What's the evidence behind it? What's the evidence against it? Evidence from actual Brazilian demographics strongly argue against there being an apartheid in Brazil in the literal sense. By contrast, the races in Brazil are more socially integrated than, say, in the US (is the US an apartheid as well?). This is from a review on "Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil", a book by Edward E. Telles:"Telles begins by confronting the core contradiction in Brazil's racial order: high (by US standards) levels of interracial sociability (expressed in cross-racial social contact, friendships, and even marriage) co-existing with equally high (by any standard) levels of racial inequality in education, earnings, vocational achievement, life expectancy, and other areas. Telles labels these the horizontal (sociability) and vertical (material achievement) dimensions of Brazilian race relations. Previous authors, he argues, have tended to focus on one dimension to the exclusion of the other, and have thus lined up in two opposing camps, one seeing Brazil as a hopeful instance of racial harmony and egalitarianism, the other as a case of extreme inequality and exclusion." I am Brazilian, I have both African and Native ancestry, I am well aware of racial disparities in this country in income, I read a wide range of newspapers in my country, and in spite of our freedom of press, none of them, not even the left-wing ones, describe our situation as being one of apartheid (those saying so, supposing they exist, are at the extreme fringe of the country's political discourse). And nothing on the article suggests an actual apartheid, but rather middle of the road discrimination that's been in the history of every race diverse nation in the world. The article is also untimely as there are a number of racial-quota policies in place; and income disparity between the races, though high, is decreasing, as Black people's income grows more than than that of any other racial group in Brazil. This article overstates the case for anti-Black apartheid, also by ignoring, for example, discrimination against other races, such as the Japanese, who were challenged by open state bias at a time that discrimination against Blacks was forbidden. I also find it worrisome that, as revealed in their contribution record, the author and most other frequent editors of the article don't have any history of edition on other Brazil-related articles -- by contrast, they're most active on Israel or Judaism ones. What's the reason for that? 187.58.98.224 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)