Talk:White Brazilians/Archive 3

Restarting the discussion
As I posted somewhere above,


 * A further problem with this article is that it does not discuss the concept of "White".

It still does not discuss the concept. Given that what is called a "White person" in Brazil is not the same that is called a "White person" in English-speaking countries, shouldn't that be a priority here?

Besides, this article is actually not about White Brazilians - it is about immigration to Brazil. It practically duplicates all discussion that should go under Immigration to Brazil. Furthermore, two of its most important sections, "Colonial Whites" and "Post-Colonial Whites" are totally based on original research; there is no reliable source that even hints about these two concepts.

I am proposing moving all information about immigration, except that strictly needed to establish the concept of "White Brazilian" to the appropriate article, rewriting the whole two sections mentioned above to remove original research, and giving the article a real definition of what a "White person" is in Brazil.

Is there any objection to this? Ninguém (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why this page cannot be completely archived
Someone archived practically all discussions in this page. This shouldn't be done, since most of the problems pointed in the discussions above are still present in the article. True, there are some discussions that have been solved. If I knew how to deal with archives, I would place them in the archive and only bring back the discussions that are still relevant. But I don't, and very few of the issues in this Talk Page have actually been addressed. So I am restoring the discussions as a whole. Ninguém (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By clicking this link and placing something in the brand new page you'll reach, you will start "Archive 2". Do this in a new browser window. In one window, cut sections from this monster talk page; in the other window, paste these sections within "Archive 2". When you've done all the cutting and pasting you want to do, save both pages. Then go to the top of this page and look for the link to "Archive 1"; next to it, create a similar link to Archive 2. You're done.


 * Better, work on fixing the outstanding problems. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to. When I have time, and disposition - and only then. Ninguém (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Image
I have removed the picture that illustrated the article (Italian immigrants in São Paulo). It belongs in Immigration to Brazil, not here.

I would like suggestions on what pictures could replace it. From the top of my mind, I remember:

Sport people:
 * Luiz Felipe Scolari
 * Gustavo Kuerten
 * Kaká
 * Maria Paula Silva

Politicians:
 * Marta Suplicy
 * Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
 * José Serra
 * Michel Temer

Artists:
 * Oswald de Andrade
 * Cândido Portinari
 * Paulo Leminski
 * Monteiro Lobato

Any suggestions? (and help to implement this?) Ninguém (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny...user Ninguém is always claiming that the vast majority of White Brazilians are of "colonial Portuguese descent". However, at his own list of Whites, the vast majority of them seem to be descended from recent European immigrants. Let's see:

Sport people:
 * Luiz Felipe Scolari (Italian surname)
 * Gustavo Kuerten (German surname)
 * Kaká (Portuguese surnames, unknown ancestry)
 * Maria Paula Silva (Portuguese surnames, unknown ancestry)

Politicians:
 * Marta Suplicy (English and Portuguese surnames, Suplicy is French but comes from her ex-husband; she also has Italian ancestry)
 * Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti (Portuguese and Italian surnames)
 * José Serra (Italian surname)
 * Michel Temer (Arab surnames (according to Portuguese Wikipedia)

Artists:
 * Oswald de Andrade (Portuguese surname, unknown ancestry)
 * Cândido Portinari (Italian surname)
 * Paulo Leminski (Polish surname- he was half Black, I don't know what he is doing here as "White")
 * Monteiro Lobato (Portuguese surname, unknown ancestry)

As one can see, of the 12 famous people that Ninguém choose to represent "White Brazilians", 5 of them have Italian ancestry; 1 has German ancestry, 1 has Arab ancestry and 1 has Polish ancestry, while 6 (half) of them have Portuguese surnames, which does not mean they have any Portuguese ancestry, because let's remember that Africans and Amerindians received Portuguese surnames in Brazil. Besides that, even if all of them had Portuguese ancestry, we are not able to know if this ancestry comes from colonial ancestors or from Portuguese immigrants who arrived in Brazil in the early 20th century, for example.

Then, 8 people of the list have non-Portuguese surnames, while only 4 of them have only Portuguese surnames. Even though the surnames do not tell all the History of a person, having a non-Portuguese surname in Brazil means you have non-Portuguese ancestors (unless you are an adopted child). But having a Portuguese surname does not mean you have any Portuguese ancestor.

If, according to Ninguém, the vast majority of White Brazilians are of colonial Portuguese ancestry, why at his own list the majority of them have recent non-Portuguese immigrant ancestry? Maybe because Ninguém was not able to find many White Brazilians that do not have a non-Portuguese last name (unless one is considering Ronaldo, who has Portuguese surnames and is self-reported to be White, even though both his parents are of African descent, to be of a "White of colonial Portuguese descent" as well). If Ronaldo, who is counted as White, is a White of colonial Portuguese descent, then yes, most "White" Brazilians are of colonial descent. But if Ronaldo is not White, neither other "Whites" who look like him, no, not the majority. Opinoso (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti is Viotti by marriage, not by birth. Stop the Ronaldo foolery, please. Nobody is arguing that he is White, this is a strawman. Ninguém (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even excluding this Maria Luiza, the majority of your own list is not of "colonial Portuguese descent" anyway. This is even funny. No, I won't stop talking about Ronaldo, because he is the real example that nobody needs to "look White" to be counted as White in Brazil, and since he does not seem to have any recent immigrant origin, according to your theory Ronaldo would be a White of colonial Portuguese descent. Not the case. Most White Brazilians (people who "look White") have recent European ancestors, a fact, if you exclude self-reported "Whites" like Ronaldo. But if you really count Ronaldo and people like him as White, then most of White Brazilians will be theorically of "White colonial Portuguese descent" (light Mulattoes and Caboclos counted as Whites). Opinoso (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that the vast majority of White Brazilians are of "colonial Portuguese descent" but you made up a list of White Brazilians full of people with non-Portuguese origin? Opinoso (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Famous white Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry from before the mass European immigration of the 19th century:


 * Emperor Pedro II of Brazil (1825 - 1891; considered the greatest Brazilian ever) - Portuguese father
 * Luís Alves de Lima e Silva (1803 - 1880; patron of the Brazilian Army and considered the greatest Brazilian officer of all time) - Portuguese grandfather
 * Manuel Luís Osório (1808 - 1879; patron of the Brazilian cavalry); considered the greatest Brazilian officer in his lifetime) - Portuguese grandfather
 * José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva (1763 - 1838; considered the greatest Brazilian statesman of the first reign) - Portuguese ancestry
 * Irineu Evangelista de Sousa (1813 - 1879; considered the greatest Brazilian entrepreneur)- Portuguese grandfather
 * José Maria da Silva Paranhos (1819 - 1880; politician and considered the greatest statesman of the second reign alongside Honório Hermeto) - Portuguese father
 * Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão (1801 - 1856; politician and considered the greatest statesman of the second reign alongside José Paranhos) - Portuguese ancestry
 * Joaquim Nabuco (1849 - 1910; politician and considered the greatest anti-slavery activist in Brazil) - Portuguese ancestry (family came from Portugal in the middle of the 18th century)
 * José Maria da Silva Paranhos Júnior (1845-1912; considered the greatest Brazilian diplomat) - Portuguese grandfather


 * Famous white Brazilians of French ancestry from before the mass European immigration of the 19th century:
 * Paulino Soares de Sousa (1808 - 1866; father of the Brazilian diplomacy) - Portuguese father and French mother
 * Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay (1843 - 1899; one fo the founders of the Brazilian Academy of Letters) - French father.
 * Émile Louis Mallet (1801 - 1866, patron of the Brazilian artillery) - French father.


 * I can keep on and on until you get tired, Opinoso. All of them, with the sole exception of Pedro II, came from poor background. So, you cannot even argue that they became nobles later or that they represent a white aristocratic minority in Brazil. As usual, you are wrong, wrong and wrong. Or perhaps you are are eager to be blocked again? Aren't you tired of being punished? --Lecen (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * These are 19th century historic people who are already dead. They do not represent the current population of Brazil. I'm talking about Ninguém's list with modern people. We are not living under the Monarchy anymore. Let's move on...

By the way, do you have any source that all these historic people were Whites or considered themselves to be Whites? Having a single Portuguese grandfather or having a light skin does not make a person White. What about the rest of the family? They seem to be ommited.

By the way, I won't ask your disruputive questions. It's quite obvious that Lecen and Ninguém became friends and are helping each other in every single discussion going on in Wikipedia. Unfurtunetly, I have no time to play this game with you guys. No time to spend hours and hours a day with Wikipedia anymore. There's a life outside, but I'm still around. Opinoso (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Lecan, your comment that you can keep on and on until people get tired is not the way to find any real agreement, and such comments do nothing but weaken your position, please discuss the general issues in a non confrontational way. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see what Opinoso has to say and what I will answer:


 * These are 19th century historic people who are already dead.


 * So what? White American and White Argentine also have dead people.


 * They do not represent the current population of Brazil.


 * All of them have left a very large descendancy. And so what? Since when they can't be used as examples?


 * By the way, do you have any source that all these historic people were Whites or considered themselves to be Whites?


 * Are you joking me? Is that it? A joke? Do you have a source that says that they are blacks?


 * Having a single Portuguese grandfather or having a light skin does not make a person White.


 * Yeah, but according to you, if someone has 15% african DNA he or she is black, right? Do you remember that you argued that in Brazil article? Do you think I am stupid or something like that?


 * What about the rest of the family?


 * Pedro II's mother was an Austrian. Caxias mother was Brazilian of Portuguese ancestry. So the same with Mauá, Osório and others.


 * By the way, I won't ask your disruputive questions.


 * Are you accusing me of being disruptive? Did I understand correct? Do you have proof that I acted like that? Or you just are very, very eager to be blocked again for an agressive behavior?


 * It's quite obvious that Lecen and Ninguém became friends and are helping each other in every single discussion going on in Wikipedia.


 * Being friends does not hinder anyone from being part of Wikipedia. And if we are "friends" as you say we must thank YOU and your behavior.


 * Unfurtunetly, I have no time to play this game with you guys. No time to spend hours and hours a day with Wikipedia anymore. There's a life outside, but I'm still around.


 * You always say that, buddy! Do you know what your behavior says?! Ownership! You did not bring a source to oppose Ninguém's edit. You brought nothing except for "I don't like what you did so I will revert it but sorry, I don't have the time to discuss why I did it." --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. I thought that I had made a balanced list, with aproximately half people of Portuguese ancestry, and half people of others ancestries. This was made to avoid accusations of bias, POV, etc., etc., etc.

But evidently, good faith isn't a good thing in Wikipedia. For trying to make an inclusive list, I am now attacked, in a most uncivil manner. Ninguém (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing information that does not belong in this article
These "informations" about the number of people of Portuguese, Italian, Arab, etc, descent, do not belong in the article about White Brazilians, but in the article about Immigration to Brazil. This has been discussed again and again, and no one ever brought any real reasons of why this should be here.

Moreover, they are based on estimates by the embassies of those countries - political organisations that conduct no demographic research -, which have no scientific value. It is absolutely impossible that there are

25 million people of Italian descent 15 million people of Spanish descent 5 million people of German descent 12 million people of Arab descent

all of them "White" in Brazil, if, as shown by the article by Judicael Clevelário quoted in this article, the total population of immigrant origin is about 18% of the Brazilian population, or 33 million people. The above figures sum up 57 millions, and they do not even account for the people of Portuguese immigrant descent, or those of Polish, Ukrainian, etc., origin. Ninguém (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this your stated objective, the removal of content that doesn't belong in the article? but you have enlarged the article? Mass editing of an article like that is a simple way to have it reflect one viewpoint, what happened to the so called old owner?  Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For example you have dramatically increased and altered the lede from this to this in the space of a few days without any input from anyone else. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you seem to perceive some incompatibility of (a) removal from an article of what doesn't belong to it, and (b) expansion of the article. I don't understand this. I've often removed stuff from an article that didn't belong in it, and yet added to the article.

Also, in order to have an article reflect one's viewpoint one normally has to edit it extensively. But surely this does not imply that editing an article extensively leads it to reflect one's own viewpoint. (The fact that P implies Q does not entail that Q implies P.)

Now, what objections do you have to the new lead? -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the position previous to the mass editing, I am available to discuss and work through the desireded edits in a consensual manner. Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From your request for discussion, I understood you were obecting only the removal of the figures of people of immigration descent. Thus my previous post above.


 * Evidently my objective isn't merely the removal of content that doesn't belong in it. It is to improve the article as a whole.


 * All the changes that I have been implementing have been discussed in this talk page; I recommend you to read it with some attention before starting to revert things.


 * What exactly are your problems with the changes I have made? Ninguém (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the absolute alteration of the article by one editor that I feel is detrimental in this case to the article, the discussion as I can see is 6 months old, I am presently scanning the archives and hope that together over the next few days (no deadlines) we can work towards dealing with any issues you have regarding the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So you have reverted the article to its former position, whitout any discussion about why you are doing it. It now states, for instance, that "White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants."

Do you believe that it is an adequate description? Don't you think that there are people, for instance, that descend from European and other White immigrants that aren't even Brazilian? And what does it mean to say that "White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants"? Does it mean that the man below, whose genomic ancestry is 70% European, is a "White Brazilian"?



What have you to object to the discussion you have removed, that points to the fact that "races" are social constructs? Do you disagree that the concept of "White" in Brazil may be different from the concept of "White" in other countries? Do you disagree with the statement that the genes responsible for the features that convey the perception of "race" are a small part of the human genome? Do you believe that the process through which people of different physical appearance but similar proportions of African/European ancestry have been brought into existence is not well described? Or perhaps you have a problem with the fact that the Indian Census does not count people by race?

Rather than making such a blind reversal, I believe you should object to the changes point by point, and explain why do you think they should be removed. Ninguém (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you have mass edited the article and that is bold, but I am reverting to the previous version and requesting discussion, the only issue is the fact that there have been mass edits, if it was only one it would be easy, but that is one of the issues with mass editing, anyway..I am available for discussion and will happily put this article at the top of my attention list and together I am sure with good faith we can work through your issues and help create a better more informative well balanced article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Off2riorob, the onus is on you to start to explain how the version that you chose to revert to is better. The revision history of the article shows a series of revisions by Ninguém, all (or almost all) of which have clear edit summaries. You go through those edits, seeing whether they live up to the edit summaries made for them. If you find some that are suspect, you're welcome to question them here.


 * Unless perhaps you think that any set of extensive revisions by any one author should be reverted. By this criterion, I suppose I did wrong here. But this is news to me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, right is only wrong if it is contested, and even then it is not actually wrong. This is not a judgment it is all good opposing positions make for more balanced articles. Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, the onus is not on me at all, the revisions were bold, very bold and I have reverted them and have made myself available to work on this and am available for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable. Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

But what should I discuss?

For instance, I have asked you about what is wrong with the changes I made to the lead. You haven't explained. May I presume that you have no problems with the new version of the lead, and, in this case, can I restore it? Ninguém (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have clearly explained myself, please don't assume anything. You must remember my pointing out and linking just previous in this section to the lede b4 you started your editing and the lede you edited to, the two are incomparable, reverting to your mass edited lede is imo, not an option, as I said, please allow me a little time, scan through the archive and such, please remember there is no deadline. Off2riorob (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you most certainly haven't clearly explained yourself. You have reverted to an older version, but you haven't explained what the problems with the changes are, at all - except that there are changes. I am seriously tempted to simply undo your reversal, so that we can discuss, with no deadlines, why exactly you think that the two versions are "incomparable". Ninguém (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides, you haven't linked to the lead at all; you have linked to a subsection, and then stated that I have altered it to a whole group of subsections that were already there before my edits. Ninguém (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, for your comfort, the changes I have actually implemented in the article's lead:


 * And here, the changes I have summarised as "removing information that does not belong in this article": ; they have not added to the article - all the subsections about "Italians", "Germans", etc., were already there. Ninguém (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Opinoso
Off2riorob is right. Ninguém does not have clear edit sumarries. He mostly said "Removing information that belongs in the Immigration article"; Removing sentences that are not relevant to the subject of the article.

He removed several informations that he said to "belong in the Immigration article" but he did not even re-posted the information in the Immigration article. He simply disappeared with the information from Wikipedia. This is not the right thing to do. Moreover, the user removed several information saying that they "belong to the Immigration article" (Immigration to Brazil), but at the same time he re-wrote an entire text about the impact of the immigration from article Immigration to Brazil to this article.

Why does he remove informations saying that they belong to the Immigration to Brazil article, but at the same time he re-writes informations from that article here?

The article lead ninguém wrote is so bizarre that he included a "fact tag" to his own information. Why did he write an information with a fact tag?

About the numbers of descendants of each ethnic group in Brazil, user Ninguém is trying to remove these numbers for months. He already took this discussion to several places of Wikipedia, and I remember there was a concensus that the numbers should star, a consensus he did not respect (if the Embassy of Italy claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil, it is a reliable source). If Clevário said only 18% of Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated to the country in the past 2 centuries, this is another source. Clevário may be right or may be wrong, as well as the Embassy. Nobody is able to decide who is wrong or right. Both sources may be used.

Ninguém posted several unsourced informations (what is India doing there? Is there any significant White population in India, besides on imaginary Brazilian soap-operas with White actors playing Indians?);;;

His change focus a lot in Portuguese people and gives little importance for the other large White ethnic groups present in Brazil (Italians, Spaniards, Germans, Arabs, others). Informations about non-Portuguese people were removed, while more informations about Portuguese were included. Why? The Portuguese is one of the ethnic groups of Brazil, with high importance for the Brazilian population as a whole, but when it is specifically about White Brazilians, their role was not much bigger than the Italian one, for example. No reason to give little importance to non-Portuguese people for the formation of White Brazilians, as they had a large influence along with the Portuguese.

User Ninguém is since the beggining trying to create the imaginary theory that the Portuguese are the majority in Brazil and that the other ethnic groups are small "details" in this country.. Since he has no sources that supports his claims, he removes informations about non-Portuguese ethnic groups, so that the Portuguese group can be emphasized. Ninguém already reported to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" and is always saying that people of colonial Portuguese descent are majority in Brazil. We cannot ignore this "coincidence". It seems this user is trying to share his personal condition or ancestry with the rest of the Brazilian population.

I already had problems with other Brazilian users who claimed to be of "German descent" and tried to paint Brazil as a copy of Germany, posting picture of blonde Brazilian models everywhere, or other users who were obsessed with Africa and tried to make Brazil as a copy of Africa. It often happens in several articles about ethnic groups in Wikipedia: an user who claims to be of a certain ethnic group tries to convert a country or a celebrity as "one of them", not respecting the reality or neutrality.

And no, White Brazilian is not a person who "looks White". It is also a person who looks non-White and has money and social status. By the way, who "looks White"? Southern Italians, for example, were not considered to be White in the United States. Until today, many Southern Europeans are called "Latino" in the USA.

Singer Rihanna is "White" in Barbados. This is because Barbados is a Black country and if a person is a little light, then the person is White. This phenomenon also happens to some extent in Brazil. What is White in Brazil is often Black in the United States, with many people who are clearly non-White (even by Brazilian standards) being identified as such because they are sorrounded by dark-skinned people and a lighter skin makes you White or because of the prejudice of being associate with the Black category, avoided by many people because of the deep and sad racism still alive for many people or because the person has money and social status and "becomes white".

Soccer player Ronaldo, during an interview, said he is White. He and many other "White" Brazilians who look like him.

Even though this is changing, as many people are leaving the White category and moving to the darker ones, the white phenomenon is still strong here.

Yes, Brazil does have many people who "look White or European", largely because of the more recent European immigration, but this is far from being 50% of the population as self-declared on censuses. It's the minority, because many people who definetly does not look White or European, like Ronaldo, are counted as Whites as well. Ronaldo is probably one of the people counted by Ninguém as "Whites of colonial Portuguese ancestry".

And when it comes about Brazil, few people know about the country and its confusing racial composition, then any user can write imaginary informations and make people believe this is the reality.

I'm busy, and I cannot spend hours and hours here or discussing if there are 25 million or only 25 people of Italian descent in Brazil. Wikipedia is not a Forum for racial discussions. I'm too busy for that, and I cannot protect the informations of racial articles of Brazil from being removed or changed by anyone...somebody watch these articles, please, because more and more informations will be removed Opinoso (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinoso, you say: I'm busy, and I cannot spend hours and hours here or discussing if there are 25 million or only 25 people of Italian descent in Brazil. Wikipedia is not a Forum for racial discussions. I warmly agree.


 * Fine, let's discuss the article stage by stage. I am about to protect the current version, regardless of its relative value, in order to help this process. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is frozen
I have protected the article. Let's discuss it. (But not in this section.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions archived
This talk page was long. I understand the reason why, but it doesn't sway me. People can, and sometimes should, look at the archived discussions.

There are now two archive pages. They will need to be reordered somewhat; but in the meantime they overlap somewhat. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém's edits (1): 1 to 3 December
Between 1 and 3 December, Ninguém (and Ninguém alone) made this series of edits.

I shall try to describe the individual edits, neutrally, below. I have my own comments, but shall add these later, below. If you have comments, place them below.


 * 01: Deletion of  though, according to the German news website Deutsche Welle: "... journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at least one German ancestor." If so, then the number would be as high as 18 million.  with the edit summary "Dubious source, not cited elsewhere".
 * 02: Change of in the entire Brazil, to as a whole. with the edit summary "Grammar".
 * 03: Deletion of White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Addition of two paragraphs, of which the second is long. These point toward the conclusion that a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry. This has the edit summary "Removing essentialist and tautological phrasing."
 * 04: Formatting fix.
 * 05: Providing more information on a reference.
 * 05: Altering one URL and redoing one reference, with the edit summary "More recent data".
 * 06: An edit very similar to the one immediately preceding it.
 * 07: Minor reordering.
 * 08: Fixing an error in a couple of footnotes.
 * 09: Removing  The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese. , with the edit summary "Removing assertion not supported by the purported source."
 * 10: Changing one URL, with the edit summary "Improving reference."

Please comment about these edits in this section. Do not comment on the motivation of any editor (except me). Do not make rude comments about any editor (except me). If you want to make some other comments, feel free to do so -- but in a new section that you start for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the edits of 1 to 3 December have been discussed, we can move on to those from 4 December. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém's edits (1): 1 to 3 December: Comments
Edit 03 above is problematic. It starts with the unsupported premiss that race is a social construct. Also, the edit summary only tells half (and the smaller half) of the story. I take the FACT tag as a handy memo to self: "I know that this is true, but realize that my personal knowledge is insufficient for WP purposes. I'll be back later with evidence for this assertion." &para; Now, the fact that what's popularly referred to as "race" is a social construct is well known in the social sciences. Here's a reference for you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) rephrased 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not propose to check every sourced assertion against its source. However, if somebody else claims that there is a discrepancy with a given source, I shall check that source. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see:


 * 01: Deletion of  though, according to the German news website Deutsche Welle: "... journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at least one German ancestor." If so, then the number would be as high as 18 million.  with the edit summary "Dubious source, not cited elsewhere".


 * The removed information was a curious one. It was kept in the article's body, though, for some reason, it was not deemed good for the infobox. Indeed, in German Brazilian (where it would belong, if it were true), it is constantly removed, even called vandalism: (Unsourced),,  (Undid vandalism),,  (Unsourced).


 * But perhaps the edits above were wrong, and the information is good, and should not only be kept here, but restored to German Brazilian?


 * First, I will maintain that it does not belong here. This is an article about White Brazilians; while it evidently has to discuss, in some lenght, the phenomenon of immigration, because such immigration was predominantly White and impacted the composition of the "racial" makeup of the Brazilian population, it does not need fragmentary data about the number of supposed descendants of immigrants.


 * Second, the primary source for such information is "journalist and historian Dieter Boehnke". Who is Dieter Boehnke, and what other historians have to say about his books, papers, theories, etc.? A cursory search will reveal that Boehnke has no published books, no published papers, is not cited by other historians (or sociologists, anthropologists, demographers, geographers, political scientists, etc., for what it matters). Thus my summary edit: "Dubious source, not cited elsewhere".Ninguém (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 02: Change of in the entire Brazil, to as a whole. with the edit summary "Grammar".


 * I find it difficult to understand the rationale behind the reversal of this edit. The former version was awkward, if not wrong.


 * 03: Deletion of White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Addition of two paragraphs, of which the second is long. These point toward the conclusion that a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry. This has the edit summary "Removing essentialist and tautological phrasing."


 * First of all, we already know that White Brazilians are not "all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants". Apart from the obvious fact that a White Brazilian needs to be Brazilian first place, most Brazilians do not know their ancestries, so it is impossible to know who is and who is not "full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants" in Brazil. Unless we maintain that we can guess such ancestry from the physical appearance of individuals. But this is exactly what the article "Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC140919/#id2601616) shows is impossible.


 * And, in fact, the available researchs will point in a completely different direction. For instance, a research conducted in Rio de Janeiro (http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf) shows that the average genomic composition of White Brazilians in that city is 86.4% European - but also that the average genomic composition of "pardos" in there is 68.1% European. So, according to this article, as it now reads, most, if not all, "pardos" in Rio de Janeiro are in fact White, since they are "mainly descended of European and other White immigrants"! And even Rio de Janeiro's Blacks have, in average, 41.8% European ancestry - and since this is an average, it is easy to conclude that some of them, individually considered, are "mainly descended of European and other White immigrants"... By this reasoning, the population of Rio de Janeiro would be 80% or more "White"...!


 * About the Fact Tag, Hoary's interpretation is correct. I (and, I suppose, most people) know that "race is a social construct". I would like to reference the statement, and so I placed a Fact Tag to remind myself that I need to find a really good reference.


 * Now, perhaps we could benefit from a good explanation of the correct use of Fact Tags. I have had in the past been accused of "disruption" for inserting Fact Tags in articles, and I wonder why Wikipedia would have the feature if it was inherently disruptive. As far as I can understand, a Fact Tag means only "this needs a reference"; it has absolutely no bearing on the accurateness of the tagged information. But perhaps I am wrong, and Fact Tags are in fact only useful to create disruptions. Hoary, can you please explain us how should we understand and use Fact Tags?


 * Oh, and about the edit summary: "Removing essentialist and tautological phrasing." The phrasing in case is this: "White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants". It is essentialist, because it goes directly against the established knowledge that "races" are social constructs, and restates the old, racialist notion that "races" are actual biological entities. And it is tautological, or perhaps better saying, circular, because it defines Whites in terms of Whites (What is a White? It is a person who descends from... Whites. But what are those Whites from whom they descend?)Ninguém (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Um . . . pretty much as you suppose, I think. I use them quite a lot. My use of them increases when I smell something fishy, but I also attach them to assertions that I know are true. And when others attach them to assertions that I know are true but that are unsourced and for which I can't immediately come up with a source, I don't remove them. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 04: Formatting fix.


 * 05: Providing more information on a reference.


 * I don't see the need to defend these edits.


 * 05: Altering one URL and redoing one reference, with the edit summary "More recent data".
 * 06: An edit very similar to the one immediately preceding it.


 * Both these edits introduce the most recent data available, those of the 2008 PNAD. I honestly cannot see the rationale of their suppression, except that it was a massive blind reversal, undoing everything that I made, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Ninguém (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 07: Minor reordering.
 * 08: Fixing an error in a couple of footnotes.


 * I don't see the need to defend these edits.


 * 09: Removing  The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese. , with the edit summary "Removing assertion not supported by the purported source."


 * Here is the source that would support the notion that the "main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese"


 * The word "Portuguese" appears 15 times in the source. The first states that Portuguese males were sampled, to provide a comparison to Brazilian individuals; the second refers to the "discovery" (their quote marks) of Brazil; the third refers to the number of Portuguese colonists coming to Brazil; the fourth, to the arrival of the Portuguese court in Brazil, in 1808; the fifth states that "Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan"; sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth again refer to the researched sample of Portuguese males.


 * The word "Italian" appears four times in the source. The first says that "distinct footprints" of Italian immigration to Brazil were found; the second is the passage about Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Syrian, Lebanese and Japanese immigrants; the third states that the relatively high frequence of a haplogroup in Southern Brazil is probably related to the large Italian immigration to the region; the fourth discusses the prevalence of another haplogroup in Italians.


 * The words "Spanish" and "Spaniards" don't appear in the source; the word "Spain" appears once, in the passage already referred twice above.


 * The words "German" and "Germany" appear once each; the first is the already quoted passage, and the second discusses the prevalence of a haplogroup in Germans, pointing that this could explain its presence in Brazil.


 * The words "Syria" and "Lebanon" only appear in the already quoted passage; the word "Lebanese" also appears once, in discussing the prevalence of Haplogroup PN2.


 * Nowhere the source states which "ancestries" are more common in Brazil. The passage that states that "Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan" is merely a description of the composition of the arrival of immigrants in the XIXth and XXth centuries; nowhere this is weighed against the arrival of Europeans before the XIXth century.


 * Nor are the findings of the paper, properly considered, supportive of the removed sentence. On the contrary, what the paper concludes is that "there were no significant differences when the haplogroup frequencies in Brazil and Portugal were compared by means of an exact test of population differentiation." And while it finds "distinct footprints of Italian immigration to southern Brazil", it makes no reference to Spanish, German, Syrian, or Lebanese footprints. On the contrary, what it distinticvely finds is distinct footprints of "migration of Moroccan Jews to the Amazon region" and "possible relics of the 17th-century Dutch invasion of northeast Brazil".


 * So, if the "main ancestries" of White Brazilians are "Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese", this would need another source; this one, to put it mildly, does not talk about the subject.


 * 10: Changing one URL, with the edit summary "Improving reference."


 * No need to defend this edit. Ninguém (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Open message to Opinoso
Opinoso, you write above: ''I'm busy, and I cannot spend hours and hours here or discussing if there are 25 million or only 25 people of Italian descent in Brazil. Wikipedia is not a Forum for racial discussions. I'm too busy for that, and I cannot protect the informations of racial articles of Brazil from being removed or changed by anyone...somebody watch these articles, please, because more and more informations will be removed''

As I've said above, I sympathize.

Since nobody made any other suggestions, I decided that one way to approach this would be to encourage the discussion of Ninguém's edits stage by stage. I put a non-negligible amount of time into describing the first batch. Shortly thereafter, Ninguém must surely have put in a lot more time into commenting on the edits and on my descriptions.

Please either (a) do one of the following:


 * 1) Comment on this first batch of edits.
 * 2) Explain a better alternative to doing this batch by batch.
 * 3) Withdraw your objections (perhaps conditionally).

or (b) say by when you will do one of them.

When I talk of a condition, what I have in mind is something like your announcement on some relevant message board that (i) you believe the article has been debased, (ii) you are too busy to attend to this yourself, (iii) you invite experienced editors to take a look. Of course if you did that, we should wait up to two days for some response from other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm really busy. About the first changes by Ninguém, to fix sources or to include figures from newer census is ok, that's not the point here. But, the user removed the information which said: "The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese. ".

The source said "Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan.". With the exception of the Japanese, all the others are considered Whites in Brazil. Since these were the main souces of immigrants to Brazil, these are the main ancestries of White Brazilians.

By the way, there are other sources claiming the diversity of ancestries of Whites Brazilians:

""Peoples of many origins fixed themselves in here, coexisting in complete harmony: Whites of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population; Blacks, whose ancestors came from Africa; the Yellows or Mongoloids, represented by the Japanese and their descendants, as well as by Indians, primitive owners of our land; and by the great number of Mestizos, resultants of the crossings of those different ethnic types. This population, that it is still in an ongoing formation, it is distributed in different ways [...]." (pp.2-3)

"Not all Whites that live in Brazil had the same origin: some came from the Atlantic-Mediterranean Europe, others from central-eastern Europe, others of Asian lands in the Middle Eastern. In relation to the Blacks, their ancestors came from the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, such as Angola and Mozambique, different in their physical types and customs. Even among the Mestizos, the differences are deep: Caboclos, Mulattoes, Cafuzos, Juçaras, Ainocôs." (pp.2-3). Source: Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971."

"Over this foundation it was added, beyond the Portuguese, who since the colonization continued entering free and regularly in Brazil, several other peoples (immigrants), extending and diversifying even more the ethnic formation of the Brazilian population. The main groups that entered after Brazil Independence (1822) were the following ones: Atlantic-Mediterranean (Italian and Spanish), Germanic (German), Slavs (Polish and Ukranians) and Asians (Japanese)." (p.268) source: Coelho, Marcos Amorim. Geografia do Brasil. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 1996

White Brazilians are not mainly of Portuguese ancestry, but it is a very diverse group, which included the Portuguese and many others.

About Ronaldo, no, he is not a White person. And yes, he knows very well his ancestry. When he said he was "White", there was a big discussion in Brazil about this. His father is Black and according to newspapers O Globo "his mother is mixed and his father is self-declared Black". Ronaldo "became White" because of the money he has. And yes, he is counted as "White" in IBGE, but no, he is not a "White of colonial Portuguese ancestry"...he could not pass as Portuguese in Portugal.

"Ronaldo's statement has to do with the whitening ideal of black Brazilians. They incorporated the concept of white superiority. Then to be mixed-race is not enough. Who stands socially becomes white".- said anthropologist Júlio Cesar de Tavares

According to Ninguém's theory, White in Brazil is a person who "looks White" and "is socially accepeted as White". Not in the case of Ronaldo and millions of other "White Brazilians". Ronaldo does not look White, neither is accepeted as White (if he were accepeted as White, his affirmation that he is White would no rise all that scandal in Brazilian media).

And no, people from India are not Whites. Not even in Brazil they are Whites. It's even bizarre to read this. This confusing may be because recently there was a soap opera in Brazil with White actors playing Indian people. Even though everybody knows that soap operas do not reflect the reality, some people may believe in them. But no, Indians are not Whites (yes, there are some Whites in India because of the English settlement, but this is a small population). Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, are you saying that your only objections to the first set of Ninguém's edits are (1) his deletion of
 *  "The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese. " 
 * and (2) his understanding of "white"?
 * Secondly, are you implying that "White Brazilians" are those
 * of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population
 * plus those who
 * came from the Atlantic-Mediterranean Europe, others from central-eastern Europe, others of Asian lands in the Middle Eastern.
 * ? -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ? -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the only thing he did in the first edits was to include a newer census data and to remove the ancestries of Brazilians. Am I missing something? Opinoso (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

Sources say,


 * "Portuguese and Italian immigrants arrived in almost equal numbers (comprising almost 70% of the total), followed by immigrants from Spain, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, and Japan."


 * The main groups that entered after Brazil Independence (1822) were the following ones: Atlantic-Mediterranean (Italian and Spanish), Germanic (German), Slavs (Polish and Ukranians) and Asians (Japanese)


 * Peoples of many origins fixed themselves in here, coexisting in complete harmony: Whites of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population;


 * Not all Whites that live in Brazil had the same origin: some came from the Atlantic-Mediterranean Europe, others from central-eastern Europe, others of Asian lands in the Middle Eastern

None of this is the same as, or even implies that


 * ''The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.

(The third source above, by the way, explicitly says that Whites of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population, ie, that White Brazilians are the majority of the Brazilian population - which is, as far as I can understand, what the present version of this article seeks to deny.)

Now let's look at the article again. It says,


 * White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD.

But what White Brazilians make up 49.7% of the Brazilian population? "Whites" as defined by the IBGE, ie, people who self declare White. So the first line of the article uses the IBGE's definition, "White Brazilians are Brazilians who self-classify as White".

Two lines below, we find this:


 * White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

which is a very different (and incompatible) definition; evidently not all people who self-classify as "White" are are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants, nor all people who self-classify as non-White are not of "full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants". We have seen that the average self-classified "pardo" in Rio de Janeiro has 68% of European genes. In fact, if we were to use this definition, the "White" population would be much larger than 49.7%.

And in the very next line, we find this:


 * Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World,

which implies again the self-classification definition used by the IBGE.

But if this was not enough, in the section entitled "Conception of White", the article states still a third definition of "White Brazilian", that is different from the two above, and expressely contradictory to the "ancestry" definition:


 * ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.

And a few lines below,


 * The conception of Whiteness in Brazil is based on the skin color of a person, which contrasts with the conception of race and ancestry, as used in the United States.

and more two lines, and we have this:


 * This analysis shows that the ancestry of a person is quite insignificant to racially classify people in Brazil.

So, which of these three definitions is to be used in the article? Because, if "White Brazilians are Brazilians who self-classify as White", then they are 49.7% of the population, but they are not "all people full or mainly descended from Europeans or otherwise White ancestors". And if they are "all people full or mainly descended from Europeans or otherwise White ancestors", then ancestry of a person is evidently not "insignificant to racially classify people in Brazil".

And to worsen things even more, there is an unstated definition of "White Brazilian", that seems to be the basic assumption of this article, and that can be summed up by this sentence in the Talk Page:


 * By the way, who "looks White"? Southern Italians, for example, were not considered to be White in the United States. Until today, many Southern Europeans are called "Latino" in the USA.

Or, in other words, the right racial classification is that of the United States. This, of course, is also incompatible with the three previous definitions of "White Brazilians". Ninguém (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that there is plenty of room in the article to simply explain these issues to clearly define the different concepts of white cultural usage, white genetic explanation and comparison to the global cultural and genetic understandings of similar expressions in other countries. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, I asked you two questions. Thank you for answering the first one. Now the second (slightly rephrased):


 * Are "White Brazilians" are those
 * of European origin (notably Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainians) and of Asian origin (Syrians and Lebanese), whose descendants constitute the majority of our population
 * plus those who
 * came from the Atlantic-Mediterranean Europe, others from central-eastern Europe, others of Asian lands in the Middle Eastern.

If your answer is yes, a follow-up: For you, does this define "White Brazilians" (are people of such origin "White Brazilians" regardless of their looks), or does this explain the phenomenon of "White Brazilians" (identifiable by their looks)?

You may of course object to the fact that I am asking questions here. If so, feel free to make the objections here, in view of other administrators. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ronaldo
Opinoso wrote this:


 * Soccer player Ronaldo, during an interview, said he is White. He and many other "White" Brazilians who look like him.


 * Even though this is changing, as many people are leaving the White category and moving to the darker ones, the white phenomenon is still strong here.


 * Yes, Brazil does have many people who "look White or European", largely because of the more recent European immigration, but this is far from being 50% of the population as self-declared on censuses. It's the minority, because many people who definetly does not look White or European, like Ronaldo, are counted as Whites as well. Ronaldo is probably one of the people counted by Ninguém as "Whites of colonial Portuguese ancestry".

I understand that Opinoso is very angry with Ronaldo because he dared to self-classify as White. However, let's try to understand how Ronaldo's "racial" identity should be dealt with according to this article, in its present (and protected) version. This article (in its present (and protected) version) says:


 * White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

Which means that to know whether Ronaldo is White or not, we would need to know his ancestry. If most of his ancestors are European or otherwise White, then Ronaldo is White.

Given the indignation of Opinoso with Ronaldo's self classification, one has to wonder whether Opinoso knows Ronaldo's ancestry. For my part, I must say that I haven't the leastest idea of Ronaldo's ancestry. More, I am certain that most Brazilians also don't have any idea about it. I have never seen Ronaldo's genealogic tree, nor any result of some DNA testing that could enlighten us about Ronaldo's ancestry. Indeed, I am pretty sure that none of these things exist. I even suspect that Ronaldo himself hasn't the leastest idea about his ancestry.

So, according to the definition of this article, in its present (and protected) version, it is impossible to know whether Ronaldo is White or non-White. But Opinoso seems pretty sure that he isn't. Why? I would dare say that this is because of Ronaldo's physical appearance. To Opinoso, Ronaldo doesn't look White. I must say that I agree - if asked, I would say that Ronaldo is "pardo", not White. More, I would dare say that most Brazilians agree - this being the reason his public self-classification has risen so much polemic (and even some laughter). But this has nothing to do with ancestry. What Opinoso, me, or most Brazilians do, to decide whether we think Ronaldo is White, is not to assess Ronaldo's ancestry, but to look at his face, and take into account a few phenotypical treats: complexion, hair type, facial features. Those, in Ronaldo's case, are generally considered non-White in Brazil.

But it has nothing to do with ancestry. In fact, Ronaldo's phenotype can do no more than show that he has some African ancestry, and some European ancestry. It cannot tell us if he is "mainly descended of European and other White immigrants" or if he is mainly descended of African people. I wouldn't be surprised if a test concluded that his genomic ancestry is 60% African. Nor I would be surprised if it concluded it is 75% European. But in neither case it would change the fact that he is generally regarded as "pardo", himself being a minoritary dissenting voice.

Those genetic tests are becoming fashionable, though. It is quite possible that sooner or later Ronaldo's ancestry will become public. In this case, if the genetic test shows that he has more than more European than African or Amerindian ancestry, can we agree to put his picture in the infobox, illustrating what a White Brazilian is, according to the definition of this article, in its present (and protected) version? Or, instead, can we change the definition in this article to avoid that? Ninguém (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The expression white Brazilian in Brazil seems to me not to be strongly a genetic reality, that is one of the things that I at first appraisal did not like in the recent changes, a swing from the literal way the expression is generally used in Brazil to a genetic discussion, the genetics are relevant but the original whites and the way the expression is commonly used in Brazil is not strongly supported by genetic tests, Ronaldo is more reflective of the appearance of a Pardo, imo, it is quite a complicated subject with a fair bit of opinion thrown in, white in this case does not actually in general use not mean white, a rich descendant of perhaps Spanish and Portuguese descendants that perhaps keeps out of the sun and encourages a whiter appearance could easily be referred to as a branco but Ronaldo who has developed and works on a mulatto sun type tan is by his actions of developing his darker skin color would naturally not be referred to as white, even if his genetics were the same as the other Brazilian that has developed the appearance of whiteness and there is my general position, the article was being moved more towards a genetic standpoint whereas I believe that the brancos of Brazil more of a cultural and historical expression. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the version that you apparently prefer is the one that emphasyses ancestry. The article is not about Ronaldo nor is Ronaldo mentioned in it, either in the version you restored or in the changes I made.

The version you restored states that White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. This is totally false; nobody in Brazil even thinks about ancestry when discussing race. Brazilians do not know their ancestries, much less the ancestries of each others; how can "White Brazilians" be "all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants" if they don't know these data?

The changes I made restored reality and are much closer to what you are stating: a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronaldo does not look White, neither is accepeted as White, but is counted as White in the census of IBGE, because he self-reports to be White. Then, your theory, besides being unsourced, is not correct. Opinoso (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. Ninguém wrote What Opinoso, me, or most Brazilians do, to decide whether we think Ronaldo is White, is not to assess Ronaldo's ancestry, but to look at his face, and take into account a few phenotypical treats: complexion, hair type, facial features. Those, in Ronaldo's case, are generally considered non-White in Brazil. Do you disagree with this? If so, how? If not, where else do you disagree? -- Hoary (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém wrote that in Brazil you are White if you "look White" and is "accepeted as White". But, according to Ninguém, Ronaldo "does not look White" and then "is not accepeted as White". But Ronaldo is counted as White by Brazilian census (he said to be White and census is based on self-classification). He is included in the "48% White Brazilians". If a person who does not look White is counted as White, then the unsourced theory by Ninguém makes no sense. Opinoso (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I (a long way from Brazil) understand it, most people in Brazil perceive as "white" (or branco) a combination of the complexion, hair type, and facial features associated with "whiteness". It's very likely that the people who designed the Brazilian census had this in mind. (Surely branco was not an arbitrarily provided adjective. I don't suppose that verde was provided as another option.) I've never seen the census form and (as I can't read Portuguese) wouldn't understand it if I saw it. But as I understand it, people weren't given questions about "racial features" (e.g. "Is your hair straight, wavy, or curly?") and asked to derive their "racial" group via some algorithm. Instead, they were just asked to choose one label among several options. (Alas I don't even know if "Don't know / don't care" was one of these. This is what I would have chosen for myself.) Apparently your Ronaldinho called himself branco and thus would contribute toward the official statistic of 48% or whatever it is. He's accepted as White for the census but not accepted as White in the mass media or perhaps by popular opinion. To me, there is indeed something pretty senseless in this: the continuing interest in "race". But granted that there is some interest in "race" and that that this article continues to exist, I think that it should explain both (a) popular perceptions and (b) the official demographic approach. If these are incompatible with each other, that's hardly the fault of Ninguém, you, or any other editor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This paper seems to show that at least in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, self-classification tends to result in "darker" answers than classification by an interviwer:

So, while there certainly are people socially perceived as "pardo" doing like Ronaldinho, and self-classifying as White, there seem to be even more people doing the opposite, and self-classifying as "pardo" when socially perceived as White. Ninguém (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This other study shows similar results for the city of São Paulo. Ninguém (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Hi, I am back from a small illness, just having a little look at some of the comments....Feel free to update me... Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have still to contribute anything substantive here. Up to now, you haven't said a word about what you disagree with in the changes you reverted.


 * Can you read the comments above by Hoary and me, and discuss them here, please? Ninguém (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as you are the person mass editing a established article, would you please state, what it was, in general that you objected to about the article and what is your objective as a way of general change to the article by multiple alterations, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. You may also be interested in reading this: Ninguém (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for such changes has been discussed several times before, Off2riorob. No reason to point them out again as it will take too much time and space. Take a look at the archives and read them. Some of them were also discussed in the article Brazil. You have reverted Ninguém's edits with no good reasonn as you have not revealed any source contrary and all you said was nothing more than "I don't like what you did and so I will revert them." I will request for an administrator to unlock the article and allow Ninguém to keep with his work. Making mass edits in an article has never been a problem in Wikipedia before, even if it changes the article in a considerable way, AS LONG as they are not vandalism. And as far as I could see, Ninguém's edit can not be called vandalism. Because of you the article was blocked and i do hope that it won't happen again. --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been no major discussion of what was basically a rewrite of an established article, no one has accused anyone of vandalism, the simple facts are as I have detailed them, mass editing of an established article by one editor clearly worthy of discussion, I see you were one of the people ninguem deemed to notify the moment I reverted his edits and I see you support all of his changes..I am here to balance and discuss these changes, I suggest if people declare their position then we can begin to actually discuss the alterations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You still haven't point out what is wrong in his changes and according to what sources. All you do is to say in other words "I didn't like his changes and so I reverted them." If you want to see why they were changed, see the archives. It has been dicussed over and over. Once you have read them and once you have brought good reasons to oppose his edits, then we can begin discussing something. So far, I don't even know why we are having this dicussion because "I don't like your edits" is not a good point to begin with. Also: Hoary has requested to anyone who wants it to coment what is wrong in Ninguém's edit but you have ignored them for what reason, I don't know. --Lecen (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So far the reasons you made to revert Ninguém's edits were:


 * "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."
 * "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."


 * Well, that's ownership.


 * Let's take a look at Opinoso's reasons (as usual) to why he oppose (any) change on (any) article he (owns) "contributes":


 * "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
 * "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."
 * "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."
 * "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
 * "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
 * "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."


 * Well, that's ownership. --Lecen (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * EC, how can I own this article, I have just got here..Actually I have clearly stated my position and it is not at all that I don't like them...I clearly stated my position just above, as I said, if people state their positions regarding why this established article should be mass edited to reflect clearly different position to what it has held for quite some time then we can move forward to discussing editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you "just got here" how can you say that there was a text "held for quite some time"? Did you or did you not get in here now? And since when a text in Wikipedia has to be kept forever as the same? --Lecen (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stability of an article is a good thing, as I have requested, please explain your position and reasons as to why this article needs a major rewrite from the position it was previously in. Please drop this position and attempt to move towards discussion over what your actual issues are with the article as it has existed in quite a stable way for some degree of time. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stability of an article is a good thing if it results of consensus. It is not a good thing if it results of ownership. Ninguém (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which consensus? This article was completly changed without any consensus. Opinoso (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede.
The changes to the lede...from this....simple clear explanation......

''White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3]''

to this......

''White Brazilians make up 48.4% of Brazil's population[4], or around 92 million people[1], according to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households). Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.

Races are social constructs. Therefore, what is understood as "race" in one particular society is not the same that is understood as such in another society. The Brazilian social construct of "White race" is particularly very different from the concept of "White race" in other countries.

The degree of miscigenation in Brazil is very high; Brazil was not colonised by families of Portuguese settlers, but rather by Portuguese individual male adventurers[citation needed]. Those tended to reproduce with Amerindian and African females. This made possible a myth of “racial democracy”, which tends to obscure the existence of racial prejudice and discrimination in Brazil. However social prejudice connected to certain details in the physical appearance of individual is widespread. Those details are related to the concept of "cor". Cor, which is Portuguese for "colour" denotes the Brazilian rough equivalent of the English term race, but is based on a complex phenotypic evaluation that takes into account skin pigmentation, hair type, nose shape, and lip shape. This concept, unlike the English notion of "race", captures the continuous aspects of phenotypes. Thus, it seems there is no racial descent rule operational in Brazil; it is even possible for two siblings to belong to completely diverse "racial" categories[5]. Thence, a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry.

Genes responsible for the features associated with "cor" are a smallish part of human genome. The miscigenation of people of different races in a country like Brazil can therefore result in a population with very different features, varying from those whose features are quite close to African to those whose features are much closer to European. This happens through the association of the processes of miscigenation and "assortative mating": suppose the first generation offspring of European fathers and African mothers. Their genome will be 50% European and 50% African, but the distribution of these genes between those that affect the relevant features (skin colour, hair type, lip shape, nose shape) is randomic. Those whose features could be considered closer to the "White" prototype would tend then to procreate with other "whiter" 50-50 mixed individuals, while those whose features would be considered more evidently non-White would conversely tend to procreate among themselves. In the long term, this could produce a White and a Black group with surprisingly similar proportions of European and African ancestry[6].

According to Census data, Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7], so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown. Besides, as the social construct of "White" is different in Brazil, on one hand, and the United States or Russia, on the other, it is quite possible that a considerable proportion of Brazilian Whites would not be considered White at all in those other countries.''

IMO, totally excessive detail and to the ordinary person..totally unclear and a move to comments more genetic than cultural, which is one of my main issues, especially in as it is expressed in the lede in this way. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we are getting somewhere! At last! I do agree with you that the lead is too large and complex and I suggest that Ninguém should create a section with what he added. The people of Indian is considereded White, so India is clearly the country with most whites in the world. It's quite obvious that a white in India is not the same as a white in Persia or a white in Denmark. But they are all whites. Also, contrary to common belief, not only male Portuguese came to Brazil, but also families. --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think that


 * White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.


 * Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.

is a clear and simple explanation? But why revert from the data of 2008 to the data of 2006? And how are "White Brazilians" "all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants", if you say yourself that "White Brazilians" should be understood as a cultural concept?

And how is it clear to say that "the main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese", when in fact we don't know if that is true or not? Especially with quoting as source a paper on genetics that absolutely does not deal with that, and makes no statement about what are the "main ancestries" of White Brazilians?

And how is "White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants" cultural? It is just plain XIX century essentialism! Ninguém (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole of the king Joao Portuguese court went on mass to Brazil, as I understand it and from this gene pool are descended many of the inherited upper classes..Indians are not really white but there are white Indians, and they are from the same gene pool as Europeans... it is a very complicated issue, I personally feel that reading the article as it is now is a fair representation of the position, there are indians in india that are more English than English people, the English that is spoken there amongst the higher caste Indians is actually of a higher quality then is spoken in modern England. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea that John VI's court had an important impact into the demographics of Brazilian upper class' demographics needs a good source, because it seems very implausible. The court came to Rio de Janeiro (and a considerable part went back once the Napoleonic occupation was over); Brazilian upper class is spread throughout the country. But even if true and adequately sourced, it certainly does not belong in the lead.

The point about India is not whether its population is White or not. The point is it is a country with more than 1 billion inhabitants, so if even a small proportion of them as 10% were White, they would have a bigger White population than Brazil - and as their Census does not count people according to "race", we completely ignore how many White people there are in India, so saying that Brazil has the third biggest White population in the world could be right, but could also easily be wrong. Ninguém (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Indian people are not white in the way that the figure is quoted from official figures in the census in Brazil, I do believe that this figure requires explanation as to the reality of its position, as in they are not really white at all as the Indians are not really white at all. Actually the only genetic white Caucasian people as such in Brazil are the lourinyos or blonds as they are commonly referred to, less of a reference to their skin colour than to their hair colour who are decended mostly from the Germans that emigrated previous to and at the end of the second world war.Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely absurd; there is no such thing as "real whites". Ninguém (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I notice that the nice picture of the European style house in Pomerode was one of the items removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguem, if you want to mass edit the article and feel that it is in need of a rewrite, please state why you think that and what your objective is as to the position you would like the rewritten article to represent. Added to this comment from you.."The changes I made restored reality and are much closer to what you are stating: a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry" perhaps there is a degree of consenus for some change. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article, as it is now, does not discuss adequately the notion of "White Brazilian", leading the reader to conclude that there are no differences between the concepts of "race" in general, and of "White People" in particular, in Brazil as compared to these concepts in English-speaking countries.

This article focuses too much on immigration to Brazil in the late XIX and early XX century. Moreover it confuses things, by calling all people who came from abroad into Brazil, including colonial settlers and African slaves as "immigrants" in some sections, but implying that only those who came during the Great Immigration are in fact immigrants.

This article has two huge sections, "Colonial Whites" and "Post-colonial Whites", built exclusively around original research. There is absolutely no literature about these concepts, which are innovations conceived exclusively for this article.

Even more, this article insists in automatically considering anyone who is descended from an European immigrant arriving during the Great immigration as White, as if those immigrants had not extensively mixed with "pardos" and Black Brazilians, resulting in non-White German Brazilians, Italian Brazilians, etc.

For this reason, this article reads much more as an article on Immigration to Brazil than as an article about White Brazilians.

All this has been discussed, all this has been given as the reason for the edits I made. No one objected, as you can see here: Ninguém (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can support and agree with some of your comments, about the body of the article, these alterations to lede, as I have posted here that imo,  support the inclusion of an explanitory note as to an explanation of what white people the article is actually abou..this comment...'''Races are social constructs. Therefore, what is understood as "race" in one particular society is not the same that is understood as such in another society. The Brazilian social construct of "White race" is particularly very different from the concept of "White race" in other countries.''' Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your proposal? Ninguém (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not the one proposing any changes.. If I was to propose one it would be that in the lede should be an explanation of what a ''white Brazilian actually is in relation to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Like, for instance, "Thence, a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry."? Ninguém (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So far I've seen only personal opinions. Off2riorob, you should bring sources that goes against Ninguém's view and not give your opinion of what should be. And if you are not proposing a change you shouldn't even had reverted Ninguém's edit to begin with. What you did was simply disrupt the article and that's it. --Lecen (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just commented.just above...and I have commented here, I consider the posted alteration of the lede to be inflated with excessive detail. I like this comment including the original citation you added...this one..you added it to the extended lede, Races are social constructs. Therefore, what is understood as "race" in one particular society is not the same that is understood as such in another society. The Brazilian social construct of "White race" is particularly very different from the concept of "White race" in other countries.. This comment is clear and understandable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the citation that you were supporting it with. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So your objection is not to the content of the lead, but only to the fact it is in the lead and not in a discrete subsection? Ninguém (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is too big and full of unsourced theories. Opinoso (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ninguém,

As a very Brazilian person, I have taken a look at the "ethnic" sections related to Brazil, and they are generally very wrong. They project a racialism that does not exist in Brazil (a foreign and biased racialism). Not that there is no racism in Brazil. The presentation of both the "white" and the "black" sections is totally unfair. The "white" section concentrates on proving how "non white" "white" Brazilians are (from the point of view of "real whiteness"; lol totally absurd!), and the "black" section on how "black" the Brazilians are. In the "white" section a 5% non Euro ancestry Brazilian person is labelled as "non white", whereas in the "black" section anyone with a greater than say 5% 10% African ancestry is "black". There is an aggressive mood also, making it look like as if the relative notions of "race" would be "very wrong" in Brazil, when that's very far from the truth: race is relative, it is a social construct, and this is what leading experts on the field say, not me. The "white section" could include photos of "white Brazilians" too, with their DNA tests, just like the "black section": Tiazinha, the "brown" singer from the interior of Paraíba (99,9% European, who does not know any of her European ancestors, by the way; all of them "colonial 'white'"), José Sarney, from the interior of Maranhão (99,9% European; all of them "colonial 'white'") and Ivete Sangalo, Brazilian singer from the interior of Bahia who is 99,2% European and only 0,4% SSA and only 0,4% Native American, along with Zeca Camargo, another "brown" Brazilian, who is about 96% European (colonial times ancestry here as well), among many others like them, Paulo Coelho, for example, totally European, colonial ancestry from Ceará and Pará. They did not know of their ancestry and they do not care about it either, Paulo Coelho said: "how boring to be totally European! I wanted to be Moorish, Jewish, "black" and native American!" :) Ivete Sangalo complained that she did not have as much African as she wished she had, and Zeca Camargo celebrated his 2% Native American heritage!!

What Brazilian topics have shown to me is that from time to time heavily biased foreigners come and change the subject to fit their biased agendas, some even managed to control Brazilian related topics, as you and I have seen several times.

As the Brazilian geneticist Sérgio Pena said, each individual is unique, and it is up to himself, first and foremost, to say who he is. Brazilian topics subjects should present the Brazilian view first and foremost, not present the views of a couple of biased foreigners (there are plenty who are not biased of course) as "the truth".

As for myself "white", "pardo" and "black" are all colonial words, and I do not think they describe objective reality, they are social constructs. They were invented by the Western Eurasian invaders of the Americas and they were made up to serve their agendas. If we are going to talk about ancestries, everybody is related. R1b (the most common haplogroup in Western Europe) came from Central Asia and ultimately from Africa.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

At WP:AN/I
I've posted a note about this article here at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone later wants to see this, it has been archived here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém and Lecen
I just want to add that I subscribe to the adds by Ninguém and Lecen, two responsible Brazilian editors who have shown integrity and will to present Brazil as Brazil truly is. Biased foreign editors should not be allowed to distort Brazil and Brazilians (or control Brazilian related topics). Honest foreign editors are open to edit of course, and they have my support too. Still I don't approve of prejudiced foreign editors playing around with Brazil as I have seen it so often here.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
 * User Grenzer22 as I have commented on your talkpage, please assume good faith, your comments here are not specifically directed at any one but the comment you removed about me was, accusations of bias are uncivil. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants bias or prejudice, whatever the nationality (claimed or actual) of the writer.

Non-Brazilians are as welcome to edit this article as Brazilians are. Just as Brazilians are just as welcome as anyone else is to edit articles on Denmark or Indonesia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of foreign approach dominating the presentation of Brazil
Quote: "According to Census data, Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7], so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown. Besides, as the social construct of "White" is different in Brazil, on one hand, and the United States or Russia, on the other, it is quite possible that a considerable proportion of Brazilian Whites would not be considered White at all in those other countries". Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The "white" construct is a construct all over the world, not only in Brazil. It is not only in Brazil that "white" is a social construct. In the US too being "white" is a social construct. A very large number of Americans have Native American ancestry and even African, and yet they are classified as "white", a word invented by Europeans to describe Europeans (not Americans who are 1/16 Native American). Therefore a 1/16 native american "white" American is as socially "white" as a Russian who has a Nenet or a Khanty grandmother (or who is part Kalmyk like Lenin), and they are no more or less "white" than a latin american of mostly European origin who considers himself "white".

Conclusion: Foreign standards on "race" are no more "real" than the Brazilian, and they vary among themselves. It is not like there is a Brazilian way and the rest of the world way. Each society has its own social constructs, most societies need to develop themselves to get rid of prejudice.

Quote: "Actually the only genetic white Caucasian people as such in Brazil are the lourinyos or blonds as they are commonly referred to, less of a reference to their skin colour than to their hair colour who are decended mostly from the Germans that emigrated previous to and at the end of the second world war.Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally wrong. Paulo Coelho, Brazilian writer, colonial stock, is an excellent example of that: his ancestry is entirely European (100% European according to his DNA test results), and he isn't blond, he is quite swarthy in fact. Chuck Norris, on the other hand, in spite of being light complexioned has significant Native American ancestry, as many blond Russians have Siberian input. Besides there isn't a "white Caucasian people" as such, both "white" and "caucasoid" are social constructs. Ancestry in the humankind is clinal, not split in "real races".

Paulo Coelho stands on the right in the pic below. The ancestry of Paulo Coelho is entirely European (Iberian to say it better), from colonial times.



By the way, it is not lourinyo, it is lourinho.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Moving forward
imo to move forward there needs to be some friendly discussion as to what this white Brazilian article should contain, as I stated above imo the article is big enough to include all the positions, genetic, cultural and historic. If some kind of agreement can not be found on this then how can we progress to actual editing of the article? Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since you were the one who started it all, you should be the first to say what is wrong and why it is wrong Ninguém's edits. Please, remember that your or mine or anyone else personal opinions does not matter. Use as arguments sources, reliable sources. For example: "Author X says W while what Ninguém wrote says Y." --Lecen (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had posted my comment in the hope of a starting point in discussion, and all I get is accusations, nice. I am not the one that started it all, I reverted to the position previous to the mass editing, from the discussion and comments here since then there was not actual consensus for a rewrite of the article so I actually was correct in my action, my offer of friendly discussion as I have commented here is open, let me know if anyone would like to do that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything to complain about it. Neither Ninguém. So it's up to you to say what is wrong on Ninguém's edit. And again: it does not matter your or mine or anyone else's opinions. Use as arguments sources, reliable sources. For example: "Author X says W while what Ninguém wrote says Y." --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am glad that was deleted, Lecan your position that you support all of Ninguem's edits and that the article should be unlocked and put to that point in time is imo not a possibility, there are objections to his rewrite, so we should attempt to move on from this position, also there should be a degree of amicable discussion, as I have said the point is...what are the boundaries of white Brazilian that editors want this article to represent, no one has given any kind of answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mkay, let's see if we can have some friendly discussion.

Partially by my fault, the discussion in this Talk Page has somewhat degenerated into a discussion about Ronaldo. On one hand, I think this exemplifies the extremely simplistic approach that prevails in all articles about Brazilian demography: Brazilians lie about their own race, White Brazilians are fake Whites, and Ronaldo is the living proof of that, because he is "pardo", ie - according to racial classification in Alabama - Black, but has publicly said he is White. On the other hand, it is turning the Talk Page into a general discussion, which I fear is not allowed (to common mortals, at least; Opinoso seems to belong in a different category).

I don't know if I should continue that discussion here, because we are reaching a dangerous point. But I asked Hoary and understand, perhaps mistakenly, that he didn't object to it. So let's go.

Racism a la brèsilliene has a few rules; some (there are probably many more) of them seem to be:


 * 1) People should never talk about their own race, except to say they are not White;
 * 2) People should never talk about the race of others, except to say those other are or look White;
 * 3) People who break rule #1 above are not protected by rule #2.

Ronaldo broke rule #1, and, as such, opened himself to racist attacks. A few can be seen here:. While the article by journalist Mirian Leitão is reasonably contained, it sparked a row of comments in the vein of, Let's send him to Alabama or mississipi state, leave him in a Redneck bar by a road, if he is welcomed, we shall find if he is really White... Brazilian racists, poor things, have few opportunities to publicly spew their hatred; they become very excited when someone makes a mistake like Ronaldo's - it is the rare and precious opportunity to make openly racist remarks under the cover of "political correctness" ("yeah, I'm calling him a nigga, but he deserves it, for being such a racial traitor...") I fear that the stream of blind hate we are seeing in this page isn't much better than this.

But I think this moves us further away from solving the problems in White Brazilian. I have added to the discussion two sources that seem to show that, in at least two cities (Pelotas, a medium sized city in Rio Grande do Sul, and São Paulo, Brazil's biggest city and "economic capital"), things happen in a different way: in both, the same group of people are seen as "whiter" by survey interviewers than by themselves. Of course, this is going to get no response. No attempt to focus the discussion will get any response. And by this method of stonewalling, the article is being kept in its present version, that says that White Brazilians are those with European ancestry, and that ancestry is irrelevant to racial classification in Brazil.

Now, I am pretty aware that if the actual reasoning about race in Brazil is incoherent or self-contradictory, all the incoherent pieces should be described, if possible. But this then should take a format somewhat like this:


 * The IBGE counts people by their self-declared race (as all/most/some/few/no other Census-conducting organisation in the world), which results in x% White Brazilians. It is discussed whether self-classification produces biased results; X brings some evidence that people seem to self-classify as White more often than be classified as such by third parties (and that would result in a figure of y% White Brazilians); Y brings some evidence that it doesn't happen, or even that the opposite happens. Z has proposed alternative methods/classification for counting (that would give different results), but the IBGE has rejected the alternative, due to such-and-such arguments. It is also discussed if comparing self-classification with interviewer classification gives any significant insight; A has argued that it merely compares two entirely subjective points of view; B has pointed out that while the samples of subjects are representative of Brazilian society at large, the groups of interviewers are not, and for obvious reasons have a much higher degree of schooling than average Brazilians.


 * Both self-classification and classification by interviewers are, according to C, based on the physical appearance of the subjects, considering aspects such as this, that, and further that, and White Brazilians are people who look White (to Brazilian sensibilities) and are socially accepted as White (in Brazil). This is disputed; D argues that racial classification in Brazil is determinated by the ancestry of the subjects, and that White Brazilians are people who are mainly descended of Europeans and other White immigrants ("immigrants" being defined as such-and-such - including, or not including, colonial settlers). E points out that there is no contradiction between those views, because physical appearance is a good indicator of genomic ancestry, but F argues that this is not true, and that physical appearance is a very poor predictor of genomic ancestry. G has shown that if people are classified by ancestries, the results would not be those of the IBGE, but rather z% White Brazilians. H has posited that the Brazilian racial classification system is flawed/false/fake/absurd, and that the correct racial classification is that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which, if applied to Brazil would result in w% White Brazilians.

And not, like it is done at the present moment, using different definitions in different sections or paragraphs of the article, without discussing the definitions and without even aknowledging that different definitions are being used. Ninguém (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have said that I do support the explanation throughout the article of what type of reference the white person is actually talking about, that should be made very clear. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a question as I look at your comments, it was mentioned that as the article is a bit emotive and seems to as yet be actually undefined, there are citations but it is so vague...is there any support for deleting the whole article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, you are writing and writing and writing for nothing. When you made your edits, Off2Rio reverted them. It is him who should explain what is wrong and why is wrong. He has to show sources that proof his arguments and that's it. It's just that. The way you are acting is like you are an student who has to wonder what questions should be answered in a test that is nothing more than a blank page! If Off2Rio does not present sources that explain waht and where your edits are wrong, the article will have to be unlocked and his reverts will be reverted. --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the ronaldo link you gave...this..No país miscigenado, somos todos iguais. Mas é melhor ser uns que outros, in a mixed country we are all equal, but its better to be some than others, is an interesting comment..but is this nationalistic internal racism something that should be in this article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources, have a look at this result from the search template I added to the top of the article, searching for White Brazilian there is almost nothing of value in the result. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must add that the current (protected) "white Brazilian" article is the result of ownership, not consensus. It depicts Brazil and Brazilians from a foreign point of view, hostile to a large degree. As it stands now, it is not educative, it is a caricature of reality. If I were to write it, I would have to rewrite it entirely. Even then, to be true, the subject is really complex, and I find it difficult to portray the whole "ethnic" situation in Brazil, past and present, accurately, in a few lines. Some countries, like France, are ahead of others, in my view, when they abolished the use of "racial census". The government and the IBGE insist on these categories, which were inherited from the colonial oppressor. They are not only innacurate from the present science knowledge point of view, they are also imprecise given the history of Brazil itself. In Brazil in particular it makes no sense, given the contact of populations from all quarters of the globe (east asia, western europe, africa, and america), and the blurry lines, to adhere to the European inherited "white", "pardo" and "black" taxonomy. Even in the US it would not make real sense. Or in Russia, to talk about "ethnic Russian" identity. Targeted groups should be protected of course but the current category system is way too imperfect.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Frankly I wouldn't object at all to the deletion of this article. It is a mess, incoherent, full of original research and undefined terms, many pieces that have a flimsy relation to its subject, with sources that do not support the text, etc. Nor I would object at all to the deletion of African Brazilian, German Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, Arab Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, etc. All flawed substandard articles. But if they are to be kept, they absolutely need to be rewritten from scratch.

And no, the link about Ronaldo was merely to illustrate the discussion. It shouldn't be in the article. Ninguém (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. All those links are clear...a German Brazilian persom or an Italian Brazilian..that is a question that I think is needed to be answered before editing at all...what is the actual remit of this article..White Brazilian ? Is it simply an analasis and explanation of this census? Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Frankly I wouldn't object at all to the deletion of this article. It is a mess, incoherent, full of original research and undefined terms, many pieces that have a flimsy relation to its subject, with sources that do not support the text, etc. Nor I would object at all to the deletion of African Brazilian, German Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, Arab Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, etc. All flawed substandard articles. But if they are to be kept, they absolutely need to be rewritten from scratch".User talk:Ninguém|talk]]) 20:23, 9 December 2009

I agree with you here Ninguém! Exactly my thoughts. Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)
 * So, the three of you all believe the article should be rewritten from scratch.....have you requested that at some location? Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing that Off2Rio will not asnwer why and where Ninguém's edits are wrong followed by sources. Seeing that Ninguém and Grenzer are taking a radical position that I do not agree. I will remove myself from this discussion as it has become clearly a loss of time. --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * EC..A couple of suggestions, write the article in your user space and offer it for acceptance, or we could add the article as it is now to a talkspace and work on it together using Ninguem's edits as a driver. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that we are again straying away from any friendly discussion. The points were made, clearly and objectively. What do you think of them? Ninguém (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you commenting about, I have been totally friendly? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And totally "undiscussive". The points were made, the points were clear, what do you think of them?Ninguém (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have said that I do support the explanation throughout the article of what type of reference the white person is actually talking about, that should be made very clear. Also the differing standpoints of the differing surveys are all relevant, but this is one of my points that is also going unanswered, what is the actual remit of this article..White Brazilian ? Is it simply an analysis and explanation of this census? Do you totally reject my suggestion to move the article to userspace and work on it using your edits as a driver? You seem to want to repute the details in the census and replace the figures with racial classification similar to that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which you feel is better, imo, it would be easy to add a comment about the fact that ethnic classification is different in other parts of the world, but imo this is no reason to reject the figures. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer going to pretend that we are having a meaningful discussion. The points were made, they are clear and objective. What do you think about them? Ninguém (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the comment just above this one, it may not be the answer you want but it is my reply to you....here it is again...I have said that I do support the explanation throughout the article of what type of reference the white person is actually talking about, that should be made very clear. Also the differing standpoints of the differing surveys are all relevant. You seem to want to repute the details in the census and replace the figures with racial classification similar to that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which you feel is better, imo, it would be easy to add a comment about the fact that ethnic classification is different in other parts of the world, but imo this is no reason to reject the figures. My position is that these points as they are in the article simply require explanatory comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The version you reverted made an earnest attempted to explain what is a White Brazilian. The version you restored doesn't. It spouts a completely false and unsourced theory, that White Brazilians are all people full or mainly descended of European or other White immigrants. Where is the source for this nonsence? Which author spoused this view? I don't want to refute the Census, this is ridiculous. I am tired of this bullshit. Let the article continue to be a complete contradictory mess. Ninguém (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "You seem to want to repute the details in the census and replace the figures with racial classification similar to that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which you feel is better, imo". Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking right? Where did Ninguém say that he wanted to replace it with "racial classification similar to that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia"? Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Please cool it, people. Even if you're convinced that somebody is full of horseshit, bullshit, or some other kind of shit, or that he's batshit, or that he has to be joking, saying so rarely helps win an argument -- which I presume is your aim. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A new version in a workspace?
Above: A couple of suggestions, write the article in your user space and offer it for acceptance, or we could add the article as it is now to a talkspace and work on it together using Ninguem's edits as a driver.

In a sane, dispassionate atmosphere, that might well be a good idea.

The idea has been tried on a smaller scale. It didn't work. Here you see it not working. One side (A) in the argument put effort into his own version while the other (B) rejected the whole process. Then A inferred that the whole enterprise would be a waste of time because B would reject all his work no matter what.

The fact that it didn't work before does not mean that it will never work. However, asking one or more people to re-create an entire article is a lot greater a request than asking them to work on one part of one section of an article. The writers could reasonably demand a guarantee that their work would be examined with an open mind and judged on its merits. Why else should they bother?

Well, one good way to demonstrate this would be to judge this on its merits. Put aside the question of who developed it and whether he was right to do so. Put aside the question of who reverted it and whether he was right to do so, how and where is it better or worse than this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well just because something didn't work b4 doesn't mean it wouldn't work in another situation, I have already made that call, as you said after 47 minutes of looking at the rewrite I made a judgment that the rewritten version was poorer than the original and then I reverted to that position, as I said I especially disliked the lede, as being excessively detailed. I also felt that the whole point of view of the article had been changed, it is for this reason that here I have been attempting to discuss and set the boundaries of what people actually think this article should be, no one wants to talk about it, they all say that the article should be as Ninguem has rewritten it, sorry but I don't support that position, the article will be more balanced if edited by a couple of people, or we can write at the top, white Brazilians as written by ninguem. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will ask for the last time: what is exactly wrong and according to which authors? Because saying "I especially disliked the lede", or "sorry but I don't support that position" aren't good reasons enough. And I didn't know that an article to be balanced should have at least 2 editors working in the same text. If so, again, which authors oppose Ninguém's edits and for which reasons? --Lecen (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the lead was excessively detailed, how about breaking it, making a new section to accomodate the excessive material, instead of reverting everything? And you keep saying that the point of view has been changed, but I haven't seen you articulate what exactly was wrong with the new approach or right with the old one. On the contrary, your comment about changing from a cultural approach to a genetic one seems to me as a gross misreading, in fact a complete inversion of what actually happened. And no, it doesn't make sence to discuss the "boundaries" of what this article should be without actually addressing the flaws you perceive, or conversely making an actual proposal about it - not something like "the article should be very clear". So, please... what do you want of the article, what do you think is problematic with the newer version, besides the lenght of the lead, and what virtues do you see in a version that unsourcedly states that White Brazilians are those of European ancestry? Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is protected only, it is not on another planet, you are still able to request edits to it, if you feel there are unsourced content, request removal or request adding a citation or request anything that there is consensus for on this talkpage, please see the template on the article for instructions as to how to do this. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mkay. This was the first edit of the series you reverted. It was summarised, "Dubious source, not cited elsewhere". Do you have any problem with removing this false information by an obscure "historian and journalist" that is completely unknown in academic environment? Ninguém (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking.... here is the correct link to the Deutsche Welle article .. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching for him here he does not seem very notable and the comments are a bit, according to him so I could support removal, any figures and estimates imo should be well reported and more official and less opinionated. Unless the comments are valued by other historians or experts in the field. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is protected only, it is not on another planet, you are still able to request edits to it, if you feel there are unsourced content, request removal or request adding a citation or request anything that there is consensus for on this talkpage, please see the template on the article for instructions as to how to do this


 * Am I the only one who see Off2riorob's behavior as ownership? He is practly saying "You won't change a goddamn thing until I say so." or "If you don't like something in my article, tell me first and I will think if I will accept any change, which of course, I will not accept". Look what he wrote in the administrator Hoary's talk page:


 * I will take two steps back and we'll get the article unlocked at the version it is now and if you can have the editors in question work a fair bit slower with the alterations which would allow for a degree of involvement from other editors, removing the possibility of a rewrite by a single editor and that the mentioned concerns about altering the point of view of the article too much by perhaps keeping a fair bit of the established content excessive detail in the lede are kept in mind, and if say I wanted to comment regarding a particular edit that civility is kept, lets see how it goes, I am not thinking that I would be disputing each and every edit, but perhaps one or two, this is a good faith offer, but to be clear these are the conditions.


 * Which means: "This is my article and these are my conditions to anyone make a change in it. If you don't like them, f$%# off." --Lecen (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lecan, I don't think your style of communicating is helping at all, you would be better simply giving a reason and saying whether or not you want to keep this content or not. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered my question of what and why Ninguém's edits are wrong and according to which authors. All you want is to take this discussion on going forever until we get tired of it and leave your article alone. --Lecen (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob that Lecen's style of communicating isn't helpful.

When I turn to the substance of what Lecen is saying, though, I find content to which I'm sympathetic.

I've no intention of unlocking the article under the condition that the only changes permissible thereafter must be argued for afresh and made slowly. Not yet, anyway, until the allegations that the version that Off2riorob reverted are worse than the version he reverted it to are clearly explained.

If anyone's wondering, no, I've also no intention of unlocking the article, undoing the reversion, and demanding that any changes to that must be argued for afresh and made slowly.

You people should agree on what the article should say, and then the article should say that. If you can't agree, then there are ways to get disputes resolved. Once the dispute has been resolved -- and almost certainly not everyone will be happy with the resolution -- then it might be appropriate to tell editors that the "BOLD" guideline doesn't apply or that it has been inverted. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "I agree with Off2riorob that Lecen's style of communicating isn't helpful". Hoary User talk:Hoary|talk 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What about this? Is this helpful?


 * Quote: "You seem to want to repute the details in the census and replace the figures with racial classification similar to that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which you feel is better, imo". Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC


 * Quote: "The article is protected only, it is not on another planet". Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —


 * Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)


 * Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenzer22 (talk • contribs)


 * It's not obviously helpful, no. Neither does it worry me. If you have some substantive objection to it, feel free to make it, and as persuasively as possible. Meanwhile, if you would like to be helpful, then please hit the "~" key four times (no fewer, no more) at the end of each of your comments. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first comment is a direct quote form Ninguem from this page the second one is totally correct and I was helpfully pointing out that the article can still be edited. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the first. The editor's name is not Ninguen but Ninguém. One or two slips are understandable or can be ignored, but since you refer to him rather often I think it would be courteous if you referred to him accurately. Here's what he wrote about an imagined position of some imagined other person, as one part of an intricate message:
 * H has posited that the Brazilian racial classification system is flawed/false/fake/absurd, and that the correct racial classification is that of Alabama/Denmark/Ethiopia, which, if applied to Brazil would result in w% White Brazilians.
 * Ninguém did not advocate use of the classification used in any, let alone all, of Alabama, Denmark, Ethiopia. (And incidentally, Ninguém's rhetorical use of what he openly announces are strawmen is a respectable and often helpful part of critical discourse.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, In my opinion there was no consensus that the article was to be rewritten by Ninguem, anyone is welcome to simply compare the two versions of just the lede and see that the rewritten version is inferior to the version now, I also have no intrention of stating and going through each and every point of the rewritten article and as there was no agreement for rewriting the article I should also not have to do that, if you want to request an article rewrite then explain why and request comments, I have attempted more than three efforts to attempt to work forward but all are rejected..When Ninguem starts a decent attempt to discuss it is shouted down.. I will say though that simply looking at the first edit with him..although I do support the removal of the comment, the reasons that Ninguem cited in his edit summary were simply wrong, you see when you simply want to remove something you do it and add the first thing as basically you want it gone, so..excessive detail,, and puff it is gone, I know because I have done it myself...So..his first edit, a removal of content with this edit summary.."Dubious source, not cited elsewhere". This is not correct at all, I very quickly found the source which is a very reliable source, this is only the first edit, it is my point of view that I there was no consensus for a rewrite of the article and that this first edit is wrong and as I have said imo the previous version is far superior to the rewritten one, shall we work through some more of ninguem's edits to see how accurate the summaries are? Allow me to suggest ...If you want to see if there is support to revert to ninguem's version start a request for comment and lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious source, as in "unreliable source" - not Deutsche Welle, but Dieter Böhnke (in fact, the attempt here was to transfer Deutsche Welle's credibility to Böhnke). "Not cited elsewhere", as in, "no other historian, sociologist, anthropologist, geographer, political scientist, demographer, ever references this author". Are you accusing me of making bad faith summary edits? Ninguém (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit summary.."Dubious source, not cited elsewhere".Is misleading imo..Actually the comment is well cited and attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion there was no consensus that the article was to be rewritten by Ninguem


 * You need a consensus when there is a content dispute. That is, editor A says that author X wrote Z about the subject M. While editor B says that author W wrote Y about the same subject M. You don't need a consensus every single time wyou will edit an article.


 * anyone is welcome to simply compare the two versions of just the lede and see that the rewritten version is inferior


 * So far I, Grenzer, Ninguém and ever Hoary prefer Ninguém's edit. That's 4 votes to 1. And you still haven't answered why and where Ninguém's edits are wrong and according to which authors. So, your argument is nothing more than "I don't like your edit so I reverted them."


 * I also have no intrention of stating and going through each and every point of the rewritten article


 * If you won't why then you created all this mess?! So we are going to be stuck in here with a locked article because you don't have any intention of saying what and why is wrong and according to which authors?


 * if you want to request an article rewrite then explain why and request comments


 * 4 votes to 1. Do you want more than that? And again: since when someone needs to request permission to make an edit? Isn't that ownership? Were is the boldness, then?


 * I have attempted more than three efforts to attempt to work forward but all are rejected.


 * And everytime we made the same question: what is wrong and why is wrong in Ninguém's edits and according to which authors. Did you answer any? NO. So how are we going to settle anything then? --Lecen (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.


 * I have attempted more than three efforts to attempt to work forward but all are rejected.

On the contrary, you are the one rejecting any actual discussion. When asked what the problem is, you are unable to make a clear statement. When asked about any concrete edit, you say that you don't want to help. Meanwhile, the article remains blocked, and a distorted version is kept here. Ninguém (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More falsehoods, my discussion and attempts to move forward are peppered all over this talpage. As I said earlier today if you believe there are falsehoods in the article then you can still edit the page using the template on the article page. you make accusations against me and fail to answer any of my questions, for example..you haven' replied anything about your first edit summary which was clearly wrong and misleading.  Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wonderful. When are you going to tell us according to which authors Ninguém's edits are wrong? And where and why are they wrong? --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Meanwhile, if you would like to be helpful, then please hit the "~" key four times (no fewer, no more) at the end of each of your comments" -- Hoary 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the help. Grenzer22 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

unprotecting the article
I've announced that I'm stepping down from the responsibility of unprotecting and watching over this article.

This doesn't mean that I'm leaving the article. Far from it. And I might petition for it to be unprotected or reprotected. But if I do so, I'll do so as just another editor. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)