Talk:Brazil/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Renewed discussion

I have downgraded the protection from full to semi in hopes of continuing discussion. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What was this discussion about? The role of Brazil in WWII? Cambalachero (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it refers to don't make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, among other behaviours (stifling the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia), when people try to fix some glaring flaws of an article. In this case more specifically about the Early Republic section.

And what are Now these flawns to be fixed? (Summarized in three points - A B C) Here we go again:

A)

Purge spurious quotations;

The reference nr. (currently, june 11) 83 in the Early Republic section in the Current edition of the Brazil article -

While the edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article says "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence",

The original found in the book used as reference says: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence."

The citations and consequentely their meanings are different.

To Check it, Go Here in the Google Books website, in the search box type any word used in the citation, eg. "Incompetence", or go rightly to page 403 of the book, in the last paragraph can be seen the original phrase.

Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:

One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability,

while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.

Thus, spurious quotation aside, is also a spurious correlation.

Others may argue that even the original statement of the book that blames the naval revolt of 1893 (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country and is known in Brazil as "Segunda Revolta da Armada", as there had been another minor one in 1891) for having alone triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market.

But at this point (be the author of the book used as reference, right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here), it must be remembered that an error on another error can not make a right.

Anyway, added to this the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government for 1894, much before 1893's events. In addition, when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes and the majors consequences of the 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference did not wrote it.

B)

My 2nd point about to edit the current "Early Republic" section is:

Since in this historical period only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, the issue of anexation of the state of Acre (which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s) And the 1st world war (despite the country has had an insignificant role on it, had however repercussions and importance in domestic politics), there is no technical reason (although a political one could be another story) for don't mention it using book references (by the way, Not spurious and in English) in 1-2 lines, if that much, specially when...

C)

(which lead us to the last, but not least, mentioned flawn), the section have another spurious correlation - in the 2nd paragraph is write "In the 1920s the country was plagued by several rebellions caused by young military officers. By 1930 the regime was weakened and demoralized, which allowed the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas to lead a coup d'état and assume the presidency."

Well, skipping those parts related to the differences between what the references (in Portuguese) states and what appears edited and going rightly to the correlation established about that (citting) only the mutinies of the 1920s (which moreover were defeated in the same decade years before the regime change) would have led to the downfall of the Early Republic; it must be remembered that not only the military rebellions of 1920's but since the 1890s, numerous revolts, both civilian (as Canudos and Contestado, among others) as military (such as the aforementioned 1893's naval revolt and Lash Revolt, also among others) have occurred, and that added to other factors (such as the 1930's election and the economic effects of the 1929 Crisis ), weakened the regime over time, weighing in events that led to change.

So, one more time: Why not fix these 3 points without enlarge the size of the article, without taking the fixes as an attack over one's personal honor nor making storm in a teacup about it all?

Let's the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia keep rolling Cybershore (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Cybershore, I'll go straight to the point: the history section in the country article is supposed to be no more than a summary. That's why highly important Brazilian historical characters such as Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, who freed the slaves is not mentioned, nor José Bonifácio de Andrada, so important in Brazilian Independence, not Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, the greatest Brazilian soldier. Is the participation of Brazil in World War I worth of being mentioned in here? No, it isn't. However, Cybershore is eager to have articles in which he had an active contribution wikilinked here. About this, I don't care. What I do care is that the history section is a summary. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion dear monarchist, I respect but diverge having already exposed my arguments historically, but even so you did not counterargument (beyond your personal opinion) the question around my 2nd point, nor about the another two...

No wonder you do not show counter-arguments, since you do not even have the patience to read the arguments, to try to counter-argue them one by one and sadly, that you still keep taking the things personally as well as trying to diverge the focus of debate from ideas, accusing others of your own practice "eager to have articles in which he had an active contribution wikilinked here" ...You are indeed an interesting psychological case.

By the way, with the fixes the summary will continue to be a summary of the same or smaller size, but without the historical flawns mentioned Cybershore (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What about just a mention in a short sentence? Cambalachero (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! Cambalachero, this is exactly what I have been proposing. Thank you Cybershore (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And why is that more important than Princess Isabel, the Duke of Caxias, the Vaccine Revolt, the Constitutionalist Revolution, Governor Carlos Lacerda, Communist leader Carlos Marighella, etc? --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

well, since this question came unsigned, without specifying to whom it is intended, and in relation of which of the 3 points mentioned above are, I'll wait the sender sign it, specify to whom it is intended and about which of the 3 points above is related, before answer. Cybershore (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now that you signed I can answer you,

First, I never said that any of the various facts I mentioned in the points above are more or less important than any of the historical figures or events you mentioned. Even because doesn't make sense compare people with events of different historical periods, it would be something without rhyme or reason.

Among what you mentioned, only the Vaccine Revolt and the Revolution Constitutionalist belong to the historical period of the section (Early Republic) in question, being the Vaccine Revolt one of another rebellions before 1930 that I talked about above in point C.

Having been both respectively cited and mentioned in my edit of March. Cybershore (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know why user Lecen was not blocked yet. This person worships the Monarchy, believing he is some kind of king or prince. This is so ridiculous. He may live in a world of fantasy. And more: he controls this Brazil article as if he was the owner of it. Nobody can post here without being attacked by Lecen, who usually removes any contribution of other users from it. From a person who worships Monarchy, he probably cannot live along with Democracy, that's why he owns this article as if he was the only right person out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.37.64.100 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please fellows, we must always be mindful that sometimes in the midst of a heated discussion, things tend to lose focus, so I ask everyone be stick to the points of discussion.

So, if not challenged in a specific basis, let's discuss ideas/memes/arguments (call it whatever you want), not people. Or we all will end up doing exactly what we criticize.

I also ask, given the point that discussion are standing, that all participants, especially those registered, don't forget to sign your opinions/comments. Thanks Cybershore (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you detail which is the sentence or sentences you would want to add? I checked the page history, but I want to avoid misunderstandings. Besides, that way we can avoid keeping the discussion in broad terms, and discuss instead how to add that info while staying both brief and accurate Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear that this is a debate about flagrant flawns listed in a particular section of the article - Early Republic (not that also other sections or articles are flawless), which are exposed above, one to one.

And not a requirement for prior approval by a committee of censorship, composed by a group of self-proclaimed "notable".

Thus, again what I propose is:

1) Purge the spuriousness of the section contained in the quotation and correlations exposed above in my points A and C;

2) Since in this historical period before 1930 only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, add a mention about them within 1 sentence and

Although the style now be little different (no concessions to who are intransigent), at least to get an good glance of how would its size, look at my latest editions.

And, in case of disagreement regarding the form,

3) Use the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia; improve it, change it - keeping the content meaning, but don't make Or let anyone make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, insulting the newcomers, potential new users, under any excuses, keeping so long partial, spurious, incomplete versions, locking the development and improvement of an article. Cybershore (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 june 2012

The ethnic diversity board is strange because its not ethnic diverse at all. You have 3 whites and 5 blacks. Why not one japanese and one arab? To put Ronaldo and Marina Silva, or Pele and Daiane do Santos is completely redundant because they look absolutely the same. Ayrton Senna represents a southern european and Gisele Bundchen represents a northern european. So it' ok to have them there. This board should have 1 southern european (Senna), 1 northern european (Bundchen), 1 japanese (Hugo Hoyama), 1 black (Pele), 1 amerindian, 1 mixed (Ronaldo) and 1 arab (Tony Kanaan).Soulflytribe (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

brazilian Literature and culture !

I read only 6 lines about brazilian literature...?? brazilian culture is one of most rich culture in the world with portuguese,african,italian,german,arab roots, many books well know world wide!Paulo coelho one of most famous brazilians that sold more than 100 million books well know world wide and noboby put one pic of him ?? an about carlos drummond de andrade?olavo bilac,mario de andrade?not pics?brazilian culture? none pic??we have oktorbefest in southern part,we have winter festivals ,we have festas juninas(saints parties)brazilian movies, theather,brazilian Museum Masp.MAC,MAM?? hey who is wrinting this article?this guy don´t know nothing about brazil??i saw four times more pics in others countries article than i saw about brazil!where is brazilian wars?we have many wars,we have the military years (60 and 70s),brazilian empire with bourbon royal family ,habsbourg royal family,bragança royal family and nobody studied about this??what about united kingdom of Brazil portugal and Algarves??nobody know??hey ??lets do it better wikipédia most improve to be more useful and democratic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.13.154 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Very poor article!this article show Brazil like 500 years ago!!!!

not complete !!!!please more pics of the very important region of Brazil!! Sâo Paulo that is the 4th city in the world by area and population and the 10th by gdp!more pics of brazilian cities like Curitiba,São Paulo,recife,Porto Alegre cities that is very important in Brazil this article show things that not represent what is more important to know!! more about brazilian companies like Petrobras,Itau,Vale,Bradesco,brazilian stock exchange ,brazilian airlines that are growing up very fast like ,latam,gol,azul, brazilian airplanes factory embraer !what about São Paulo fashion week ??what about FLIP ??what about brazilian modernism?what about brazilian stadiums?brazilian music festivals?brazilian universities?? when i saw this article i thought i was born in 1500!!!!very outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.216.203 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil is now a FAC, share your thoughts

Pedro I of Brazil is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please share your thoughts about it here. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tag added

"About 95% to 99% of Brazilians descend from the country's indigenous peoples and Portuguese settlers, while 85% to 95% also have African slave ancestors..." says the article on "Race and ethnicity" section. The interesting things is that the source given is "Enciclopédia Barsa vol. 4, p. 230". Well, that's not what it says. I know that, because it was I the one who added this reference a long time ago and it meant something else completely different. The title off the section itself looks like a bad joke since as far as I know there is only one human species. But perhaps Black people do not belong to the same race as White people, I don't know... (yes, I'm being very sarcastic here)

These are just one of the problems about this section, which should be something simple asn straightfoward, with basic information, not ridiculous DNA tests all around. I toyed with the idea of bringing the article to FA standard some time ago but everytime I try to do it, there an editor who sincerely believes knows more about the subject than the people who trully know it. It's hard and does not help. --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as an English-speaking Brazilian, you probably know that people outside our culture confuse the pardo thing everytime (something people of the Movimento Mestiço is concerned about). People in major world news sources say that Brazil 'divides in white and black', that 'Brazil is now 51% black', blablabla, and this is actually of worse factual accuracy than claiming some disputed but widely accepted number that most of us (including myself, grandson of a man who had a sarará mother and a juçara father, thus that would be identified as "Latino" despite being way lighter than an average Brazilian as my color is milked away by recent European forefathers [more appropriately, foremothers] – as natural in Southeastern Brazil) know;

...to say, that this nation started in Portuguese men mixing with coastal Tupi-speaking Amerindian women, then having increasingly whiter children while more Portuguese married the mixed-race caboclas, thus forming our old colonial elite, while the marginalized lower class groups, also mixed-race (and mostly caboclo), absorved the mulattoes (the average Afro-Brazilian is way mixed, while the average pardo is dominantly European and has high Amerindian contributions), children of relations between Portuguese masters and African slave females, sometimes institutionally oppressive ones – while mixed-race relations were very little frowned upon compared to other slavery-based colonial societies in the Western world –, thus that everyone who does not live in some isolated immigrant communities (not really more than 5%, as we know by genetic testing and demographic research; perhaps, depending on what you can describe as "unmixed" Brazilian, less than 2%) makes part of this same ethnicity of mixed-race people with looks from the most European-like to the most African-like complexions.

So it doesn't helps saying that it is racist (yes, there are minor genetic differences between world populations from different heritages [or ethnicities], as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza surely knows – just as you can do a parentage test ~remembers about heehaws while watching the most adult program of my childhood, Programa do Ratinho~). I know that for some people, it may sound like eugenics (but there's no policy in Wikipedia saying this topic is taboo, and I think you assume good faith from me), but it is just scientific proof of a way attested part of our history, that people from other cultures are likely to be unused to (as our historical definitions of race were constructed in a way different environment, in a great extent of time before the widespread racism in industrial and post-industrial Western societies). Despite writing it "like my cara" (face) or "making it as if on my coxas" (thighs), this section, weird as it seems, is the most close I could get to representing an interesting, albeit obviously not most important, part of the knowledge about our people.

Sorry if I am making something detrimental to the quality of something in Wikipedia, but the article Race in Brazil is way less revised, and even considering its size, of inferior text quality than the brief I did here. Be welcome if you try to improve it with a language that you find more encyclopedic, but without deleting my old contributions here (that you are the first to question if my idea that studying our genetics has a knowledge-friendly purpose, or at least it is not generally negative). Cheers. Lguipontes (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lguipontes. The section is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and is not factually correct, a lot of what you said regards your own family, good for you that you have mixed race background, be proud of what you are, just don't come here and say that everyone is the same, it is an offence to me and millions of other Brazilians with different backgrounds. The article should be simple and direct, we should have only the official IBGE data here, and only it. DNA research should be in their specific articles, some should not even be here since they have doubtful sources. Just remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a place to try to promote your ideas and personal experience about something, we have to maintain a NPOV. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not an offense as, except for the immigrants themselves and most probably their children, people with "pure" European, Middle Eastern or Asian decent are really kind of a little minority (and please, no claims that this is disputed, you can say that I don't have sources but NOT that it is so doubtful), albeit not in the cases of their ethnic communities where they don't mix because they don't have much contact with outsiders (as the forefathers of most "unmixed" Brazilians were already here until 1940) – but they seem to be limited to 3/4 states and to be shrinking as middle and upper class Brazilian birth rates are really very likely way below replacement levels (since we got around 2 kids per women, what is weird in a Third World country).

Ugh, whatever, I just mentioned the fact that I am mixed-race because the other guy seemed to try to pretend with his "kind" irony – that you seem to sport too, by your tone of "aww, there's no such thing as science or encyclopedic content in genetic testing, this is just ethnocentric mixed-race nationalist propaganda, you can go now" – that I was a white nationalist or something of the like, pretending I do take "ethnic genetic differences" seriously (amazingly, I do have mixed-race "friends" who like white supremacist people in the Black Metal scene as Varg Vikernes, but I abhor this kind of ideology, you can see in my page that I am "progressist/socialist" and sorta starting to be an anarchist). Irony is not the best way to deal with conflicts. I don't understand why after all these months, there is so much concern about it just now. Can you please explain?

BTW, you seem to be involved in the same projects with Lecen, and to be a friend of him. I am not being hostile, but I insist that it has to be a consensus, and ask for the opinion of outsiders. And as was the case of Lecen who removed constructive things unnecessarily, your unaware reverts made parts of the text nonsense. I am curious, what is the reason of all this abuzz? Oh, and please, I just hate when people get the NPOV argument to push their views too – assuming you are also a Brazilian, that pertains to a certain minority that in the text according to your views got underrepresented or is friend of another editor that has a problem with my text, despite absence of clear evidence or arguments that my claims are in some way untrue, or generally problematic. Lguipontes (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware how Wikipedia works, Lguipontes. However, it doesn't mean that you can talk to us in an ironic way. If you want to be taken serious by others, than you should behave accordingly. Have manners. You should really pay attention to what two experienced editors are saying. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not fully aware how Wikipedia policies are supposed to be used despite being an experienced editor: everyone in this world has viewpoints, and yours are not greater than mine because you're more productive or are here for a greater extent of time. I complained about your irony and that of Paulista01, I was not being ironic myself. Maybe "have manners" is valid for all of us (and it is), including the manner you treat me as if I was a stubborn child. Now, evidence/arguments please. Lguipontes (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I will not respond to your personal offences, they are a disgrace, but since you are teenager and still learning I will let this one pass, Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG! What personal offenses? Where did I insult you, or namecalled you? I speak in a general way, I would speak that way to anyone I thought misusing Wikipedia policy. If I wanted to broke some barraco with you guys because I felt supposed to, I wouldn't fear nothing, because I am sincere, open and direct in the way I conduct things and resolve conflicts. You are the one unnecessarily annoying me doing exactly what I am asking you to not (speaking to me as your rebel and newbie subordinate), and not answering what I requested. But since we lose too many valuable contributors in this silly POV disputes I will let this one pass, and I will no longer revert that edit of yours. I will wait persons neutral to the subject, as you seemingly neither want to discuss in a civilizated manner as an equal nor deal with me the way someone experient, supposedly higher in hierarchy, is intended to – you just ignore me, so I will ignore your apparent lack of seriousness with this subject. Cheers. Lguipontes (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior & reversions

Since User Lecen, who since past week without dialogue, has simple and steadily revert editions to his own old ones, referring aggressively to other editors in the box justification, treating the whole article as his own property, returning so to a form of behavior which he apparently had healed a little over one year ago, I come here remind the reasons that led to my current issue, as well as remember the incongruity of his "justifications":

Without making a storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, among other Lecer's behaviours as stifling the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia, when people try to fix some glaring flaws of an article, in this case more specifically about the Early Republic section.

And what are Now these flawns which I fixed? (Summarized in three points - A B C) Here we go again:

A) Purge spurious quotations; The reference nr. 83 (of early june, 2011) in the Early Republic section of the Brazil article
While that edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article said "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence",
The original found in the book used as reference says: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence."

The citations and consequentely their meanings are different.

To Check it, Go Here in the Google Books website, in the search box type any word used in the citation, eg. "Incompetence", or go rightly to page 403 of the book, in the last paragraph can be seen the original phrase.

Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:

One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.

Thus, spurious quotation aside, was also a spurious correlation.

Others may argue that even the original statement of the book that blames the naval revolt of 1893 (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country and is known in Brazil as "Segunda Revolta da Armada", as there had been another minor one in 1891) for having alone triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market. But at this point (be the author of the book used as reference, right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here), it must be remembered that an error on another error can not make a right.

Anyway, added to this the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government for 1894, much before 1893's events. In addition, when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes and the majors consequences of the 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference did not wrote it.

B) My 2nd point about to edit "Early Republic" section was: Since in this historical period only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, the issue of anexation of the state of Acre (which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s) And the 1st world war (despite the country has had an insignificant role on it, had however repercussions and importance in domestic politics), there is no technical reason (although a political one could be another story) for don't mention it using book references (by the way, Not spurious and in English) in 1-2 lines, if that much, specially when...

C) (which lead us to the last, but not least, mentioned flawn), the section has another spurious correlation - in the 2nd paragraph is write "In the 1920s the country was plagued by several rebellions caused by young military officers. By 1930 the regime was weakened and demoralized, which allowed the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas to lead a coup d'état and assume the presidency."
Well, skipping those parts related to the differences between what the references (in Portuguese) states and what appears edited and going rightly to the correlation established about that (citting) only the mutinies of the 1920s (which moreover were defeated in the same decade years before the regime change) would have led to the downfall of the Early Republic; it must be remembered that not only the military rebellions of 1920's but since the 1890s, numerous revolts, both civilian (as Canudos and Contestado, among others) as military (such as the aforementioned 1893's naval revolt and Lash Revolt, also among others) have occurred, and that added to other factors (such as the 1930's election and the economic effects of the 1929 Crisis ), weakened the regime over time, weighing in events that led to change.
Purge the spuriousness of the section contained in the quotation and correlations exposed above in my points A and C;

Since in this historical period before 1930 only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, add a mention about them within 1 sentence and Although the style now be little different (no concessions to who are intransigent), at least to get an good glance of how would its size, look at my latest editions, I'm using the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia; trying to improve it, keeping the content meaning, but don't making Or let anyone make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, neither insulting the newcomers, potential new users to maintain incomplete versions, locking the development and improvement of an article.

Concluding for today :
I also remind that his double standard uses, when referring to the summary character of the article, without respecting it, since he elongates other text sections to fit his monarchist and ethnic bias about Brazil and Brazilian History (what I'll pleasantly develop and show in details, in the wake of the present discussion).
Cybershore (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea how hard you make for anyone to come here and support you. Writing one huge block of text won't make anyone say you are correct. In fact, no one will bother to read it. --Lecen (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well Lecen,

as I have already explained earlier (see on my talk page, 03:24, 14 June 2011)

"...if the person has been unwilling to really join the discussion, will not have "patience" or tolerance to read and, if she/he think it's the case, counterargument point to point the other side, mainly if she/he thinks don't need do that 'cause imagine that "owns the space" ...so long being accustomed to depart collaboration of anyone who doesn't fit into his/her world view, editing disruptively...

------> Debate takes work my friends, if the person doesn't really want all that work, simply don't start it or stay alway from it. It's better than pretending that it cares...

...you can rest assured, I'll keep holding it (this section) a minimum size, as usual,

but without spuriousness or historical (gaps and) inconsistency... "

Cybershore (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And again, one more time, repeating myself...:

"Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those incomplete or flawed (with spuriousness - be quotations or inferences) ones. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war".

But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can (keep) be enhanced and fitted when appropriate" (03:32, 3 May 2011)

So, have a good day

Cybershore (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cybershore, Lecen has a point: please tell, short and to the point, what do you want to add or change, and the reasons. That will make it easier for others to understand the issue and take part in it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I am also trying to understand what is going on here. Paulista01 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"what do you want to add or change(?)"
I - What I changed in relation to the previous version:
The content of the text, especially related to the concatenation of events (with their links and/or references), as can be seen analyzing the 2 versions.

II - What I added: links and references to respective events, some of which were not in the previous version, eg. the 1st naval revolt, Encilhamento, sequential references to the main civilian and military uprisings of that period, as well as the only issues of foreign policy.

The reasons ", the" Why ":
I - The prior narration was not only truncated due to serious gaps related to some of the key events of that time (both internal and external);
II - but also contained partial references and biased inferences regarding the cause of the events , having even spurious bibliographic citations "justifying" such inferences.

And all this with the difference, between the 2 versions, of only 3 lines... (difference that can always be reduced without adding the mentioned vices of the previous edition)

Note: Curious, as some do and undo articles at their whim, without anyone even check the sources, the plausibility or the neutrality of the statements contained in such articles, while others have to justify and re_justify fundamental changes, with the increas of only few lines in some sections...
Cybershore (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You won't win the support of others by attacking me. Trust me. I've seen that before. I'll explain to you for the last time: the "History" section on every country article is supposed to be simple and straightfoward. It has to explain the history of a country that might be 2,000 years old or one that is just a few decades old. Regardless, the section must be short. There were events far, far more important then the 1st naval revolt and the Encilhamento that were not mentioned. There is no mention, for example, of the Questão Religiosa (the crisis between the government and bishops), nor of the Law that abolished slavery traffic in 1850, nor of the Law of Free Birth, not even of serious rebellions like the War of the Ragamuffins. People who played a key role in our history, like the Viscount of Rio Branco en José Bonifácio are not mentioned! Is there any mention of the Araguaia guerrilla of the early 1970s? No. What about the Paulista rebellion of 1932? Not heard either. Why is that? Because the history section must be simple. --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Again;

Don't try to manipulate people in a so primary way, Lecen. Stick to the arguments in question.

Editions substantiated in facts must not be confused with personal attacks, btw a thing that you do routinely...

And Simple doesn't mean spurious or intellectual dishonesty Ok

Cybershore (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to stop insulting me. If you keep up with that behavior I will have no other option than to report. Another editor [1] has removed your additions and you still insist. --Lecen (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No surprise that you instead of counter-argument, use (again) of your network to enforce your biased view.

Now, answer me, since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts above, which you did not refute (even because on the evidence presented above, there is no way), is to insult someone?

Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions,

because in your case, it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence,

Anyway, again I suggest those interested in the discussion (that already lasts for 1 year and a half, and will not end so soon...) that follow it, also via my talk page

Cybershore (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here because I want to use this as an evidence that I had warned you about your behavior. No one has support your claims and you still revert them. If you don't stop I will have no other option than to report you at the ANI and ask for your block. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning?

Why not surprise me that only now, after a year and a half, you "deign" to reply directly, and even so Not to talk civilly directly, but only to guard yourself in sight of people who you consider "interesting" to your purposes, and with this kind of threat?!

Also, no surprise that you instead of counter-argument, use (again) of your network to enforce your biased view.

Now, answer me, since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts over 1 and half year, which you did not refute (even because on the evidence presented above, there is no way), is to insult someone?

Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions,

because in your case, it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence,

anyway...

Cybershore (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Don't try to manipulate people in a so primary way, Lecen. Stick to the arguments in question"
"Editions substantiated in facts must not be confused with personal attacks, btw a thing that you do routinely..."
"And Simple doesn't mean spurious or intellectual dishonesty"
"But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged"
"Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions"
"it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence"

You asked me "...since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts ... is to insult someone?" The few examles above are a good answer. I don't even know Daniel J. Leivick and Cambalachero and I clashed several times. You should really stop making false accusations. I already told you that the reason to why your additions aren't needed it's because the article must be brief. Everyone else has agreed with me. No one so fr has agreed with you. You can not ignore everyone for much longer. I'm asking you, nicely, to listen to everyone else and to stop with the personal attacks against me. --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, in the case of your selective memory have forgotten, everything I mentioned is referenced (above) throughout this discussion that lasts for 1 year and a half, and is related to some of your procedures (not to you personally) and to the contents of the text.

Cybershore (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not willing to discuss anything with you. Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal". You must understand, once and for all, that no one has supported the inclusion of your text. No one. Not a single human being. Everyone has OPPOSED it. I don't know why is so hard to understand that, but it's not my problem. I already warned you. If you revert it again or if you insult me again I will report you. --Lecen (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone else has agreed with me." "Everyone has OPPOSED it."

Not really. Omit, is another story.

"Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal". "

If you had seen the timeline of my page conversation, would have noticed that the term was brought to me for free. But really, if you want to wear the cowl, who am I to say to the contrary, go ahead. Even more so now, that shows you (once again) be averse to dialogue.

I do not fear threats or unfair blocks, as you already should know at this point. And since you want to keep your offensive behavior, including playing the victim, and try to impute to others your own practices; here we go again!

In the sequel, once again I'll remind about the spurious character of present edition above mentioned

Cybershore (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Spurious Quotations

The comments below refer to the book references numbers 80 & 81 listed in the 1st paragraph of the "early republic" section, of present edition (August, 25 - 2012):

While that edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article said "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence",
The original found in the book used as reference says: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence."

The citations and consequentely their meanings are different.

To Check it, Go Here in the Google Books website, in the search box type any word used in the citation, eg. "Incompetence", or go rightly to page 403 of the book, in the last paragraph can be seen the original phrase.

Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:

One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.

Thus, spurious quotation aside, was also a spurious correlation.

Others may argue that even the original statement of the book that blames the naval revolt of 1893 (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country and is known in Brazil as "Segunda Revolta da Armada", as there had been another minor one in 1891) for having alone triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market. But at this point (be the author of the book used as reference, right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here), it must be remembered that an error on another error can not make a right.

Anyway, added to this the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government for 1894, much before 1893's events. In addition, when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes and the majors consequences of the 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference did not wrote it.

In the next days, I will return one by one, the points relating to other matters raised, proving that the accusations are not frivolous and detached from this article.
Cybershore (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... ow! What? Another huge block of text no one else will read? ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... --Lecen (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Huge block of text?... only for those who aren't quite gotten to the habit of reading...

And if people prefer to stay as bystanders, you should be happy ...Oh wait

Cybershore (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, well, well,
3 days has passed since I post the above proofs and arguments related;
And since nobody could dispute such facts (altough I must to admit that there was no way to do it due the content of both),
Ladies and gentlemen, I shall consider your silence as concordance, unless by some magical pass you get reveal something more than flooding bla bla bla,
I mean reliable counter-evidences!!!
Cybershore (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The heart of this Case

Now, that the spurious character of a whole paragraph (just one example) has been exposed (once again, and it will continue how many times necessary), I ask you all:

1) Is the spurioness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?

Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?

Not mention that the voting process in a instrument as a encyclopedia, is important, but must Not overlap true facts.
This should be a civilized discussion between adults, not a popularity contest among fanatics cheer leaders wedded to their ideas and ideologies.

Just as simple does not mean simplistic or flawed. That is, the character summarized, an encyclopedic text, it should not ever serve as an excuse for the practices outlined above.

Related to it, at 1st I had thought, among other things, also to expose the double standard character of "excuses": as for example the mentioned summary character, which for instance makes it possible that a summary of the historical Brazilian colonial period use up the double standard to conceal fundamental references of that period, as the union of the Portuguese and Spanish kingdoms, the colonial wars between the Portuguese and the Dutch (marginally mentioned with no link), and phenomenon of Palmares, yet spend too much lines with colonial territorial expansion via expeditions and treaties.

Pure inconsistency of discourse and practices of who have tried to stop the development of this article at any cost.

But for now, not to dwell longer, although I will do if necessary (as well as other procedures), for while - added to the above exposition of the reasons that will lead me to re-edit the mentioned section,

One more time, I have made my case clear here, about why I'll do it, regardless of the unfair consequences that can fall over me...
Cybershore (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Once Again

Wall of text that is incoherent - would it be possible to get you to show the changes here that you wish to implement.Moxy (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but any attempt to discredit the denunciations and evidences, without even read & answer them point by point, will not work.

They stayed here for days without anyone disputing them, including the reasons, so stick to the points

And if grammar, the form, is not good to you, edit it, but don't reverse disruptively, or continue to ignore the glaring flaws of the previous content.

Cybershore (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What you are adding is almost completely incoherent to a native speaker. Your talk page posts are also very hard to follow.

I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. You may want to some up the changes you would like to make in simple terms, here on the talk page. Further edit warring will probably result in a block. --Daniel 16:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Again:

"what do you want to add or change(?)"

I - What I changed in relation to the previous version:

The content of the text, especially related to the concatenation of events (with their links and/or references), as can be seen analyzing the 2 versions.

II - What I added: links and references to respective events, some of which were not in the previous version, eg. the 1st naval revolt, Encilhamento, sequential references to the main civilian and military uprisings of that period, as well as the only issues of foreign policy.

The reasons ", the" Why ":

I - The prior narration was not only truncated due to serious gaps related to some of the key events of that time (both internal and external);

II - but also contained partial references and biased inferences regarding the cause of the events , having even spurious bibliographic citations "justifying" such inferences.

And all this with the difference, between the 2 versions, of only 3 lines... (difference that can always be reduced without adding the mentioned vices of the previous edition)

Note: Curious, as some do and undo articles at their whim, without anyone even check the sources, the plausibility or the neutrality of the statements contained in such articles, while others have to justify and re_justify fundamental changes, anyway...

Cybershore (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you if you're really interested in this discussion, and not just to disruptively block its editing,

please (one more time) be sure to read the sections Spurious quotations and The heart of this Case

Cybershore (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1st Agree with what Paulista? If he said nothing of what you're saying. He even might say, but read what he wrote and see that he did not speak about briefness characteristic.

BTW, just curious that you have now appeared, and even without disputing any of my denunciations, including the unethical use of briefness characteristic as a excuse!

Cybershore (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Daniel, it is also important to maintain the section in a simple format since it is supposed to be a brief description of Brazilian history. I don’t believe we need changes in this section, we already have links to more specific articles that will mention the Constitutionalist Revolution or the Encilhamento. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, with what Paulista? If he said nothing about briefness characteristic, and even he wrote, again... any counter-argument related to any of my denunciations, including the unethical use (double standard included) of briefness characteristic as a excuse!

So, stop to try to diverge the focus of discussion ...Or to not fall from the sky in this discussion, be sure to read the sections Spurious quotations and The heart of this Case.

Cybershore (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are serious grammar issues in the text you are attempting to add, which make it very difficult for someone to understand what you are saying. Perhaps if you added it one section at a time it would be easier for someone like myself to fix it for you. I think part (or all) of the conflict here is grounded in language. Are you using some form of machine translation? --Daniel 17:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No (translator machine), but Ok lets try one piece at time.

I would appreciate if you could show me what can be done in each of paragraphs:

1st paragraph:

Having been the early Brazilian republican period, nothing more than a Army dictatorship, already in 1891 from the unfoldings of the bubble of encilhamento and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered in a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by several rebellions, both civilian as military, which little by little undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most military, lead a revolt.

2nd:

Vargas and the military, who were supposed to assume the government temporarily to implement democratic reforms related to 1891's Constitution, closed the Congress and ruled with emergency powers, replacing the states' governors with their supporters. Under the Claiming of the broken promises of changing, in 1932 the oligarchy of São Paulo tried to regain the power and in 1935 the Communists rebelled, having both been defeated. Using the communist threat as an excuse, Vargas and military preclude elections launching a coup d'état in 1937, formalizing the then dictatorship. In May 1938, there was another failed attempt to take over the power by local fascists.

3rd:

In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of this period, was followed by a failed attempt to permanently exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the allied side after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Having returned to power democratically elected at the end of 1950, Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis.

Cybershore (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll help you make these as readable as I can (marking changes in bold text), although I cannot understand everything and some of my changes may alter the meaning you intended and I've noted these issues with parenthesis. After looking these changes over we should wait to see if anyone has any objects to the text beyond the grammar. Please don't readd it until we get other editors opinions. 1st paragraph:
The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship. Following the "bubble of encilhamento and the 1st Naval Revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by several rebellions, both civilian as military. Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt. 2nd paragraph:
While Vargas and the military leadership were supposed to assume the government temporarily to implement democratic reforms related to 1891's Constitution, they instead closed the Congress and ruled with emergency powers, replacing the states' governors with their supporters. In 1932 the oligarchy of São Paulo tried to regain the power. Claiming that promises where broken regarding changes (what kind of changes?) and in 1935 the Communists rebelled, having both been defeated (this whole section makes little sense, when were these communists defeated?). Using the communist threat as an excuse, Vargas and military preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, formalizing the then dictatorship. In May 1938, there was another failed attempt to take over the power by local fascists.
3rd:
'In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period, was followed by a failed attempt to permanently exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the Allied side after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis, having returned to power by election at the end of 1950, (this paragraph is pretty solid)
--Daniel 18:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok Daniel, thank you very much. 1st and 3rd paragraphs are ok to me (and of course, nothing forbid that in the future other editors modify to make them more clear and brief, since attentive to ethical principles and clarity, reminded in this discussion)

Now, related to the 2nd one, what do you think about:

While Vargas and the military leadership were supposed to assume the government temporarily to implement democratic reforms related to 1891's Constitution, they instead closed the Congress and ruled with emergency powers, replacing the states' governors with their supporters. With the non fulfillment of promised democratic reforms, in 1932 the oligarchy of São Paulo tried to regain the power, as well as in 1935 the Communists rebelled, having both been defeated. Using the communist threat as an excuse, Vargas and military preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, formalizing the then dictatorship. In May 1938, there was another failed attempt to take over the power by local fascists.

Please if doubts persist, place them in the same way that you mentioned above

Cybershore (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this: "Vargas's failure to institute the promised democratic reforms led to two failed rebellions: one in 1932 led by the oligarchy and the other in 1935 led by Communist elements." --Daniel 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To me, it's fine Daniel;

Oh yeah, related to briefness detail, with you latter suggestion this section will be left with 346 words, 2178 types in total (plain text, spaces included, without references numbers), against 342 words, 2233 types (idem) of previous version, and without spuriousness and historical gaps...

Cybershore (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I think it would be fine if you added these changes to the article. If someone reverts, we can discuss it. --Daniel 18:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cybershore, I'm starting to believe that you're a troll. There is no other explanation to your behavior. Stop adding your text. And stopwriting these huge block of texts in here. No one can read them. --Lecen (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the CURRENT problems. Much time and effort have been spent trying to understand (as seen above) and thus a rewrite of the information has been presented. Is there still wording problems or is it a concern with references? Moxy (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. He should have been blocked a long time ago. He has been adding badly written and redundant texts over and over for the last two years. It is overly detailed when the history section of articles about countries should be very simple and straightfoward. Worse, Cybershore has been undoing the reverts by others even though no one has supported him, revealing an uncompromising and disruptive behavior. P.S.: Look how impossible it is to have an atcual discussion in here. He creates several topics for the same discussion, all with huge block of texts that no one will bother to read. It's trolling. --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just need to point out he was told to add the new revised text and to see what happens - but yes he should not revert again and again - instead talk again. Thank you for a more detailed explanation of what the problem is - So we are to understand that is just to detailed for the main jumping off article right? I would tend to agree, however it is accurate right? Nothing misleading or malformed?Moxy (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is huge. It's over 147kb. As we speak now there is another editor who has been adding pictures and more pictures and also has been adding redundant info that is not improving the article, but making it even more unreadable. In the case of Cybershore, things are worse: for the lat couple of years other editors and I have been telling him to stop adding his text and has been reverting his additions. What does he do? He waits a few days and add them again, believing that no one will notice. That's disruptive. That's uncooperative. There is more: his text has glaring mistakes. It says that Vargas led a coup d'Etat to make demcoratic reforms and that once they failed to materalize, there were rebellions. Bullshit. He took power because he wanted power. There was one, and only one rebellion in 1932 in São Paulo that occurred because Vargas trashed the 1891 Constitution and did not make elections for a Constituent Assembly that would create another Constitution. It was not a rebellion beacause he did not make democratic reforms. but because there was no Constitution at all! The other rebellion occurred in 1937 and was led by communists, who clearly had no intention of doing anything democratic. They wanted a communist dictatorship. These are the kind of facts that someone like myself who knows Brazilian history can notice. Since almost everyone here is not experienced on Brazilian matters, a troll like Cybershore can claim a bunch of bullshits and be taken for real. --Lecen (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, well, well
why I'm not surprised that Lecen, our "Jonah Lehrer," once again:
1) 1 year and a half later, still not even bother with the revealed practice of spurious quotations;
2) That also "forget" conveniently the feature brevity of new version of the section (it's always worth repeating), that is now is also without the former spuriousness and historical gaps. Although, once again (also always good to remember, brevity and simplicity can not mean simplistic or unethical);
3) That he also use the sophist practice of inferring or try to make others believe that the text infers things that are not written on it (see below), as well as flooding the post trying to "hide" the denunciations and evidences exposed above and
4) That he believes that his interpretation of the historical facts should be keep at any cost.

Related to his accusations - and notice here a fundamental difference:
while my ones relies on evidences that can be verified comparatively and independent by anyone, as shown above - remains ignored; his accusations, although are only assertions without references,

I insist on dismantling his sophistries one by one:

A) Nowhere is written or referenced that Communists wanted or would implement democratic reforms, if they won. But that, both rebellions founded on the FACT that the "provisional" rebel government started in 1930 had became virtually permanent and without intent or term of leave the power holding free elections with secret ballot, which were ironically, demands of the army' young officers, in the previous decade, since many of these officers headed or supported the 1930's revolt;

B) And rebellion is a rebellion, regardless of whether or not claim or have democratic goals. So, there was two rebellions and not just one;

C) The Communist rebellion occurred in November 1935, not in 1937 as he claims. And even if such error date existed (and doesn't exist!), would at most a minor edit, and not be grounds for a disruptive revertion of an entire section, as he is used to do ...so far;

D) Even the assertion that the Paulista rebellion had only democratic objectives, and not, also or simply the restoration of the old Republican regime ousted in 1930, is still a matter of dispute among historians.
That is, he needs update himself about something that any Brazilian historian or enthusiast about Brazilian history, known for decades...

E) The reasons and events that led to the revolt of 1930, as well as the manipulations done with them, during and after it, are fully referenced in Brazilian historiography, and

F) Lecen who judge himself as owner of the article, among other things, should look to his own monarchical bias before even thinking about in to continue in his obsession of imposing his historical view at any price, as if he were a absolutist king...

Now, it was good that he has touched on this point. For make evident once again by his part, the bad faith expressed in his double standard behavior.
Because, like any serious historian knows, or should know, the history is full of versions. Some of them being besides deniers, really preposterous, though referenced in books.

So, again... a historic version must be neutral as much as possible, no matter how much an historian has aversion to figures like Getulio Vargas or sympathy for figures like Pedro II...

Regarding the question of explicit support, I repeat what I wrote above:
"voting process in a instrument as a encyclopedia, is important, but must Not overlap true facts. This must be a civilized discussion between adults, not a popularity contest among fanatics cheer leaders wedded to their ideas and ideologies."

This debate has been for me, reason of pleasure and fun, for free,
as well as there are still many more things to say, to proof, to remind, but for now, I'll be look forward for he give more rope to himself -
what will probably happen :)
Cybershore (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cybershore, after carefully looking over your additions to the article (even with my changes to your grammer), I see that they are redundant and add nothing, while making some things less clear. I oppose their addition. --Daniel 15:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose Cybershore's addition. --Lecen (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! why not surprise to me that a person who uses spurious quotations, also don't show the slightest shame in voting is a process in which he is a part directly interested?

Not to mention that there is no word of him about the Points A to E...

Cybershore (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Influence of Positivism & Auguste Comte

Because of the brazilian motto "ordem e progresso" coming from the Positivist philosophy, I propose to add a paragraph about the influence of the theories and philosophy of Auguste Comte. You may just take the paragraph of the Positivism wikipedia article? ("Brazilian thinkers turned to Comte's ideas about training a scientific elite in order to flourish in the industrialization process" etc...) What do you think? I don't know how it works to create such a paragraph...

Jheronimus (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheronimus (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Double Standard reloaded

Who is interested in debating and who is not?
Who is interested in developing the article and
who is interested in freezin it to death, including using threats and veiled censorship in the form of selective double standard applying of internal rules?

After all, it never too much to remind that:
an editor besides not been unwilling or unable to counter argue, over a year and a half, he also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude tone,
During all this time, I have responded to him in the same mode, but especifically to these assertions,
not having any left unanswered, unlike him...
...and only me is who was warned and blocked
Curious...
Cybershore (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Summary of operations"

To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones:

See above The heart of this Case;
As well as the sections Spurious Quotations, Once Again, and sections Warning to Judge by yourselves II in my Talk Page;

To note that
1) from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose, no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed,
even taking into account that the present version:
1.1) incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph,
1.2) also have too detailed and redundant information (for an article that are supposed to be short...) on the 2nd paragraph, and 1.3) besides be longer, are incomplete, vague and non neutral in the 3rd...

2) How not to think in double standard when:

The last disruptive revertion, besides be longer than the version I propose (2.1), was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above (again... See above points A to E in "Once Again" section ) that were related only to the 2nd paragraph (of the version I propose 2.2);
and that
2.3) No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph, as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph, that according to some editor (Ctr F on word "solid" to see above, on the discussion about grammar in the "Once Again" section), was "pretty solid"...

And even so, the revertion was done...

So, I again ask you all:

1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?

Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?
Cybershore (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with you on this. Please suggest a specific change to the article in a concise and clear manner and we can discuss whether they are appropriate. Let's just start with the first change you would like to make and go from there ok? --Daniel 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, before we start, I just want to make it clear once again that I don't have anything against (and would be irrational so) anyone personally.

And, although I believe there is no historical version that can be completely neutral and free from bias, and is that even healthy that people can compare conflicting versions (within a reasonable scope of rationally),

my position is that there are certain statements and omissions in the historical part of the article, that are unacceptable in an encyclopedic article, and therefore must be remedied.

They are 4 (a minor one in the Colonial section, and the rest in "early republic" Section).

Early Republic; 1st paragraph

So, let us start with the proposed changes of 1rst paragraph of the section "early republic":

From what has been discussed so far, what is still not clear to you, regarding this paragraph - points 1.1 and 2.1 above ?

Reminding below how got my last proposition agreed above (concerning to the debate regarding the grammar of it):

"The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by several rebellions, both civilian*** as military.*** Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* " (*) Spaces related to citations

Cybershore (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an improvement. It doesn't mention how or when the civilian government rose to power 1894 and the expansion of Brazil's boundaries both of which seems to be important. I take it you have issues with the second quote that is currently used in the section. If we were to just change that, what would you propose? --18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1st Please, don't forget to sign before leave yr comment

2nd No, you saw pretty wrong - the 2nd quote of the version I propose is not present in the current version.

3rd Again... One more time... the present version has a serious flaw, as I put above in the section Spurious Quotations, by using a book citation in a spurious way doubly, not only by stating a different thing from the original citation, but mainly acting so, leaving a implicit meaning totally different from the original quote (To refresh your memory:) " The original book citation states that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while the present version using the 1st one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability."

"Thus, spurious quotation aside, also a spurious correlation."

So, if to one:

a) eliminate such spuriousness and

b) put the appropriate initial causes of the instability of this period with proper references

is not an improvement... Well, it would become not just hard, but impossible to believe in this one's good faith, as well as it would be the confirmation of this one's selective double standard behavior...

4th Concerning to the civilians' rising to power in the end of 1894, it was implied in some of my previous versions...

which also, after more than a year... were not improved neither discussed, but disruptively reverted...

Anyway... for now, how about(?):

"The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military,*** that even with the ascension to power of civilians at the end of 1894, did not stop. Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "

Oooor...

"The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship,* and pretty before the civilians rise to power in 1894, following 2 severe crisis, an economic and a military,**' the country has entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military.*** Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "

And Last but not Least, concerning to changes of Brazil's boundaries in the early 20th century, it is already there in the version I propose, in the foreign affairs, 3rd paragraph (that same one, which yourself considered "pretty solid")...

So, any more doubts about this paragraph?

Cybershore (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the quote you have issues with. What is currently wrong with the section? --Daniel 06:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, one issue at a time:

The last sentence of the 1st paragraph truncates the narrative by jumps from one subject (internal policy) to another (foreign policy), before falling from the sky after decades to following paragraph without even suggest the reason of 1920s military revolts (not to mention that even remotely touches the civilian ones).

To remedy the last flaw of this paragraph, and with citations (easy to check) in English (other section's defect: too many sources in Portuguese, one of them is not even specific to Brazilian history) and

before to deal with the 2nd paragraph [ one issue at a time :) ], I propose to let the 1st paragraph fine and end the discussion about this paragraph:

that the mention concerning to changes of Brazil's boundaries in the early 20th century (even because, the border issue of Acre, in addition to not being the only one of that era, contained in itself a military phase, among others, having not been characterized or reduced to a mere purchase...), be placed at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph in the foreign affairs:

"In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period,* was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations,* after its involvement in World War I.***" ;

more or less eg as I had proposed, both with a neutral point of view and specific easily checking citations in english...

So, if you agree to it in relation to the 1st paragraph, I will talk about my suggestions of changes regarding the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and (again) why of it...

Cybershore (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think we're in agreement about the first paragraph: Leaving it as it is now and moving the last sentence to the third paragraph. Let's move on to your suggestions about the second paragraph. --Daniel 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Republic; 2nd paragraph

Right,
For the 2nd paragraph, the why (for what needs to be done), and how (suggestions) -
1st, the why:

besides the 1) excessive number of bibliographical citations in Portuguese, which I claim to be unneeded, since there is abundant literature in English dealing with the subject;
My suggestion is that (keeping the paragraph short, btw depending on the option to be chosen, even shorter), must be also fixed:

2) the truncation of the narrative, referring to fix the correlational gaps of
2.1 the beginning of the republic and the military rebellions of the 1920s, and to
2.2 the mentions about all revolts of the 1930s, and not just the communist one,
Or
- 2.2.1 - to maintain coherence, don' mention any (1930s) revolt specifically , in the manner suggested below

3) (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail. In this case, inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "The repression of the opposition was brutal with more than 20,000 people imprisoned, internment camps created for political prisoners in distant regions of the country, widespread torture by the government agents of repression, and censorship of the press.**" ;
which can be summarized as suggested (see suggestion about Point 3) below

My suggestions for How - Regarding to:
Point 1, use the abundant literature in English dealing with the subject, as some which I used

Point 2.1, a variation of what I had proposed:
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, through various civilian and military rebellions, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."
Or, shorter
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."

Points 2.2, 2.2.1 and 3 (bold letters)
"Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "

Thus (following the justifications above), one possibility of how the entire paragraph could be:

"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt. Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "

Note that, besides Not contain the defects stated above, even With the phrase "in the wake of the murder of his running mate, " - this possible version is by far a shorter paragraph than the present version.
Cybershore (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems pretty good to me. I'd make the following changes for clarity:

Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, ~~lead~~ led' a successful revolt. Vargas ~~and the military who supported him, were supposed~~ claimed he intended to assume ~~the~~ power temporarily, but instead ~~they~~ closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with ~~their~~ his supporters. ~~having defeated~~ Between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove Vargas from power occurred. The first being the 1935 communist revolt which served as an excuse for ~~they~~ ~~preclude~~the preclusion ofelections, put into effect by a coup d'état in 1937, ~~making~~ which made ~~their~~ the Vargas regime a full dictatorship, ~~with all that this entails~~ noted for its brutality and censorship of the press.

We don't need to mention military support twice and the "with all that entails" is ambiguous and we should explain what that means. --Daniel 21:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this looks fine to me, with just an observtion, and a little rectification:

The rectification; the communist revolt was not the first (attempt to remove Vargas), but the second one.

The observation, to avoid future basic problems, it would be well that the sentence "Vargas claimed he intended to assume power temporarily" should have the usual and clear english easily checking citation, if not used a simple one (for achieve related citation) "Vargas, who was supposed to assume power temporarily"

Anyway, it seems to me that we can go now to the 3rd paragraph

Cybershore (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Republic; 3rd paragraph

My suggestions and justifications related to it:

Besides the 1) above mentioned reason concerning bibliographical citations in Portuguese, my reasons and suggestions about what to fixed:

2) As in the previous paragraph (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Again, details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "Vargas then forced German, Japanese and Italian immigrants into concentration camps" .

Besides being a subject that should be detailed in specific articles, the sentence, as written, denotes another spurious correlation for 2 reasons:
1st Because it gives the impression (to those who doesn't know the topic) that all Germans, Italians and Japanese immigrants (and their descendants) were interned then in concentration camps, as what happened to the Japanese-Americans in the U.S. at those times;
2nd the own magazine article makes it very clear right from its subtitle "Hundreds of immigrants were interned in farmlands during WWII", then specifying along the article, cases regarding such imprisonments

3) Fix the two last sentences, since as they are now "Democracy was reinstated and General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president" / "...but he was incapable of either governing under a democracy or of dealing with an active opposition, and he committed suicide in 1954" ; besides being longer, incomplete, vague and non neutral, can also give rise to spurious inferences.
So, I propose that it be changed to what we agreed when we talked specifically about grammar, with the citation used then (McCann; Frank D. "Soldiers of the Patria: A History of the Brazilian Army, 1889-1937" Stanford University Press 2004,
Page 441: "The elected government over which Dutra presided from 1946 to 1951 was supported by the conservative interventionist army and not a suddenly democratic entity.
...[Then] Dutra drew a significant parallel: "Thus it was on November 15, 1889 and on October 29, 1945." To him, the overthrow of Pedro II and of Getúlio Vargas were analogous and for the same purpose - "For the greatness of Brazil" ).

Therefore, including our concordance above about changing and moving the present last sentence (concerning about the 3 only issues related to pre-Vargas Brazilian foreign policy of this 1st Republican period) of the 1st paragraph to the 3rd paragraph;
My main suggestion concerning this paragraph, is the same that we had previously agreed:

"In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the allied side, after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis, after having returned to power by election in 1950"
Cybershore (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It must be really, really hard to you to understand that. For the past three years you have been insisting on adding your piece of text. That's weird. No one has supported you and you need to understand that. --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Cybershore's proposed change may be an improvement, but I don't see why he is intent on removing information about internment. If it needs to be clarified so be it, but it seems to be an important part of the history of that period. Beyond that, Cybershore's text is clear and more comprehensive without being overly long. --Daniel 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel,

Regarding the issue about prison of Italians, Germans and Japanese Immigrants/descendents, my justification is above, but if even so, you deems appropriate the inclusion of this information in summary of this period, I would ask you a suggestion on how this should be done briefly, without contains the same spurious inferences detailed above.

As to substantiating citations for this passage (preferably in English, and easy checking), we can all work together

Cybershore (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find much information on the topic and it isn't covered on the main article on the Vargas regime, perhaps it doesn't need to be mentioned here. --Daniel 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

[1] ~~~~Davis Alves

[1]

Talk:Brazil/Archive 14

Renewed discussion

Edit request on 3 june 2012

brazilian Literature and culture !

More pics like others Countries articles

Very poor article!this article show Brazil like 500 years ago!!!!

Further Reading Section

Pedro I of Brazil is now a FAC, share your thoughts

Tag added

Disruptive behavior & reversions

Spurious Quotations

The heart of this Case

Once Again

Influence of Positivism & Auguste Comte

Double Standard reloaded

"Summary of operations"

Early Republic; 1st paragraph

Early Republic; 2nd paragraph

Early Republic; 3rd paragraph