Talk:Brazil/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Manipulate an article in against Wikipedia

João Felipe C.S is doing vandalism in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article. He cannot stop us from editing in this article.

It is written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

João Felipe C.S should be adiviced that he cannot reverte everyone's editis here. Opinoso 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, the same argument is valid against you. You have repeatedly stated things such as "Who gave you permission to change my edits?". If that's not a violation of WP:OWN, I don't know what is. João Felipe is free to edit as he sees fit, as long as it is within policy. As we discussed above, no one has presented any compelling arguments that his edits have been malicious in nature. I will say what I've told you three separate times now: Feel free to change what you see fit, but be prepared to defend your edits in the talk page. João Felipe, if questioned, has to do the same. Saying "Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article." is not only wrong, but counter to the founding principle of the encyclopedia--see. And you're right, he cannot stop you from editing, but he can revert you (as he has), and as long as he doesn't revert you 3 times in a 24 hour period (the three-revert rule), he's allowed to do so. If you have an issue with his edits, address his particular edits (as you did yesterday), NOT the editor.--Dali-Llama 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Page fully protected

The page is full protected for a month. Please, I have a request to all the users editing this article: try to reach a consensus. Regards, --Carioca 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the protection as there are other users editing the page, besides the users engaging in an edit war. However I strongly suggest that it is better to discuss rvery change in the article before editing. --Carioca 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The main thing here is that NOTHING has been done against the user who is vandalizing this article. I am not here to cause an edit war, that is not my point. I am just trying to make contributions to this article.

Wikipedia is clear when it says users cannot manipulate an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

João Felipe C.S is reverting my edits and other users' posts in the Brazil article for months. He thinks only he is able to make changes here.

In the past, the Brazil article used to be one of the most posted ones of Wikipedia. Users from all around the world were here making their contributions. Since João Felipe C.S started his manipulation, all the other users disappeared from this article. I was the only one who lasted here, because I think it is not fair that he came here and started to manipulate the article and destroyed it.

If, at least, he was doing a good job, it would be easier to accept. But he made the article become poor, with lots of unecessary images, trying to create the false idea that Brazil looks like Norway or Finland, as if Brazil was a First-World Northern European country. Brazil is a country full of contrasts, not a First-World nation as it seems to be when you look at this article.

It is abvious that he was trying to manipulate the article, because he listed himself among the Good Article Candidates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates

João Felipe C.S assumed by listing himself that he thinks he is the owner of the article. But he has never written anything for this article. He does not even have knowledge of the English language. So why does he feel free to control what is posted here? Why should he be the one to manipulate the article?

You people should tell him that he cannot manipulate an article as he has been doing for the last months. Other users and I want to be free to make good contributions for it. He cannot control what is posted here. Opinoso 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Opinoso, you attack the user and don't address the actual changed the user made. Every time you post an argument here, it becomes clearer to me that you don't understand Wikipedia's policies. João is free to change the article as he sees fit, as are you. You are free to challenge his edits on the talk page. He didn't list "himself" as a Good Article Candidate. He listed THE ARTICLE there. He's been trying to improve the article, based off of a Good Article review we have awhile ago. I suggest you do the same. And lastly, you have NO idea what ownership of article is: You've implied in the past that people need your "permission" to change your edits and now that Felipe can't "manipulate" the article, which is exactly what that policy is designed to prevent. Also, I don't see anyone else complaining about Felipe's edits "preventing" them from contributing. In fact, your little edit war yesterday did prevent everyone else from contributing until Carioca unprotected the page. Your reliance on erroneous interpretation of policy and lack of content-based discussion doesn't help your position. Both of you were almost blocked yesterday: I suggest you discuss changes in the talk page before reverting again. Three reverts in a day is not an entitlement. You may be blocked for another revert war even if you don't break 3RR. Finally, I will tell you one more time: If you have a content dispute which you think is not being served by the other editors in the article, take it up the dispute resolution process.--Dali-Llama 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I see this discussion, I become confuse. I see good and bad positions in both "sides" (Opinoso and João Felipe). For example, Opinoso wants better images for favela, Rio and São Paulo, and I must agree. But saying that "there is a crisis about X in Brazil; therefore, we shouldn't but images related to this subject" a great nonsense. The fact that the aviation and political crisis receives heavy attention of the public and mass coverage in the press is a good indication that we should talk about this. Am I wrong?

What we need is a consensus. Let's talk about the changes we want (and please, not accusations of secret feelings for prefering this over that), let's talk about how the article must be, not why you hate him. wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die

My point exactly: keep the discussion to the content changes, not to the person making the changes.-- Dali-Llama 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

João Felipe C.S is the one who is trying to fight here. I do not understand why some people obviously defend him. He was the one who started all this situation here, reverting my edits, because I have always been trying to show the reality of Brazil is this article, while he tries to hide the bad things of the country and create a fake Brazil, posting pictures of rich neighborhoods to represent Brazilian cities, erasing the pictures of favelas, posting pics of blonde supermodels to represent the Brazilian population, erasing pictures of world-famous Brazilian beaches, posting pictures of museums and erasing Carnival ones. Since when a museum is culturally more representative of Brazil than the carnival?

João Felipe C.S tries to create a Brazilian that looks like Europe. But not a normal Europe. He tries to make a false Brazil that looks like the richest parts of Europe.

I know why João Felipe C.S tries to manipulate this article and is against my edits. When he started posting here, some months ago, he came with all those pictures of blond supermodels and erasing pictures that shows a Brazilian reality (poverty), he was reverted by many users. He, with a vandal sense, wrote in Portuguese: "Vocês não podem aceitar que um país de terceiro mundo se pareça com um de primeiro mundo""? (Can't you people accet that a Third-World country looks like a Firest-World country"?)

Since then, I have been observing what he was doing in Wikipedia: posting pictures of blonde models everywhere to represent Brazilians, vandalizing the Afro-Brazilian article, trying to diminish their numbers, inflating the numbers of White Brazilian ethnic groups with no sources, erasing pictures of favelas, posting pictures with parts of rich Brazilian cities and erasing poors ones (mostly Northeastern ones), posting lots of pics of Southern Brazil (he seems to be a regional nationalist), etc, etc.

The most incredible thing is that nobody seems to have seen that, only me. I tried to talk to him, but he was offensive and prefered to create an edit war in this article. All this posts seemed Racist, and it still does: when I posted pictures of Blacks and Brazilian Indians, he reverted me with no justification. When I posted a picture of a German-Brazilian city, he did nothing.

Dali-Llama, you acuse me of saying that nobody could change my edits. I never said that. After many months of João Felipe C.S's revertions' here with no justification (administrators again did not see that), I came here, after doing a big resouce, and post many informations in the article. Once again, João Felipe C.S reverted what I wrote. So I told him that he cannot do that, as I am saying now.

I ask Dali-Llama if he would feel happy if you dedicate months in an article (as I did in the Brazil) and, suddenly, an user comes, change it all (for worse) and starts to manipulate the article, reverting what you want to post. Do you think it is ethical?

The main thing is that the user cannot even write in English, I mean, he has never done any contribution in this article and feels free to manipulate it and what other people post here (most of the time he does not even understand what people post and revert it).

Dali-Llama, I am the only one who is complaining about his manipulation because the other users who used to post here have disappered since he got here. Maybe I am the only one who has been obersing what he has been doing all this time. You say we have to see only the content changes, but it became impossible, because João Felipe C.S made it be personal. Many time he went to "my contributions page" page and started to revert all the things I have been posted the last days. Many times he reverted over 3 times. Once again, no administrators saw that. Opinoso 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, I won't get bogged down in a personal dispute between you and Felipe. I've desperately tried to avoid that and I won't start now. I understand the Wikipedia process may be frustrating. God knows how many times Crum375 reverted me in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article, but we talked about it and the article was, within six months, rated a Good Article (a significant achievement in such a short time). The process works.

Let's do this: If you make a change and he or anyone else reverts you, write on the talk page what the change is and why you believe it improves the article. Likewise, I advise Felipe to do the same: If you or anyone else revert Felipe, Felipe will defend his edits on the talk page. When you write on the talk page address ONLY the edits, not what you think the revert editor's motivations are. Myself and others will weigh in and a consensus will be reached. I'll keep watching both of your contributions page and make sure both are maintaining the agreement. Can we agree to that?--Dali-Llama 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso:

João Felipe C.S is the one who is trying to fight here. I don't see any accusation or bad faith assumption from him there.

I do not understand why some people obviously defend him. Maybe because somebody is attacking him?

He was the one who started all this situation here, reverting my edits, because I have always been trying to show the reality of Brazil is this article, while he tries to hide the bad things of the country and create a fake Brazil, posting (...). If you think your edits don't deserve deletion or changes, you will have more support if you try to defend the importance to the article, not the motivations of X or Y for the change. Your attitude just makes you infamous, and ends removing the focus from what is really important.

I agree with 90% of "your" edits against João's (mental note: genitive case with latin names is ugly and strange. End of mental note). My problem is only the way you defend them.

I know why João Felipe C.S tries to manipulate this article and is against my edits. Oh, really? And who cares? I don't. I do care with the article. I do know that MY position to the article will never be the NEUTRAL position, so I must give space to people with other opinions to come to a consensus. Even people with whose positions I strongly disagree in a personal level (for what Wikipedia is not the location).

Dali-Llama, you acuse me of saying that nobody could change my edits. I never said that. Oh, no, really. You just said that you must like and agree with said edits. You ignore the conceit of consensus in Wikipedia. You just said that JOÃO can't, as he is a evil. (mental note: is more easy say "evil" in english without being childish than in portuguese. End o mental note)

See? This is what YOU make the people think about yourself with your attitude. I feel that it don't is the realty, but you just don't help me be more neutral, sorry.

Eu sinceramente desejo que você tente agir de acordo com nossas políticas acima de suas opiniões pessoais. Pois, no final das contas, é assim que você conseguirá fazer tais opiniões serem levadas em conta em nossa comunidade. Tenha um bom dia.

For the others, sorry for the personal tone and the lack of english. wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 11:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I will say what I think must be done, Opinoso.

List the changes you don't like and the changes you want to do, to make this article a better representation of Brazil.

Give the motives to each one. Don't attack anybody, don't talk about João, just about the article.

We will coment and try to reach a consensus. For "we", I mean anybody, everybody, whoever wants to opine.

The concept Wikipedia uses for this sittuation is negociation to reach a neutral stance, not judgment for decide who's "right". wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I agree with no reverts. I just don't like it, I just use it against vandalism.

What I want to be changed in this article are all those unnecessary pictures:

History session: There are no pictures of Historical Brazilian cities there. Brazil is full of wonderfull colonial towns, such as Ouro Preto, Olinda, Mariana, São João del-Rei, Parati, etc. The section needs more pictures. Getúlio Vargas's pic should be erased, there were more important presidents in Brazil. He was a dictator. The Portugal article does not have a picture of dictator António de Oliveira Salazar and the Chile one does not have one of Pinochet, why sould we?

I disagree. We can't have more than 1 or two pictures per section. The decision on the number of images in a particular section depends on the amount of text in that section. The history section right cannot support that. The Empire of Brazil article absolutely should contain those pictures, though. Whether the existing pictures should be changed or not is another issue, one which I would like other editors' inputs before making a call.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sad, but true, Dalil, we can't have so many pictures. One for subsection of History is enough - but I see space for one more in Republic, the problem is only the page "weight". This is a very diversificate period, covered by five subarticles. Why not Diretas Já or Cara-Pintada manifestations near the end?

Opinoso, Getulio was a dictator, but not a oposition-slaughter. I would not equal him with Pinochet, we don't have victims' relatives who could be offended. Maybe it is the motive for the lack of any Ditadura-related images. He was relevant for our history, for good or (I should say and) for bad, and a icon for that period. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think that a colonial Brazilian city pic should be included. Few foreigners know that Brazil has a rich diversity of Historical towns. I suggest a pic of a Baroche church from Minas Gerais.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Government and politics: I think the National Crongress picture should be erase and replaced by a beautiful picture of the Planalto Central in Brasília. It is much more representative than all those unknown politicians doing nothing there.

By "Planalto Central" I'm assuming you mean the actual congress building (Planalto central is actually the geographical region Brasilia is in). Typically, seen from other country articles, they have a tendency to show the exterior of the building. I'm okay with either, but I'd like other editors to chime in as well.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The current image is good. Showing the deputies "working". Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Felipe, the inside of the congress is a really great picture, you can always find a pictures of the building in the Brasília or the congress articlesChico 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Opinoso, almost. Change for Palácio do Planalto (we don't have this in Brasília article!), or even a exterior image for Congresso Nacional [1], we already have so much politicians in the article.

Yes, a picture of the architecture of the National Congress would go better than those politicians.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Law: The picture of both politicians should be erased. They are not so important to be in an article about Brazil. Many other Brazilians are more important to the country and are not in the article. It should be replaced with a of a Brazilian city court, maybe one from Brasilia.

Disagree vehemently. Again, the office of highest judge in the land is very important, even if the person occupying it is not known. I have voiced concerns before, however, that perhaps another picture could be included and replace the Northfleet one. Anyone have any suggestions.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree vehemently. I am watching she now, in Jornal da Globo. She is a very important and know person in Brazil. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They are the minister of finances and president of supreme tribunal. How they can't be important for Brazilian law?

But you could say they are not good representations. I think that iconically blind Justice statue from Brasilia could be a excellent change. [2] wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the statute would go better.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative divisions: This session talks about the Brazilian divisions and has no picturs of Brazilian cities. The session has almost no pictures of Northeastern cities. Why not put some there?

This is an illustrative section of political divisions, and the map is excellent in demonstrating that. Cities are referenced, and indeed shown, in a section further below (appropriately named "largest cities"). Section is too short to host other pictures.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is about administrative divisions - regions and states, not cities. And the map is already too big, and it should stay for his links to each state (and Federal District) articles. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, keep as it is. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Geography and climate: Brazil is 90% tropical and world-famous for its beaches. There should have a picture of a Brazilian beach, maybe one from Rio de Janeiro.

Disagree. A beach is a geographic feature, and not unique. It also does not demonstrate the climate. Other countries have beaches: just because Brazil's are better than most does not mean it demonstrates the particular geographic/climactic range of the country. I think instead of a satellite picture of the Amazon, a ground-level image would be more appropriate. Iguaçu falls is an appropriate demonstration of a geographic feature which is unique to the country. A picture of Caatinga or the Planalto Central or the Chapada Diamantina, for example, would be another. A beach in itself (however famous) is not.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama (A beach is a geographic feature... ...which is unique to the country). Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the satellite picture of the Amazon for a ground-level one seems like a good idea. Any alternatives? --Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, change the Amazon picture. [3] [4]

A beach is not unique? Try Fernando de Noronha. [5] [6] This is unique. What you think?

Ok, there is already other beaches. Two small images. I think is very few. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Brazilian beaches are unique. Our beaches are world-famous and most Brazilians live along the coast. Again, a pic of a beach of Rio de Janeiro should be included.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. (Who is wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die ?) Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Economy: São Paulo is the richest city of Brazil and there should have a picture of it. It is impossible to see the Itaipu picture, it is too dark. The pic of Bovespa is totally unnecessary. Why not replace it with a pic of an important Brazilian city, such as Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre?

Disagree. São Paulo itself does not demonstrate the economy: the activities within a city do. Itaipu is an important catalyst for economic growth by providing cheap, renewable energy to two different countries, as well as demonstrating engineering capability. The Bovespa picture demonstrates actual economic activity (stock market). Perhaps a picture of an auto-plant or other form of heavy industry could replace it, but not a picture of a city by itself.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also don't like the Itaipu image, but I agree with Dalil about its relevance. [7] [8]

Why not a image of our currency, the Real? [Image:OneRealSpecial_III.jpg] The only problem I see is some lack of originalty... wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

São Paulo does represent the Brazilian economy. A pic of Paulista Avenue, the richest part of Brazil would be fine. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics: This session has almost no pictures. There should be represented the ethnical diversity of Brazil: Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Mixed-Race people. All those celebrity pictures should be erased. Celebrities do not represent a country's population demography.

No pictures!?!? It's got over 10! Celebrities in this case demonstrate a sample of the make-up of the Brazilian population. Particularly, I think it's a clever to demonstrate that diversity in a space slightly larger than a single picture. Whether celebrities or regular people should be used is a fair argument. Personally, I think celebrities (especially to a foreign audience) are an easier way to identify the demographics: the challenge is in making that selection balanced and representative.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose the use of celebrities (if we do have famous of all origins), but I don't like the choices. Why 5 white models and a (sorry, Benedita) not-so-beatiful black woman? Keep Ronaldinho, Gisele, maybe Xanddy and Cicarelli (for the Italian origin; she is so much infamous today). Put at least one more athletes, like Hugo Hoyama (for the japanese origin) and Vanderlei Cordeiro de Lima [9] - the latter is better in Sports section. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures of White models. Gisele should keep, the others erased. Pics of more commom White Brazilians, with dark hair and dark eyes, should be included. Unfurtunetly, there are no pics of Black Brazilian women, besides Benedita da Silva, in Wikipedia. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest cities: The pictures seem out of place in the box. Maybe it would be better to put them out of it.

Disagree. I think they look fine. Efficient use of space.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are too many pics. The box is too wide at 800x600 and even at 1024x768 one needs to move a little to the right to see it entirely. I'd suggest moving the pics out of the box. --Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, I am 800x600 user and is not possible to view the table correct here. Carlosguitar 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the box, but if it is bad in low resolution it should be changed. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The pics in the box should be out of it. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages: The picture of Gramado has nothing to do with the session. Maybe it would be better to post a picture of a place that represents the Portuguese Language, such as the Museum of the Portuguese Language of São Paulo.

Agree. That's out-of-context for that section. And the museum is a good suggestion. Another would be the Academia Brasileira de Letras.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dalil, the Academia is a good choice. A famous writer would be fine, too. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Academia pic, but the Museum of the Portuguese Language is unique: it is the only musuem in the world made in honor to a language.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed image. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Social issues: Better pictures of poor Brazilian neighborhoods should be posted there.

Agree. Do you know any that are in the Commons? On a note though, only one should be pictured, again because of the size of the section.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The current image is not dark, and show the economic inequality within Brazil. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

João, I think the image of Bonfim favela is better than Vindigal. Carlosguitar 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the pic is too dark. Aren't there better pics?--Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The current pic looks fine.Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture: It is impossible to talk about Brazilian culture and not to mention the Brazilian Carnival or the Samba. The Niterói Contemporary Art Museum pic does not represent our culture in nothing.

I agree. Try adding a small picture of Samba to the bottom-right of that section to see how it looks. If it doesn't look good, I'd recommend replacing the Niterói picture.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The Niterói Contemporary Art Museum is one of the most important museums in Brazil. Try adding a small picture of Rio's Carnival. If it doesn't look good, I'd recommend replacing the Niterói picture, for one of the "Eye" (Oscar Niemeyer Museum), or the Ipiranga museum. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, pics should illustrate things mentioned in the text. The Niterói Contemporary Art Museum is not mentioned in this section while the carnival has a whole paragraph. The museum pic should be replaced by one of the carnival. --Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove Niterói Museum, put a carnival one. But please, not seminude women, something more cultural! [10] [11] [12] [13]

Sidenote: there is no images in Culture of Brazil. Why? Put things there! Quickly! wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A carnival pic should be included and the museum one erased. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed image. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion: The Pope visitation to Brazil's picture should be included. Brazil has the largest Roman Catholic population is the world.

Disagree. First, start with the premise that the section is too small to hold two pictures. So the question becomes which picture should be posted. The Redentor has a much larger landmark value and is better representative of a permanent relationship of the Brazilian people with Christianity than a visit by the pope. Let us remember that Cuba received a visit by the pope even though the government (and to some extent the population) is not very catholic.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Dali-Llama. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The current pic of Christ the Redeemer doesn't look too good. Maybe it should be replaced by one of the two pics shown at Christ the Redeemer (statue). --Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Small section for two images. Change for another Redentor image. [14] [15] wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a Christ statute pic would be fine. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed image. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sports: A picture of a Brazil team soccer game should be included and also a pic of an important athlete should be posted, such as Ronaldinho Gaúcho.

Agree that a picture of the Brazilian national team is better than a half-empty Maracanã. But the section is too small for more than one picture. So, ideally if anyone could find a good picture of a Brazilian soccer team match in a Brazilian stadium, that would be much, much better.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But a high quality picture. Obs: The Maracanã Stadium is the most important stadium in Brazil, and one of the most importants in the world. And the current imagem show the "Campeonato Brasileiro", the main league of Brazilian football. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Carlosguitar 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanderlei de Lima represents better than anything Brazilian sportive spirit. He deserves a mention. Brazilian footbal is famous; other sportists are heroes. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still go for a Ronaldinho Gaúcho pic. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree add picture of Vanderlei or Ronaldinho. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Science and technology: I do not know if Marcos Pontes deserves a picture in the Brazil article. He seems to be more a Rede Globo's myth than a national hero. Other picture that really represents the national technology should replace it.

I agree that Marcos Pontes is a bit of overkill. Perhaps a picture of an Embraer plane or the Centro de Lançamento de Alcântara would be better.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The images of Brazilian Space Rockets may be too long. The section cannot support that. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the pic of Marcos Pontes seems like undue weight. A pic of an Embraer airplane would be better. --Victor12 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Itaipu could be here instead.

Another suggestion: Santos-Dumont (using a non-polemic subtitle). wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Santos Dumont pic. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are my suggestions of changes in this article.

Comment them, please. Opinoso 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone to structure the conversation: Please indent your comments under Opinoso's comments unless specifically replying to my comments. Also, sign every single comment as I've done so we don't go through a diff to find out who said what. Otherwise, congratulations Opinoso: that's the way things should be. And don't be afraid to revert obvious vandalism like you did--just don't do it more than once if it's a legitimate content change, even if a bad one.--Dali-Llama 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good teamwork, everybody! wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Article's length

This article is way too long as has been said again and again on its FAC and GAC nominations. I think one of the causes of this problem is that it has too many sections: 18 not including see also, references and external links. It would be a good idea to check out the guidelines set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. They suggest just seven sections: History, Politics, Subdivisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics and Culture to which you could add Etymology. That would bring sections down from 18 to 8, all other topics should just be referred to in the "See also" section. What does everybody else thinks? --Victor12 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can definitely cut the last two sections of the demography section. Administrative divisions should be about half its size, perhaps merging both sections. Law can lose a couple of paragraphs. Sports can lose a couple of paragraphs as well. Instead of wholesale removal of sections, let's try to cut down the existing sections.--Dali-Llama 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support, I will start removing International ranks and merging Sports section content. Sorry, but is impossible to cite all notables content. Also I suggest to use <ref name=XXX/> in the Government and politics section that will reduce nearly 9000k. Carlosguitar 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just named most doubled references and I have reduced 30 or more, I might have missed some tough. Let's try to this to all added references from now on to keep the article shorter.Chico 23:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work Chico, keep with your nice way. Carlosguitar 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support as per Carlosguitar; Chico 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support as per Carlosguitar; Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose before we expand or create sub pages. I’m against the removal of important information users slowly gathered and edited in this page. Note one of the reasons the article is quite large is the fact it has a vast number of citations. Each citation takes up around 2 to 3 lines of text. After contents have been copied to other pages, then I will agree to the shortening of this one. Besides, "article length" is not the main problem here. The United States and United Kingdom pages are larger and that didn't stop them from receiving "good article" status. Sparks1979 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• We all are trying to meet Featured article criteria: so adding content now is unhelpful. All your statement have been merged into Social issues in Brazil before you started complaining, so why you are owning it?. Your statement will only increase WP:SIZE, because we will need more sources.

• You are saying I'm "adding content now", when in fact I’m only restoring content that was added on 6.8.2007, three days before this article length debate started. So I’m not “adding” anything, I’m restoring information that was already there. Why am I preserving this particular bit of information? Because in past discussions, most users agreed the social issues section had to be expanded. Understand something: “social issues” is a more important section than many others in this article – “sport”, “language”, “largest cities”, are less important for people that want to comprehend what Brazil is like. This is so painfully obvious. I find it interesting that you want to remove text, yet, you insist in moving text from an important section, and you ignore all the others. You accuse me of owning the article? Why? Because I don’t agree with you? Sparks1979 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Let me see until your ownership will leave you. In 28 June Epbr123 (talk · contribs) said: "Try to get the article down to about 80kb by removing some of the less important info from some sections." In 19 July I said the same statement: "Adding content now is unhelpful". You has been warned about WP:SIZE just disagree until today. Your statement will be preserved in the Social issues in Brazil, you know about it, but of course are not assuming good faith. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you accuse me of “ownership” without presenting any backup to your claims... Epbr123 mentioned the size issue more than a month ago and since then SEVERAL users have been adding contents and pictures to the article. You think nobody added content to the article since June 28? Just check the article history tag. Everybody can add information to the article in July and that’s ok, but when I add something BEFORE the present article length debate started you consider it ownership (note I added things on 06.08.2007 and this debate has started on 09.08.2007). Yeah, right. Double standards. See how your little “ownership” claims don’t stand? Besides, nobody bothered talking to Epbr123, only me. You yourself didn’t participate in that discussion. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which part of article you will remove to be added your statement? None? So please, revert your mistake. Carlosguitar 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don’t think I made a mistake, so I’m not reverting any of my edits until convinced otherwise. About other parts of the article – I’ve already mentioned several sections that are less important than the “social issues” section. They should get shortened first. Sparks1979 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• You did your mistake to only show your statement here and not in the sub-article, while the WP:AGF is discuss this before adding more content. Again you has been warned about this problem. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I remind you SEVERAL users have been including new information and content since Epbr123’s comments back more than a month ago. I guess you think the last 100-200 edits have been a mistake then? Or you conveniently think it was ok for everyone to add information besides me? You seem to have a very biased way to see things. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually size is a problem. Per Dr pda script, readable prose of this article is currently 71kb (10894 words), that is excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables. Per WP:SIZE: Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. Also prose size has been a problem for the United States article, check it's latest FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive4. --Victor12 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I didn’t say it is not a problem. I said it is not the main problem, at least not at the moment. We have other issues to address before we worry about size: we need to review all references, review prose quality, resolve the disputes over pictures and style, etc. What we do not need right now is another dispute, related to article length this time. However, if we really need to do this now, then I urge people at least to put some work into the sub pages first. Let’s transfer information rather than scrapping it. Sparks1979 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) One more thing: I doubt you will find many "country" related articles within the 30 – 50 KB margin you mentioned. That is a general recommendation, but it’s just not doable in the case of in-depth subjects. Sparks1979 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For your information, again all your statement was merged before you started this whole theater. Why you still persist owning, saying untrue argument like: transfer information rather than scrapping it? Carlosguitar 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is “theater”? This is my opinion, so show a little respect please. I’ve addressed you respectfully here and in your talk page, so I expect the very same treatment from you. It’s not an “untrue” argument. I think the less relevant information can be transferred to sub pages. But the relevant stuff stays – and “social issues” is relevant stuff. You think it’s more important to talk about “Pele” than Brazil’s social issues? That’s not a very encyclopedic posture. Sparks1979 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Respect me before calling good faith contributor as: "slowly gathered and edited". Not "untrue"? Your whole theater showed a biased view of merge as "scrapping" it. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should practice a little bit of reading comprehension before you continue with your little accusations. When I referred to information users slowly “gathered and edited”, I was talking about me and all other users that actually wrote up the stuff that you now see in this article. I wasn’t talking about you, since, with all due respect, I don’t think you’ve really done much in this article. Why did you take offence? Read people’s comments more carefully next time. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur.I agree with Sparks's concerns. Information need not be deleted--just relocated. That was my original understanding of this resizing proposal. As for the size of the article, it can be reduced, but to set an arbitrary limit based on kilobytes is solving a qualitative problem with a quantitative answer--it doesn't make sense. I'm sure we can cut it down to where a 3rd party can look at it and say whether or not it is within FA/GA standards.--Dali-Llama 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dali-Llama, Sparks1979's statement was merged into Social issues in Brazil before of his complaining. Nothing was removed, I started this article at 03:02, 9 August while Sparks started this theater at 22:43, 9 August. Do you see the hight number of hours? Also I indicate in my edit summary that I merged his information to sub section. Carlosguitar 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I kindly ask you to remember your good manners when commenting my posts. These are my opinions, so I can do without your “teatro” remarks. You said you sent the information to a “sub section”, when, in fact, you sent it to a “sub page”. Try to be a little more precise in your edit summaries. Well, I guess I will have to repeat myself again. You transferred important and relevant information to a sub page. I don’t agree with that, so that’s why I restored it to the article. I would like to remind you I tried to reason with you in our personal talk pages, but you didn’t seem too interested in talking. Am I forced to agree with you? No, I don’t think so. I do think information can be relocated from the main page, as long as it is less relevant. Which sections I think can be shortened and some of its information relocated? Sports, Languages, Demographics, History, Environment, Government, and some other bits and pieces here and there. Sparks1979 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, you will not own this article with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT arguments. This article must resolved problem of WP:SIZE, content will be sacrificed, like or not it. Your statement will hight increase it, which is unhelpful now. Also none of article cited by Victor have "Social issues" section. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a case of “I like it” or “I don’t like it”. This is a case of “I think this is important and relevant and should stay” (my opinion) and “I think it needs to go because the article has to be reduced in size” (your opinion). With all due respect, you seem to have a poor grasp of the interpretation of rules. It’s easy to toss rules around, but how about properly applying them for once? It’s the fourth or fifth time you link us to random Wikipedia rules, and in all cases they don’t apply to what we are discussing here. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As per Sparks1979. But, the "History" and "Demographics" sections may to be reduced. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I never said info should be deleted, it should go to subarticles. As for other country articles, prose size of currently featured articles is Australia 30 kB (4639 words), Bangladesh 32 kB (4849 words), Belgium 35 kB (5344 words), Cambodia 27 kB (4132 words), Cameroon 31 kB (4713 words), Canada 43 kB (6357 words), Chad 29 kB (4403 words), Germany 46 kB (7059 words), Hong Kong 48 kB (7651 words), India 25 kB (4020 words), Indonesia 30 kB (4436 words), Japan 33 kB (5149 words), Libya 34 kB (5374 words), Pakistan 34 kB (5398 words), South Africa 60 kB (8663 words) and Turkey 42 kB (6537 words). As you can see all of them are way smaller than Brazil. There's no need to cram all available info about the country on a single article, it's much better to move it to subpages. Of course, as Dali-Llama said, kb count is just a way of telling if the article is too long, not a solution for this problem. There needs to be a discussion on which topics should stay here and which ones should be moved to subpages; just like there's a discussion on which pics to use. --Victor12 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent argument Victor. I was writing the same thing about others FA countries articles. Obvious we need to merge information. Carlosguitar 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem pretty happy deleting things. I’m curious about what portions of text you’ve actually contributed with in this article. Sparks1979 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again your biased view of my merge as a delete. For your information: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Sir owner. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... you are clearly trying to be provocative, constantly accusing me of random things, and not once you managed to explain why you think the social issues section should be removed from the main article instead of other sections. You haven’t tried to be constructive. I have asked you why you think a certain bit of information should be removed, and instead of talking about its relevance or importance all you say is “WP:SIZE”, “WP:SIZE”… well, you can say that about any part of the article. Try to defend your point by explaining which parts of the article you think are important and which parts are not. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With Brazil’s readable prose at 71 kb, I don’t think we are that far off. If we shorten it by 10 kb the text will be the same to that of South Africa. That means relocating around 15% of the text. I don’t think the problem is so dramatic regarding prose. I’ve already said I see no problem in transferring information to other areas, as long as we prepare the sub pages properly first. That doesn’t mean copying and pasting information into a careless stub. I offer my help regarding the Government, Politics, Law, and Foreign Relation and Military sections. But let’s not rush things. Also, before we start, we need to have a debate about what needs to go and what stays. Sparks1979 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, because stubs are careless, therefore none people will work or care to see your statement. That is it? Just vanity? Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You’ve accused me of a number of little things so far, but I don’t see any constructive reasoning. Why don’t you defend your point by saying “I think part A or part B should be removed because it is less important than other parts… and I think it is less important than other parts because of this and that.” I’m starting to think you don’t really have any substantial arguments to support your views, so you resort to little personal accusations. I can live with that. You, in the other hand, have lost the chance of having a constructive discussion about the article. Sparks1979 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Length Edits

All right, I'm declaring thread bankruptcy. I can't follow comments on a time-tag basis and I think we all agree that the article size needs to be reduced, and we have to roll up our sleeves and do it. Let's do this: Section by section, let's discuss what can be/has been cut, and its relocation to its own article. Let's adopt the following procedure (Feel free to ammend it):

"When removing content, a)summarize the change, b)explain the (ir)relevancy of the content removed c)indicate whether or not content was relocated to a sub-article. Sign individual changes (as we did in Opinoso's issues thread). If replying to a specific change (as opposed to adding your own), indent your comment under the specific change."--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro

• I believe the last paragraph can be removed since the same information is already talked about in detail in the Economics section. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1 Etymology

Seems at the appropriate size when compared to Canada and France.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, although I think we can merge this section as a subsection of “History”. I think it’s too small to be on its own. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2 History

• I think we can remove the “history section” intro paragraph (the bit that talks about “fossil records”). Most Brazilian History books don’t emphasize this, so it seems like an in depth unnecessary detail for me. We could relocate this to the “History of Brazil” sub page. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2.1 Colony

2.2 Empire

2.3 Republic Removed Operation Condor piece. Already mentioned in Operation Condor article. Deals with individual government action. Relocated to Fernando Henrique Cardoso Article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think this section suffers from recentism, there's too much detail on the 1990s. The last two paragraphs could be reduced to just three sentences. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with Dali-Llama and Victor12 on this one. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

3 Government and politics Removed: "On certain matters, the Executive and Judiciary authorities may have exclusive prerogatives for legislative initiative." (seems too detailed). And edited for brevity.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "Voting is also optional for illiterate people". Again, too detailed.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed "...as well as basic administrative conditions" I don't know what that means, to be honest. I don't know if it warrants inclusion elsewhere.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "A tax reform aiming at unifying the value-added tax in the country is currently being voted at the National Congress, and its approval and implementation are currently in the government policy agenda." That's old news and hasn't produced any actual results. Certainly an individual reform with little-to-no consequence shouldn't be in the main article with the space constraints we have.

Comment: I think the last paragraph should be deleted. It deals with economics, it does not belong under "Government and politics". --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with the removal of the last paragraph. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

4 Foreign relations and the military Removed: "...and act at times as a countervailing force to U.S. political and economic influence in Latin America." Kind of already addressed in the Foreign relations of Brazil article, and certainly not as black-and-white as the sentence sounds.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "Both air divisions transferred their equipments, installations and personnel to the new armed force." Too detailed for this article and already addressed in the FAB article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "...and as of July 8, 2005, had 66,020 personnel on active duty. An additional 7,500 civilian personnel are employed by the Air Force". It's a fluctuating number and addressed in the main FAB article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: ", some American and British-built frigates, a few locally-built corvettes, coastal diesel-electric submarines and many other river and coastal patrol craft" Same rationale as above. We don't start talking about Tucanos and Mirages for the FAB: it's a never-ending spiral.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's too much detail on foreign policy. That paragraph should be cut. All that comes after Brazil's current foreign policy is based on could be removed and transfered to Foreign relations of Brazil. As for the paragraph on the military, there's still some details that could be cut like the numer of aircraft, the mention of the São Paulo aircraft carrier or the strength of the Brazilian Army. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with Dali-Llama and Victor12 on this one too. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

5 Law

This can be significantly shortened (see the Canada section), but in the best tradition of the Internet: IANAL--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This section is way too long and its kind of redundant with the "Government" and "Administrative Divisions" sections. Useful content should go to those sections, the rest should be removed from this article. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think we can relocate the second and third paragraphs to the "Brazilian Law" sub page. The remaining paragraphs can be used as the current section or a sub section on "Law". Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6 Administrative divisions

6.1 Regions Deleted subsection header: The whole section deals with regions so there's no point in having "Regions" as a header. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the headers, but "States" and "Regions" are different types of subdivisions in Brazil. We need to do this carefully. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6.2 States Deleted section. Hey, did anyone notice that the information in this section is replicated in the government/politics section? What isn't duplicated (the comarca thing), if far too detailed for inclusion in the main article. If so, then it doesn't follow to have one paragraph then a sub-section--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with the comarca comment. That can be relocated to the "Brazilian Law" sub page. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

7 Geography and climate

8 Environment

• I think this section can be merged as a sub section of "Geography". Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

9 Economy Removed: "Brazil's diverse industries range from automobiles, steel and petrochemicals to computers, aircraft, and consumer goods and amount to one-third of the GDP." Already addressed at the top paragraph. How much of the GDP it consists can be left to the main article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "In 1994, With the increased economic stability provided by the Plano Real economic package, both Brazilian and multinational corporations have invested heavily in new equipment and technology, a large proportion of which has been purchased from American enterprises." Seems too specific. Plano real was already covered in the history section. This section should be more for structural features of the economy, and temporal features left for the Economic history of Brazil article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The third and maybe the fifth paragraphs could be deleted without harming this section. They could be moved to Economy of Brazil if they are not already there. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think the problem in this section is not size, but some mild POV. It puts too much emphasis on strengths of Brazil's economy in detriment of the problems. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

10 Demographics

This section and next 3 sub-sections need to cut to approximately 1/3 of its present size. Can anyone volunteer?--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think we can actually cut it in half. I can help with this one, although I've personally never worked on it. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

10.1 Ethnic groups Comment: This section could be deleted, there's already an extensive section dealing with immigration and the ethnic groups that make up Brazil. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Desagree: This section is important because it talks about how ethnic division occurs NOWADAYS in Brazil. The Demographics section only talks about the Historyu of Brazil's racial make up.

10.2 Immigration and emigration Comment: This section could be deleted, too much detail for the country article. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

10.3 Largest cities

Removed: "São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are far larger than any other Brazilian city. São Paulo's influence in most economic aspects can be noted in a national (and even international) scale; other Brazilian metropolises are second tier, even though Rio de Janeiro (partially due to its former status as the national capital) still host various large corporations' headquarters, besides being Brazil's cultural center with respect to soap operas and film production." This entire paragraph is implicit with the table.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Does this need to be a separate section? --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the whole intro talks about historical aspects of demographics. I think it can be relocated to a sub page. I also think we can keep the "ethnic groups" sub section as the main part of the section itself and save two or three paragraphs from immigration and emigration to add to that. "Largest cities" can go too. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

11 Languages Comment: Way too much detailed, could be reduced to a single paragraph. For instance the extensive description of Brazilian portuguese is irrelevant. A link to the proper subarticle would be enough. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. It can be reduced and merged as a sub section of demographics. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I already reduced it. Opinoso 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

12 Education and health Comment: There's only a very small paragraph related to health, you might as well remove it and rename the section "Education". --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

13 Social issues

• I believe this section is important because Brazil is a country of contrasts. It has a strong, almost developed economy, but it also has dramatic social problems. This is basic stuff for Brazilians, but people unfamiliar with the country are unaware of it. Brazil has one of the world's largest social and economic disparities. Why shouldn't we mention this important side of Brazil? Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion for making the section smaller: there are three paragraphs talking about poverty - we can turn that into one. I strongly oppose the removal of the paragraph that mentions other types of social problems. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• None of articles cited by Victor have "Social issues" section. I suggest revert again Sparks and leave old section; remove the whole section; or make a new prose text with only 3 paragraphs. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem in making the section smaller - poverty takes up 3 paragraphs - we can turn that into one. If you don't like the section due to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries we can turn it into a sub section of "demographics". Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

14 Culture Comment: Need urgently of references for this section. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

15 Religion Comment: Too much detail, the first paragraph would be enough. If people want more info they can go to the Religion in Brazil article. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

16 Sports

Okay, I'm gonna anger a lot of people here, but here we go. This section is way too large. I understand the concern to demonstrate that Brazil is not "just about football", but other FA country articles, such as Canada and Germany, either don't have that section or have a tiny faction of what we have. I've removed A LOT of stuff, tried to get concise. It's unimaginable to list as many championships as we do. I mentioned the Pan and the Olympic bid, and that should suffice.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the section but I'm fine with your suggestion. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: Olympic candidacy info. Too detailed.--Dali-Llama 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Felipe, why do you feel that failed past olympic bids should be in the article?--Dali-Llama 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "Brazilian football clubs have also experienced significant international success, winning the most prestigious South American competition (Copa Libertadores) on thirteen occasions." Kinda follows when you win 5 world cups. this section is long compared to other country articles already.--Dali-Llama 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

17 Science and technology

Removed: "...and partly in private institutions, especially in non-profit non-governmental organizations" Redundant. If it's "mostly in public institution" wouldn't it follow that the other part is in private institutions?--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaced: picture of Marcos Pontes with Embraer picture, per the previous discussion. There might be a better picture, but I thought house colors would be better than some Air France livery picture.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This section seems quite short as it is. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

18 See also Comment: Too many templates. Only the first one should stay. --Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed templates... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

19 References

19.1 Footnotes

19.2 Further reading

20 External links

General Discussion

Minor changes include aligning pictures to the right per WP:MOS. I'm sorry if I've removed someone's edits (I'm sure I have), but this is one of those bold moments. Resist the temptation to press the revert button: make edits as you see fit, but try to address the changes individually. Let's roll-up those sleeves!--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I had written about 30-40% of the contents the article had as of 06.08.2007 and I see no problem in the changes you are undertaking. Just make sure you relocate data to other pages so all the hard work is not lost! Relevant information should be preserved, although there’s no doubt things need to be in the right places and much of it needs to go to sub pages. Keep up the good work! Sparks1979 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a picture of Rio de Janeiro. It is impossible to talk about Brazil and not talk about Rio. By the way, there are no picture of a Brazilian beach there. Opinoso 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I agree we have to mention Rio de Janeiro, but it's possible to talk about Brazil without necessarily having a picture of Rio de Janeiro. Also, I think most users agreed there's no need to have pictures of beaches for encyclopedic purposes when you mentioned this above. Sparks1979 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article contains 3 images about Rio de Janeiro... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The sections: "Religion", "Sports" and "Science and technology" possess ideal sizes. The other sections could have the same size. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture alignment RFC: According to the Manual of Style: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.

I I have implemented the policy, and shifted all pictures that are left-aligned at the beginning of the section to the right. Sections such as Economy, which have two pictures, I've alternated them left and right, with the first picture being aligned right. Felipe feels that this may not esthetically pleasing, even if according to policy. It's a fair point, though I disagree. What do others think?--Dali-Llama 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that he has an overload of images in the right of the article, and I think better to spread the photos, balancing the two sides. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

Finally the users if had joined to improve the Brazil article. This is fantastic. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What else needs to be done ?

1.Size: The article has been reduced to 85 Kb. Readable prose stands at 42 Kb.

2.Structure: It has been reorganized according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries standards - we now have only 8 sections: History, Politics, Administrative Divisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Culture, and Science and Technology.

3.Prose quality: There may still be one or two mistakes here and there, but I personally think prose quality is stable, accurate and good enough.

4.Images: I believe there is an adequate number of images and most or all of them are relevant and of very good quality.

5.References: There are 140+ references. I believe more than enough.

6.Neutrality: We've had a lot of problems with this in the past, but I think we've now reached a consensus on most subjects, although one or two users still try to hide certain things. In general, I think neutrality is passable.

7.Tables and Info boxes: They seem well organized to me.

I ask everyone: what else do we need to do here? Are we ready for a convincing GA nomination? If you think there are things still requiring our attention, by all means feel free to list them here! Sparks1979 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations everyone on managing this reduction without edit wars or excessive personal attacks. I think the most emotionally charged thing in wikipedia is removal of content (God knows what I've gone through reviewing articles for deletion), so I'm pleasantly shocked that this has gone so well.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as being ready for GA, let's look directly at the criteria from WP:GA?:

1)Well written?

I think so.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2)Factually accurate?

140 sources sounds good to me. Can anyone find any statements lacking a source?--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

3)Broad coverage?

Pretty broad.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

4)NPOV?

Again, Social issues may be an issue. The last two sentences in the section need a reference lest they be considered OR.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

5)Stable?

Considering we've removed content and added very little, I feel that the existing content is indeed stable.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6)Images?

Appropriately formatted, all pictures are from the commons and within context. The only exceptions are: Getulio Vargas picture, which is non-free. Mirage 2000 picture, which is improperly licensed. It's not a CC image, since the FAB doesn't license their images under CC. Both must be replaced--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion:

Other than a few missing references and the images, I think we're ok for GA and well on our way to FA.--Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Good job everyone! Prose has been brought down to a more manageable size and in quite a short time I must say. It's good to see the article has so many interested editors willing to help. Having said that, here are some suggestions for further improvement:

• The article still needs some work to fully comply with the Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates stand alone years should not be linked. There are several instances of linked years in this article.
• Also per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context words should only be linked if they provide appropriate context for the article. An example of this problem happens in the Economy section where common words such as aircraft, coffee and automobiles are linked.
• Per WP:DASH date ranges should not use hyphens but rather endashes. This seems to be a problem in citations.
• In the External links section there's no need to tag English sources as such; this is the English Wikipedia after all. Only tag sources in Portuguese.

I have some more comments but no more time today. I'll get back on this tomorrow. Good luck, --Victor12 00:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will resume work considering the points you've just made when I'm back in two days. Sparks1979 03:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Issues subsection

The aforementioned subsection has seen a lot of activity in the last few days, and it has been the center of controversy between myself and another user.

I made an expansion that in my eyes matches what users have been calling for in many of our past debates. I made brief mentions to general social problems any Brazilian is aware of. So which problems did I mention?

• Social securities debts, which make the social security system almost inept. Anyone here ever of the “rombos da previdência”?
• Violence. Anybody here ever heard of violence in Brazil?
• Lack of urban planning in large cities, which affect quality of life (lousy transportation, etc).
• Dysfunctional prison system (rebellions and super population ring a bell)?
• Insignificant minimum wage.

Well, I didn’t add this simply because I felt like it. I added it because in past discussions (check archived debates), several users complained about the lack of mention to problems in Brazil's article. People complained the article was full of POV, that no social problems such as violence or other issues was ever mentioned or discussed. Users complained dirt was pushed under the carpet. I have a neutral opinion. I’m not in favor of a negative view of the country. Brazil is an economical powerhouse. That’s undeniable – the country has one of the largest GDPs in the world. In the other hand, social problems in Brazil can be quite dramatic. We all know Brazil is a country of contrasts. So I think a neutral view should present both sides – the economical power and the social and institutional shortcomings. Brazil is not a Banana Republic, but it is very far from development in social terms.

If you think social issues shouldn’t be mentioned, fine, but at least explain why. Two arguments have been mentioned, but they are quite lousy:

• The article is too long – I don’t buy this. Sorry but if we have space to mention sport and carnival, then we also have space for 4 lines on social problems. Anyone studying a country starts by important political, economical and social data first. After all, this is an encyclopedia, so a scientific approach is expected.

• There are no references – this is not reason to delete information everyone knows is correct. Instead of deleting information, try finding the missing references. Be constructive. The lack of references has never been a reason for people to delete information. 5 months ago this article had less than 20 citations, and nothing was ever removed because of this. So avoid having double standards. I didn’t see anyone deleting the etymology section – it never had references, and it’s still lacking them.

Currently the social issues subsection only mentions poverty. I wrote a brief mention to all the other problems in a short 4 line paragraph, but that seemed to bother some people. So what do other people think? I’m trying to be democratic about this. If people don’t reply, I will just keep adding the information back every time I visit the page, but if people decide this type of data should be inserted in a sub page, I will have no problem with that either. I don’t force my personal opinions on other people, but if people don’t bother saying what they think, I will just have to proceed according to my own personal thoughts. I will be back to check this in about two days. Sparks1979 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, like it or not, there is no space to add your statement here, the social issues need to be small and few references not a list. Stop with this vanity to show only your statement here instead of subpage. And do not revert Chico's contribution! Carlosguitar 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• If space is the only problem, I can assure you I can rewrite the whole subsection without making it larger, and still mention all the problems I listed. Would that be ok for you? The subsection with virtually the same size? Or would you still have another reason to support your claims? Sparks1979 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, again we will need more sources that will highly increase length. Carlosguitar 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let me understand something – you think it’s ok to have the etymology section without any references? Because I don’t see you deleting it. Suddenly the article can’t fit 2 or 3 citations for 4 important lines, but we can have more than 10 citations about sport? You seem to be either incredibly biased against me or you are simply following a very dodgy line of reasoning.

• I will tell you what – good news – new proposal – I will rewrite the social issues subsection, adding references, in a way it doesn’t add a single extra kilobyte for the article, because I will remove a much less important line in sport (which was written by myself, incidentally). Is that fine for you? Or you think a line about sport is more important than a line about social issues? This is your chance to convince all other users. Give it your best shot and kill my argument, or refrain from making yourself look tendencious. Sparks1979 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you assume good faith now to do it. That is a good resolution for WP:SIZE. Again social issues need few references, not a list. If people want detail, they need to see subpage. Carlosguitar 05:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Who said anything about details? Do you understand the concept of “briefly mentioning” certain issues? And once more I say I’m talking about a mere four lines – it means two paragraphs in the entire subsection if we add it to a paragraph on poverty. You yourself said it was ok to have 3 paragraphs in this subsection. So what’s the hassle? Sparks1979 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, because the 2 paragraph is too long. Again Epbr123 suggested to reduce to 80kb, this article still not reached his suggestion. Carlosguitar 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I quote you: “I suggest revert again Sparks and leave old section; remove the whole section; or make a new prose text with only 3 paragraphs. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC). So yesterday morning it was ok to have 3 paragraphs. Now I suggest I will do it in 2, and surprise surprise, your opinion has suddenly changed… now we cannot have 2 paragraphs. Why do I get a feeling you will go back on your own opinion just to say “Strong Oppose” to anything I say? I smell bias… Try having a little more coherency in your own statements. Sparks1979 15:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vanity show? Why do you call it a vanity show? I've deleted at least 20 lines of my own work today just to make the article shorter as a whole. Sparks1979 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because you are not assuming good faith to show your statement in the subpage. Again, where is the good faith? Carlosguitar 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why am I not assuming good faith? I think important aspects regarding social issues of Brazil should be in the main page, not in a sub page. It's only my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith, it only means I don't agree with sending that bit of information into a sub page. You don't have to agree with me, but can you please at least respect my opinion? I will tell how you do this. Start by stopping personal attacks. Even if they are mild. Example: say "I don't agree with you", don't say "I don't agree with you because you are putting out vanity show". It's the little differences Carlos. They make things that much harder to digest. Sparks1979 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again where is WP:POINT? I have totally right to disagree and merge if I see unsourced statement that will highly increase WP:SIZE. The fact is we have WP:SIZE problem and not opinions. Carlosguitar 05:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• What has the WP:POINT rule got to do with the discussion at stake? Nothing. You constantly try to digress by throwing around rules when they clearly have no connection with what we are discussing here. You have the right to disagree. I respect that. I’m only questioning you about the reasons you are disagreeing, and the more you talk, the stronger my belief regarding your lack of real arguments. I'm starting to see a lot of bias. You mention the size problem again. I have clearly demonstrated the edits I propose will not affect size. I challenged you several times with the following simple questions: if references are a problem, why haven’t you deleted other parts of the article with no citations, such as the etymology or culture sections? If size is the problem, why haven’t you deleted portions of the sports section (I remind sports is not even mentioned in Wikipedia’s guidelines for countries)? Apparently you have no answer to these questions and I guess I’ve exposed your biased stance on the matter. Sparks1979 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I removed others unsourced statements. I still agree with Victor original proposal to meets Wikipedia guidelines for countries, and remove Social issues and Sports sections, but of course you will never allow it. Carlosguitar 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stop deleting every line that lacks a specific reference. If you check most FA articles, none of them have references for every single sentence. Look at Australia for instance. It’s a FA and it doesn’t have a single citation in the first three paragraphs (the whole intro). If every article has to have citations for every single sentence, all FA articles will have 200-300 references, and sorry, that’s not how it works, because I don’t see that in any FA. You are trying to create and establish a new guideline on your own “every sentence without a citation must be deleted”. Sorry, that doesn’t exist in Wikipedia. So please, stop deleting every line that has no reference. For instance, you just deleted a) the line saying the name “Brazil” comes from “brazilwood tree”, when any novice Brazilian student knows that; b) you deleted the line saying Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu was created in Brazil, when even the name of the sport itself indicates that. In other words, you are pretty much deleting good information because you are so desperately trying to prove your point “I delete any sentence without a citation”. Thus, in my view, you are clearly being disruptive. Sparks1979 15:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign previously)

• Regarding size, Wikipedia has established a guideline of 30-50 Kb of readable prose. Our article currently has 41 Kb of readable prose, so we are well within limits. Some FA countries have larger prose size than Brazil: Canada (42 Kb), Hong Kong (48 Kb), South Africa (60 Kb). I think that proves we don’t have a size problem anymore, at least not related to prose. If you want the article to get to 80 Kb, you should address other aspects: consider removing the unnecessary “largest cities” table, consider reducing the redundant citations (some sentences have 3 citations), consider reducing the size of the “external links” section, and so on. You are removing relevant information from the article prose, when that’s absolutely not necessary.Sparks1979 15:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign previously)

Okay, I've read the previous discussion and this one as well. To be perfectly honest, I think that the social issues brought up by Sparks should in fact be mentioned. The section is important: the issue is really how it's approached. Country articles have a bad habit of being overly positive about their subjects as most people hesitate to denigrate their homeland in front of foreigners (though we do so freely at home, admit it!).

At the same time, while this is a necessary section, it is also an WP:OR and WP:NPOV minefield. Finally, I think the article needs the section more than some of the existing information currently there. So this is the compromise I propose:

Sparks, write up how you think the social issues section should look like, and make sure the sources are beyond reproach and as quantitative as possible. At the same time, if the proposal is larger than the existing blurb, indicate where you think the article could lose more content to make up for an increase in social issues. Right now we need some form of wiki-fiscal responsibility, where for content that we'd like to add, we need to remove it elsewhere. After we have a proposal to look at, we'll all pitch in to take a look and see if it meets OR, RS and NPOV rules. As I said, I think this is a terribly important section, but there are several "landmines" to avoid in drafting it.--Dali-Llama 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I will try to work on this tomorrow night, since I'm a bit busy this weekend. My idea is to write up two paragraphs briefly mentioning the main social problems in Brazil, without going into any detail. That would take up two paragraphs or maybe only one. Since I will replace the current text, I doubt there will any meaningful increase in size. I will mention only four things, which seem to be the main ones: a) poverty; b) inept social security system; c) high level of violence; d) insignificant minimum wages.

I will also:

• Review grammar in the whole article.

• Remove redundant references.

• Remove at least half the links in the "external links" section.

• Remove the "cities" table in the "demographics" subsection, since its author, Felipe C.S, has expressed his wish to merge it to prose.

• Remove links from stand alone years and dates.

• Remove links from common words.

• Establish a standard for style in citations, according to templates.

• Remove hyphens from date ranges.

• Restore certain bits of information that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Sorry Carlosguitar, but I think you've been proved wrong on this one. Sparks1979 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you rewrite social issues without increasing WP:SIZE I will not oppose. The problem was away with WP:SIZE. And I am not the user that have been reverted by 2 established users with good reasons to removed his statement. Carlosguitar 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• After we reduced prose to 41-42 Kb, I don’t understand why you continued complaining about size. Besides, if you are so worried about it, why didn’t you work on reviewing citations and external links? That’s where the size problem is since the article was brought down to 85 Kb. The problem was no longer related to prose – I hope you’ve realized that by now. As for the side comment about you and some other user reverting me… well, when you contribute a lot to articles writing prose, sooner or later you are going to end up suffering a few reverts here and there. I really don’t mind. I’m not so sure you two are “established” users (don’t know who is the other guy that reverted me, but fine). If you really feel that way and it makes you happy, then I’m glad for you. Personally, I believe established users actually contribute to the contents of articles, by helping to sort out style, finding relevant pictures, organizing sections, inserting references, and, last but not least, they actually write stuff. But that’s only my view. Maybe when you can boast 1000 minor edits reporting vandalism and reverting other people it makes you feel “established”, like some sort of administrator, I don’t know. Well, I guess each one of us follows different lines of thinking. I hope we can work more productively from now on. Sparks1979 01:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Layout

In my opinion, the layout of the article still can be improved. I am working in a model here. When to finish, I will present here in talk page and we could make a voting. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is why I always told you it's good to consult other editors before making nominations - new ideas may arise regarding possible improvements. Sparks1979 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - I think people should take a look at the model Filipe has designed. I think it's looking pretty good. Perhaps people should voice their opinions regarding this as well. Among other minor adjustments, he suggests we eliminate the tables in "demographics" and turn the information into prose. Sparks1979 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I finished the model. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

* The lead section seems mostly good. However, it should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain reference citations (the citations should be in the article text itself). Editors might also want to check out the last paragraph of the lead. Why does "throughout the 90s" have a citation on it? the reference should be at the end of the sentence. This last paragraph could probably be rewritten to provide just a mere summary of the economy as a whole, don't start out by mentioning its recent economic revolution.

 Done Fixed and reviewed. Per WP:LEAD, potentially questionable facts still need a source. Considering the facts in the lead are not replicated anywhere else (such as the coastline length), I think citations are appropriate. If you feel there are any unnecessary citations, I'd be glad to remove them as well.--Dali-Llama 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the history section actually deals more with the overall name of the country instead of being an introduction to the country's history. Consider putting this into its own main section, called 'name'. Also, move the pronunciation information to this section as well, instead of including it under footnote #1.

 Done Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This has not been done, yet. I still think that it doesn't really go with history, and the article could benefit by having pronunciation and etymology information in its own main section. Dr. Cash 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it's done--Dali-Llama 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

* In the 'history: empire' section: "It specified indirect elections and created the usual three branches of government ..."; while I can guess that the editors are talking about the legislative, executive and judicial, I don't think it's wise to let the reader guess at this. Every nation is different.

 Done--Dali-Llama 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* Write out the names of each political party mentioned here: "Four political parties stand out among several small ones: PT, PSDB, PMDB and DEM, formerly PFL." The abbreviations are pretty much meaningless to someone that is not from Brazil, and few people will want to click on each link just to find out what they mean.  Done Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* The 'politics' section really talks more about the organization of the government rather than the political landscape. This section should be called 'government', with a brief mention of the political parties. Change the link to the Politics of Brazil article from a 'main article:' link to a 'see also:' link, to somewhat de-emphasize that the section is about politics and in fact, more about government. The two subsections here also seem to be concerned with various parts and/or functions of government, rather than politics.

 Done --Dali-Llama 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* "Major rivers include the Amazon, the largest river in the world in flowing water volume,..." -- remove the word 'flowing', maybe change to "in terms of volume of water".  Done Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* "Most of Brazil has moderate rainfall of between 1,000 and 1,500 millimeters a year" -- Is there some reason why the measurement is not indicated in cm (100-150 cm)? It is general practice that you should use the unit of measurement that produces the lowest quantity (e.g. instead of writing 1,000 m, you write 1 km). There's a couple of other measurements in the 'climate' section like this to check out as well.

 Done Rainfall is usually measured in millimeters, even when higher than 1,000 (see rain article). Similarly, altitude is most commonly stated in thousands of meters (or feet), unless used in comparison with large distances or measured in outer space (see altitude). Is this okay?--Dali-Llama 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* Also, regarding units of measurement, it would be nice if the non-metric equivalents were provided in parentheses for readers not familiar with the metric system (but please don't blame me for the fact that my country) won't adopt the superior metric system. At the very least, though, temperatures in both Celsius & Fahrenheit should be provided, since °F is a bit more common.

 Done Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* In the second paragraph of the 'environment' section, the phrase "country of the world" seems to be repeated twice in two successive sentences, which makes for awkward reading. I would change the wording to only use that phrase once. There is also a comma after the second sentence, where I think a period was intended. I am not sure why the word 'quick' is in parentheses in the third paragraph? It doesn't seem to be needed here -- perhaps remove it.

 Done Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* "Possessing large and well-developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing,[90] and service sectors, as well as a large labour pool, Brazil's GDP (PPP) is the highest of Latin America becoming the core economy of Mercosul." -- This first sentence in the economy section seems kind of awkward, and mainly a run-on sentence. Starting with "Possessing large and well-developed" seems to be a weird beginning, and the last part seems to run-on,... rephrase.

Reworded, what do you think now? Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* This sentence really needs to be sourced: "According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP) and tenth largest at market exchange rates."

 Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* Perhaps a wikilink to the Brazilian real article in the economy section would help for those interested in learning more about the currency? Likewise, since the dollar is mentioned, link to the United States Dollar article as well.

 Done Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* "The largest Brazilian cities are: São Paulo with 11.0 millions,..." -- In this sentence, the proper form would be "11.0 million" (million is written as singular, not plural). Ditto for the other two mentions of the word.

 Done Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* In the 'education and health section', single years should not be wikilinked.

 Done Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* "Diplomas and certificates are proof of having passed through higher education." -- this rather broad sentence could probably be removed; it's not unique to Brazil, and it sounds like something Ric Romero might write.

 Done Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* Brazilian annalists? Are you sure you got this spelling right? The 'education and health' section mostly contains education, with a single sentence devoted to health issues. I think education itself fails into a pretty broad enough category that it should be in its own main section, rather than a subsection of 'demographics'. More information can be written about health care, which probably should make it into its own section. Does Brazil have socialized health care? What are some of the major hospitals? How does health care in Brazil rate to other nations?

Reworded with source. I am reluctant to add more statement, we are nearly to fail WP:SIZE. I think we need to develop subpages not add more content here. Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* [Social issues] "Some social and political issues that plague other countries are either mild or practically non-existent problems in Brazil." -- this unsourced sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. What social and political issues and what countries are you referring to? I'm not sure that it's really important, and sounds more like filler that was added to make Brazil sound better compared to other countries. It could probably be eliminated.

 Done Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* Mention of the Brazilian Space Agency is good. It might be nice to elaborate on some of the agencies accomplishments, however.

 Done I regret to say they haven't had many accomplishments. Their only launch vehicle exploded in an accident a few years ago, and they have yet to master critical liquid-fuel rocket technology which would enable them to launch heavier payloads in complex vehicles. They have yet to send a payload into orbit. I've revised that, and replaced "burgeoning" with "nascent", as well as adding a note about solid-fuel rockets.--Dali-Llama 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* Eliminate the 'see also' section and move the 'Major topics in Brazil' template to the bottom of the article.  Done Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* Remove the 'footnotes' subheading in the 'references' section, and change 'further reading' to a level 2 heading (main section).  Done Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* Make sure that any URLs used as references have dates of retrieval included in them. All references, even websites, should contain full information (author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval). See WP:CITE for more information on formatting reference citations.

 Done Threw in some reviewing per WP:RS as well. --Dali-Llama 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding references #51 & #52 (in the version I am reviewing), the references to wikipedia articles (lists, in this case), is not acceptable (see WP:SELF).

Removed references. Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• The external links section is kind of long. Consider trimming it a bit to only include actual notable links. Links to news articles that are cited by the article need to be linked again in the external links section. It is not necessary to specify that links are in english in this section, because this is the english wikipedia; specifying that a link is in portuguese is good, though. See WP:EL for more information on what links to include.

I did a minor clean up. Should we remove more? Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

* There seems to be an overall inconsistency in the placement of inline citations in the article. The citation should be placed at the end of each sentence, immediately AFTER the punctuation mark, not before it, and not after the punctuation mark and after a space. Multiple references attached to the same sentence should be placed one after the other, with no space in between. I can let a couple of these slide for GA status, as it's less important, but there seems to be a pretty large amount of inconsistent references in the article that I thought worth mentioning.

 Done--Dali-Llama 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is mostly there in terms of the GA criteria, although there's still several issues that remain. The prose it mostly good, with a couple of minor issues, mostly little grammatical ones that a good copyedit can fix (criterion 1). It is sufficiently referenced, and broad, meeting criteria 2 & 3. I think it's mostly NPOV (criterion 4). I am a little concerned regarding its stability (5), due to the recent edit war of about a week ago. The only image that I really see a problem with is the one of the airplane in the technology section; it is copyrighted, and if used, needs a fair use rationale added to its description. Y While I am sort of on the fence about failing this article, due to the amount of changes required, considering its recent GA nomination history, and the fact that there appears to be a good amount of editors actively working on it, I am going to place it on hold at WP:GAC, pending revision, for a period of 7 days. At the end of this period, I'll revisit the article and promote it, if the issues have been addressed. If they haven't, I'll fail it (an extension may be in order if I see a lot of progress). But if there is a lot of reverting going on in the next week, it'll fail due to criterion 5. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when does the lead not contain citations? WP:LEAD specifically says it should if needed. T Rex | talk 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On issues mentioned in concluding remarks:

 Done Replaced non-free image of Embraer jetliner with free alternative illustrating same conclusion.--Dali-Llama 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, the article is a big improvement. I'm going to go over it again in the next couple of days, plus I'd like a few more days just to make sure the article meets the stability criteria (the racism accusations in the section after this review make me a bit weary that the article could still have stability issues, so I just want to make sure.

Also, I still think that a section right before 'history' called 'name' could help. Move that first paragraph in the history section to it, and add the pronunciation information that's currently in reference #1 there. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great now! I like the addition of the etymology section -- could probably be expanded to include some more information on the pronunciation (e.g. 'brazil' vs. 'brasil' pronunciations). The article looks reasonably stable with the exception of primarily anon IP reverts, and a few minor things, but I don't see any major edit wars in the past week, so that's good. It could probably use a few more details on health care, too, but I won't let that hold up GA status any longer at this point. Great work! Dr. Cash 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

João Felipe C.s. the racist

The latest vandalism of João Felipe C.s was against humanity. His picture about Brazilian people separated people considering their skin colour. Blacks are located at the bottom, blondes at the top.

Everyone should know that Brazilians are all the same, there is no such thing as a 100% white or black Brazilian. That is the latest work of our dear João Felipe C.s., the man who knows this country better than anyone else.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KREATOR OF BO (talk • contribs).

Wow, this is fairly close to being a personal attack please read WP:CIVIL before posting another thread like this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this isn't Opinoso with a sockpuppet.--Dali-Llama 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dali-Llama, are you really acusing me of attacking João Felipe C.S with another user name? You have to prove what you are saying. This is not how a real administrator should act.

I do not need to log in another user to say what I want.

By the way, I do not know why you keep protecting João Felipe C.S from his abuses in the Wikipedia. Maybe it is because you agree with all his deliriums that Brazil is a copy of Germany.

It is obvious that I am not the only one who has been observing all that. Those pictures of celebrities are horrible. I agree with the user who says that the Black ones are under the White ones.

Why are the Blacks representated by ugly people, such as Ronaldinho, Benedita da Silva and Pelé, and the blonds with Supermodels such as Ana Hickmann and Gisele Bündchen? Why not try to find pictures of Taís Araújo or Camila Pitanga to represent the Black-Brazilian beauty too?

I think that if we want to represent the Brazilian people, we must post pictures of unknown persons, not supermodels or celebrities. Where are pics of mixed-race people, who do represent the majority of Brazilians?

Do you really think that an ordinary blond Brazilian looks like Ana Hickmann? Not even in Finland people look as blond as she is.

By the way, why does João Felipe C.S keep erasing the day-light picture of the Favela and posting the dark one? It is because he wants to hide it, because he is into his fantasy that Brazil looks like Germany, with blond girls and First-World cities.

These article's pictures are all fantasies inside your minds. The real Brazil is totally different from that.

Comment: Dali-Llama, I am waiting for you to prove that I am using another user name in this discussion. Opinoso 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, I said I hoped that it wasn't you, as that was a single-purpose account created only a few days ago and he made the same points you did. Typically that means the person's comments (Kreator) are not really taken into consideration because of how new that account is (that's why I'm really responding to you, who has contributed a lot and helped us a lot and talked when asked to do so, and not him). As I've mentioned before, I don't have a problem with your arguments, I just don't like when they get personal. But I think we're already past that. We're in the middle of a GA review, so I don't want to open up an old discussion. We're already thinking of replacing the demographics picture anyways, so hopefully that will solve things (but let that move come from us, not from you and Felipe so we don't have more conflict).--Dali-Llama 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Okay, I guess we're back to deciding which pictures to post. --Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the candidates, divided per section:

Note: all pictures are from the commons, so our choices do not affect the GA process.

Foreign relations and the military

Option 1	Option 2
Brazilian Army troops before boarding for MINUSTAH peacekeeping mission in Haiti.	The flagship of the Brazilian Navy, aircraft carrier NAe São Paulo.

Note: The previous picture, the Mirage 2000 one, is not properly tagged, so it needed to be replaced (it was supposedly a Creative Commons picture from the FAB, when the FAB clearly states "all rights reserved" on their website.

I prefer the Haiti picture: it kills two birds with one stone, showing Brazilian foreign policy in action through a military peackeeping mission.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the mission of Brazil in Haiti is not accurately one success. Second, the image of the carrier combines with the article. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 looks better, as Dalillama said it represents "Foreign Policy" and "Military" in a single pic. --Victor12 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Social issues

Option 1	Option 2
In Rio de Janeiro, the Vidigal favela is testimony to high economic inequality within Brazil.	In Rio de Janeiro, the Vidigal favela is testimony to high economic inequality within Brazil.

• I thought we had already agreed on this. The consensus was the lighted picture would be used. Despite the nighttime picture being prettier, it does not illustrate what a favela actually is.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, almost no article presents a section " Social issues". Second, the image of the favela at night is better in the article. Any another image that expresses the favelas better can be placed in the main article. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Option 1 is better, of course. Opinoso 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, option 1 is better because it show how a favela looks like. You can barely see anything in the second pic. --Victor12 17:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with option 1, because of lightness. Carlosguitar 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Science and Technology

Option 1	Option 2
An Embraer E-175 jet airliner, produced in Brazil.	File:Climb.rj145.arp.750pix.jpg An Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet, produced in Brazil.

Note: The previous picture also needed to be replaced due to fair use status.

• I posted the 175 picture to the left. My reasons are: 1)It illustrates the most advanced and recent Embraer aircraft, and 2)does so using the so-called "House colors" and not in the livery of a foreign airline.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Option 2 has better quality and is prettier. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we still need a tie-breaking vote here. lol. Seems people really had strong feelings on the others, but this one it's kinda "meh"...--Dali-Llama 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's a mistake in the caption of the second one, it is not an ERJ-175 (there's no such thing) but a ERJ-145. Either pic would be fine in the article. IMHO the first one looks somewhat better because its in Embraer livery and depicts a more modern and capable airplane thus it seems like a better showcase for Brazilian technology. --Victor12 01:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Option 1 just because of angle of image. Carlosguitar 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)