Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riograndense Republic


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. Sources established by Oakshade. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Riograndense Republic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Nomination made on behalf of per comment on my talk page. Prod rationale was "This article is a propaganda of a Nazi group from Southern Brazil. Actually, "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil; it was a failed movement. Nazi people are using the War of the Farrapos as a way to instigate violence and claiming an unreal "separatist" movement in Southern Brazil, which actually does not exist. The sentence posted in this article "primary motivation for the proposal is that the population of these three states, unlike the population of the other states of Brazil, is almost entirely Caucasian" has an obvious Nazi influence. THIS ARTICLE MUST BE DELETED". For my part, Neutral. Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading this article, this is nothing more than lies and propaganda. The "Riograndense Republic" never existed like this article claims, it was nothing more than an idea by radicals trying to ceded from Brazil. The whole "Modern separatist movement" section is nothing more than BS, I never heard about it, and never read anything that modern Rio Grande do Sul wants to ceded from Brazil. The external links are all from the same website written by a fanatics who dream an impossible dream of an independent Rio Grande do Sul. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - in it's current format, the article fails WP:V. With only 361 ghits for "Riograndense Republic", it's possible that this never actually existed. As such, it should be removed, if it can be re-added citing reliable sources, fine. -  Toon  05  23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am changing my !vote to Keep, given the unearthing of a reliable source by Bigdaddy1981 (below), which (finally) establishes the existence of the subject, and would allow for some verification of facts. -  Toon  05  21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Living in Quebec, I am all too familiar with this kind of wishful thinking based on revisionist history. the article mentions a flag, a national anthem, etc., everything except for recognition, be it domestic or international. Fails WP:V. Keep. The article in its current state looks nothing like the one I nominated. Establishes that a "failed," short-lived country once existed, and makes no mention of the alleged separatist movement. The only reason I am not withdrawing my nom is that I made it on behalf of another editor who was unfamiliar with the process. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. There are too many unsourced claims which hints at a lack of notability of this topic--possibly a WP:HOAX. Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, reduce to a stub and let grow. I'm quite surprised at all the delete votes here.  Even as an unfulfilled concept it's notable.  A book search brings up many in-depth secondary sources of this topic. (more here).  Here in California, there the State of Jefferson which never existed, but as a concept it does and has secondary sources about it.  The California Republic is similar.  Just a bunch of drunk guys in Sonoma "declaring" independence.  But it's still notable.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am Brazilian and the Riograndense Republic is absolute invention, Pure Hoax. Motto of French Revolution? And all resources are from (unique) unreliable website? Totally fails. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment please review http://www.brazil.org.uk/events/machadodeassis_assets/openingaddressvilaca.pdf. Footnote 7 of Vilaça's address (given at the Brazilian Embassy in London) reads in part: 'In 1835, led by Colonel (later General) Bento Gonçalves dismissed the local governor appointed by the central Government and occupied Porto Alegre proclaiming the Rio-Grandense Republic.' I think claims as per the non-existence of this failed state are pretty untenable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

for the original revolt: Flag of the Riograndense Republic: Background on the Farrophilha revolution: Conflict between the Imperial Brazilian Regency and the cattle ranchers of the South: This reference establishes notability for the modern secessionist movement: Christian Science Monitor February 9, 1993—“Some Southern Brazilians Want Out": There is no reason to delete this article. It has notability, it is an important part of Brazilian history, there is a modern secessionist movement and the article is properly referenced.  Keraunos (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added these references to the article, which would seem to establish notabilty
 * Comment - I have to point out that the first three sources clearly fail WP:RS - and can't verify existence or anything else due to this. The third, a report on the secessionist feeling in southern Brazil only mentions the Riograndense Republic in passing, and does nothing to establish the existence of such a state, just that some organisations in the south exist who want secession.  Toon  05 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the South Brazilian secessionists are primarily Caucasians doesn't mean that they are Nazis. That is preposterous and absurd. Keraunos (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the Christian Science Monitor article above does seem to establish a possible racial nature of the organisations involved, but certainly NAZI is a big allegation. -  Toon  05  17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I told you, it's a Nazi article, full of lies. Opinoso (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this discussion is interesting, but I would like to know if the claims that this is merely national socialist propaganda have sources.  That would help the argument of the nominator and be informative.  Thanks --DerRichter (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been found for both the historical and modern movement.  The nominator's claim that this is a Nazi group appears to be false and even if it was true that has nothing to do with notability.  The nominator's claim that "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil' it was a failed movement." is interesting - based on that reasoning, the Confederate States of America should be deleted since that was also a failed separation movement.  The claim that there is no modern separatist movement is also false based on the sources found, and even if the modern movement was a hoax, the historical movement existed so the article should be kept. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Edward321, The Confederacy and "Riograndense Republic" are different. The Confederacy had a government, a military, a central bank, and a currency. This false "Republic" did not have anything like that. It was nothing more than a idea by radicals. Also, most Southerns viewed the Confederacy as a their legitimate government, while most Southern Brazilians didn't know anything about an idea of seceding from Brazil because most of the population was foreign settlers from Italy, Germany, and Portugal. There is no comparison between the Confederacy and the "Riograndense Republic". Lehoiberri (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, success of a movement is not required for notability, nor is having desirable aims. All that matters is that this short lived state existed and it certainly appears to have based on cursory searches on google scholar. I think this is a bad faith AFD and the nominator admits as much. Speedy close. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment- Bigdaddy1981, this is not a "bad faith" AFD, because I am not a vandal user and you do not even know who I am.

1) "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed because it was never separed from Brazil.

2) The article War of the Farrapos already talks about this movement in Southern Brazil.

3) War of the Farrapos has NOTHING TO DO with this minor movement existing nowadays with some members in Southern Brazil. War of the Farrapos was because of economic problems in Southern Brazil, so they rebelled against the Empire.

4)Most of the soldiers in the War were poor peasants and former BLACK SLAVES. So, it's not possible to make a connection between the "Riograndenser Republic" and this nowadays Nazi movement that is trying to "preserve the German or Northern Italian heritage in Southern Brazil".

"Riograndenser Republic" is already included in the article War of the Farrapos. This "new" "movement" in Southern Brazil has nothing to do with the 19th century Riograndenser Republic and, moreover, does not have and notority outside of the "Internet world". Nobody in Brazil has never heard about this "movement". I didn't, until I find this pathetic propaganda on the Internet. Opinoso (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think that you are a vandal, but I do think you are nominating this article because you dislike the aims of the people who admire this failed state. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that the Google book search by Oakshade and others is sufficient to show that this is an encyclopedic topic, and that there have even been Brazilian authors who wrote about it. Even if the form at the time of nomination was suggestive of Nazi lies, a proper article can be written from some of these sources.  I can see that it's a sore point for some; I'm not proud of the Ku Klux Klan's contributions to American history, but I can't deny its existence.  Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the responses, I have decided to support Keeping the article, at least the historical part if not the modern section. I am not sure about the notablility of the modern section, but generally that newspaper is reliable. Opinoso, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete.  Even if none of your friends do not know it.  I highly doubt you have read the mind of everybody in Brazil to see if they have heard of this movement.  If you have all of this unused information about who was fighting and why, I encourage you to expand the article, as long as you are using sources. Please try to work on your arguments so as to not alienate undecided contributors who are paying attention to this discussion.  --DerRichter (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Riograndense Republic has nothing to do with the modern "movement" going on by fanatic people on the Internet. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about what Riograndense Republic was. There's no reason to keep this article that's no more than a propaganda of that unknown modern movement of "keeping European heritage" in Southern Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Another reason why this article is important is because a modern trend in government is toward devolution, i.e., giving subunits within a national government more power. This is consistent with the political philosophy of Libertarianism (not Nazism, which favors centralization of power!).  This has already happened in the United Kingdom, where Scotland was recently given its own parliament (although it still has representation within the national British Parliament).  It is quite possible that in the future, each of the Regions of Brazil may have their own autonomous government below the level of the national government but above the level of the States of Brazil.  The same thing is happening in Russia, with the recent newly established Regions of Russia.  While both the Brazilian and the Russian regions are only economic regions so far and have no administrative function, it is quite possible this may change in the future.  If this occurred, the largely Caucasian inhabitants of Southern Brazil would attain autonomy (not independence) as one of the administrative regions of Brazil, and might even have its own parliament (along with the other regions of Brazil). Northeast Brazil is largely inhabited by people of African ancestry, so they would have autonomy also, as would the largely Amerindian people of North Brazil. Keraunos (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- What does "autonomous government" have to do with "Riograndenser Republic"? By the way, it is your personal opinion that, in the future, the regions of Brazil will suffer a process of descentralization. Where are your sources to affirm this? Opinoso (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you actually think the Caucasian majority of Rio Grande do Sul wants to secede from a country that they benefited the most economically, Keraunos (Rio Grande do Sul is one the most wealthiest areas in Brazil}? This movement is unknown in Rio Grande do Sul, even to the Caucasian majority, I don't know why you are trying to make it notable. If this movement was notable, then why wasn't the movement part of the last election in Rio Grande do Sul, only state versions of the national parties (ex: PT and PSDB) were in the election. See here: (note: is in Portuguese). Lehoiberri (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we get back on topic here? The issue is verifiability - 1. the sources used to establish existence aren't reliable 2. The possible secessionist movement in southern Brazil don't belong in this form of article - they should be instead in an article entitled as "Secessionist movement in Southern Brazil" (or something with a better title, conforming to style guidelines etc.), which would then be properly sourced. Given there are no reliable sources, this article is basically WP:OR. This deletion debate isn't about how valid the secessionists' views are, or whether the movement is naziism - it comes down to policy, and this article should be deleted. -  Toon  05  19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if Dr Marcos Vinicius Vilaça President of the Brazilian Academy of Letters believes it existed then I think it likely existed. See http://www.brazil.org.uk/events/machadodeassis_assets/openingaddressvilaca.pdf. Footnote 7 of Vilaça's address (given at the Brazilian Embassy in London) reads in part: 'In 1835, led by Colonel (later General) Bento Gonçalves dismissed the local governor appointed by the central Government and occupied Porto Alegre proclaiming the Rio-Grandense Republic.' I think claims as per the non-existence of this failed state are pretty untenable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Your source seems reliable, and establishes the existence of the republic, and for some verification. Coupled with the earlier book search, it is clearly a notable event in Brazilian history. This is not the place for ideological discussions, and deletion arguaments should only be based upon policy and guidelines - I would hope all contributors to this discussion would take a look at the source given by Bigdaddy above, as it looks the real deal. Another useful link: Deletion policy -  Toon  05  21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Because one person in history accepted the "Riograndense Republic" as a nation, the fact is "Riograndense Republic" was an idea not a real country. There was no government, military, central bank, and currency for this proclaimed nation. To be ligitimate, the "Riograndense Republic" needed to be recognized by the citizens that Republic claimed, but there was no acceptance to that Republic because most of the population that time was foreign born, and these people only cared about surviving in a new environment different from the Old World (Italy, Germany, and Portugal). Lehoiberri (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment- Can you people read? An article about the war in Southern Brazil that tried to separete Rio Grande do Sul from the Empire of Brazil already exists: War of the Farrapos. Read this article, please. NOBODY here is saying they did not try to separete from Brazil. However, this movement took place in 1835, and it has NOTHING TO DO with the nowadays false movement to "keep European heritage" in Southern Brazil.

It was failed movements. They did not have time to establish a new country, because soon they agreed to make a peace contract with Brazil. The "Riograndenser Republic" was NOT recognized as a new country by NOBODY. It was just a failed utopia.

Many other movements took place in Brazil at that time, and they also tried to separated their regions from the Empire of Brazil. Read the article Cabanagem; they tried to separate the Northern state of Pará from Brazil in the same period they tried to separate Rio Grande do Sul. These movements have nothing to do with these crazy Nazi on the Internet. It was because of economic stuff, not race at all. The "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed. The same way the "Republic of Cabanagem" NEVER existed too. Both

So, to affirm that this Republic existed is a lie. And also, it's not possible to make a connection with this 200 year ago movement in Southern Brazil with the "new" nazi people in the Internet. The Republic was a failed utopia. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about it. Opinoso (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: please keep a cool head and remain civil. Since everyone here can write, you can assume everyone here can, indeed, read. You will likely get better replies and more consideration by refraining from hyperbole and sarcasm. Cheers, --Storkk (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Lehoiberri - Whatever it was, it certainly existed and forms a notable part of Brazilian history. If you have an arguament about the content of the article, this isn't the forum... head over to the article's talk page and discuss changing the phrasing etc. What we are after on wikipedia is not the WP:TRUTH - this subject's existence (as a country or whatever) has been verified by a Reliable Source. Yours is a content dispute, not an arguament for deletion. Also, Opinoso - please remain WP:CIVIL and keep a calm head. -  Toon  05  22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Toon - But, if the article will not be delet, we have to erase the "Modern separatist movement" part, because the new "Caucasian-Nazi" movements have nothing to do with the "Riograndenser Republic". Erasing the "Modern separatist movement", this article will become a small and insignificant stub. It's better to erase the article and merge the real informations of it in the article War of the Farrapos. Opinoso (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think removing the modern stuff is legitimate. But that doesn't mean that the article should then be deleted even if it is then much shorter. Instead it should be expanded. The republic clearly existed as a brief but (interesting) episode in Brazilian history and it would be terrible to delete an article about it. I for one had never heard of it before seeing this article despite my interest in historical geography. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggested solution It seems to me that a better arrangement would be to establish an article "Separatist movements in Brazil" or something, include the section "Modern separatist movement" from the Riograndense Republic (it would need to be referenced, but we have that 1 Christian Science Monitor article, there must be others regarding other movements etc), and merge the Riograndense Republic article into War of the Farrapos, as you have suggested, given the only link the modern movement has to the old republic is in name. Comments, suggestions, opinions? -  Toon  05  22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think removing the modern material r.e. the current separatists from the article is legitimate. Any of the people arguing to delete the article can go ahead and make a case for this on the articles talk page (indeed they could have done so before trying to delete it). However, I don't think that merging the article into the War of the Farrapos article is a good idea. It is akin to merging the Confederate States of America in the US Civil War article. The only reason seems to be to appease people who are clearly trying to get this aticle deleted because they don't consider the Riograndense Republic to be 'legitimate'. My response to this is: so what? Was the Italian Social Republic legitimate? I'd guess most would say no (basically a German puppet, no elections, a nasty little fascist statlet that offers succor to present day fasists etc etc). Does this mean it should be deleted? I'd say no unless we want to make something like the old Great Soviet Encyclopedia purged of anything that doesn't pass the censors' approval. I have to say I think the (admitted) ideological motivations of some editors is pretty shocking. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Bigdaddy, please assume good faith, the discussion has taken a much better turn of recent, and we are trying to find an acceptable solution to the problem at hand, and I don't think going down that line of questioning is going to produce anything positive. You have agreed that removing the bit about the modern separatists is acceptable to you, and this is the main bone of contention. To merge the articles was clearly not in order to solve any "ideological motivations" since surely the removal or the aforementioned material would take care of that. I floated the idea as a possible solution, and fair enough it may not be ideal. The article can exist on its own as a stub, but I believe that the separatist part should be transferred to a standalone article on the issue on Brazil, should we find sufficent sources. Opinoso, would this solution satisfy you enough to change your prior vote to keep and cleanup? -  Toon  05  00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I did not mean to question your good faith and I think that your solution of splitting off the modern (potentially inflammatory) stuff is a reasonable one. I was (perhaps clumsily) expressing my frustration at editors' concerns as to the 'legitimacy' of the country. Apologies for any offense. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - No problem. I just don't want to see this revert into the big mess it was before. -  Toon  05  01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply- Ok, I agree not to delet the article, since the part of the new movement is deleted. However, I do not agree we have to create a new article to talk about the new "Nazi" pathetic movement, because it really does not have any notority to deserve an article. As Lehoberri said, if the new Nazi movement had any notority, their party would be voted by thousands of Southern Brazilians. But, taking a look at the last votes in Brazil, no Nazi or separatist party was elected, so their "movement" is not really a movement, but just a group of fanatics who do not deserve an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, you people have to proove "Riograndenser Republic" existed.

I study Law, and as far as I know, for a country (State) exist, it must have: 1) a delimited territory, 2) a population 3)a Power

Riograndenser Republic did not have any of these itens. So, it was not a country, but a failed separatist movement. If you look any book or something similar from that period, you won't find anything like "the United States is the greatest commercial partner of Riograndenser Republic, the new country of South America". You won't find it, because it was not even recognized as a new country by nobody. Opinoso (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit carefully to distinguish historical events from current political movements--but both are notable. DGG (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now that sources have been found and per Oakshade's "Keep" argument, edit carefully per DGG. Further comment to spaghetti-coders that it hurts your point to produce something that is extremely difficult to read, and that guidelines on discussions and WP:Indentation make things much easier to read. --Storkk (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I support the idea of removing the whole "modern separatist movement" BS section. It is not notable because it never participated in election (compared with Parti Québécois in Quebec or Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya in Catalonia) or started a violent independence campaign (compared with ETA in the Basque Country or Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Chiapas). It is an idea by a small group of fanatics. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Participation in elections or violence are not necessary to warrant inclusion of such material. Notability as established through some level of press coverage or external attention is sufficient. Everyking (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved the contentious section to Talk:Riograndense Republic/"Modern Separatist Movement" for now, until we decide on which bits (if any) should be in the article, or if the text will be used on another article but this can be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Should the current article satisfy participants enough that they wish to change their !vote, please use and to strikethough your old !vote, and put your new one after the code. Since this is just the AfD page, we should direct all discussion on the content of the article to it's talk page and use this page as only the deletion discussion. -  Toon  05  18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks good, agree that the discussion of whether/where any information of present day separatists should go ahould be debated separate from this debate. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, existence is established. Everyking (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.