Talk:Brazil/Archive 6

Latin America is one of the subdvisions of the american continent.Every time that i look to this articule i see Brazil is the biggest economy of latin america,the biggest... of latin america.But this is obviously, because it is the biggest country in Latin America , has the biggest population.So why don't put of The Americas instead of Latin America?Because the continent is only one!America.The USA is trying to sepate the things, HAVE YOU EVER SAW THINGS LIKE FRANCE IS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY OF THE LATIN EUROPE?No you hear things like France is the fourth largest economy in Europe.Continents are divided by geographic not language or some other thing.Like south asia , middle east.Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.99.243 (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

First, "Latin America" is a recognized "grouping" of countries. It is as valid a criterion as geography for specifying a particular group of nations. The term has a great deal of historical weight and current usage, unlike your made-up "Latin Europe". It largely serves to differentiate the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries from "Anglo-America", the places where English is primarily spoken. Even as distinguished a publication as The Economist has a section on their web site for "Latin American Economies".

Please don't create controversy where none exists. Brazil may have the largest population in Latin America, but that doesn't mean it's the biggest of everything. Mexico has a higher GDP per capita, for example.Bishop^ (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin America is a geopolitical region characterized by language, culture and similitudes in economy. It is used by the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. --the Dúnadan 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the point of 201.17.99.243, but unfortunately I disagree. Latin America is a well established concept in any literature the same way we call the residents of the USA of Americans. One would say that a Latin American is an American as well, but this would create further confusion because everyone knows that Americans are the citizens of the USA.--Mhsb (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi... Some people are getting wrong. Saying that most of Brazilian population lives alongside the coast does not mean that they live in coast cities. The statement (correct) means that, considering the dimension of the country, most of Brazilians are concentrated in an area between the coast and an imaginary line we could draw 1000 kilometres inside. This area is less than 50% of the territory, although it is bigger than many countries. But we are comparing areas of a single country.

I can't believe after the amount of effort it took to bring this article down to size, we're adding sections which were removed outright to conform to the GA review. It befuddles me that tables, whole sections have been added when this article has a chronic "stuff-itis" problem--that is, cramming as much information as possible into one article.

Measuring from this edit to the current one, one can see that the text gained 9Kb in prose, and a whopping 220Kb in file size, due to pictures and tables. I'm reverting the article back to Carlosguitar's last edit--before this spat with content, alignment and tables. That's the closest edit I've found that still maintains some modicum of reason regarding size and the GA requirements. The alternative, unfortunately, is to delist this article as a "Good Article". I hope you'll participate in discussing what changes need to be made prior to adding them.--Dali-Llama (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should stop João Felipe C.S from editing in this article. He changed all the article, including unnecessary information, unnecessary tables, sandwiched the article with unnnecessary pictures. By the way, he cannot even speak English and does not discuss his changes in the discussion.

Moreover, João Felipe C.S manipulates the article, reverting and creating edit-wars with any user who tries to post here.

In my view, this is vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for an ad hominem argument, Opinoso, nor an attack. My point remains: tables, text additions, etc should be handled individually, gradually and consulting other editors prior to their inclusion because of this article's peculiar size constraints and the amount of effort all editors (including João Felipe), to cut down the article's size. All the content I've removed can and should be easily added to the respective sub-articles. Tables are helpful, but take up a lot of physical space and data--again, perfectly apt to be relocated to subarticles. Everyone has to resist this temptation to include all this data into a single article.--Dali-Llama (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dali-Llama, If we want this article Featured we must follow WP:SIZE and maintain around 85-90Kb. While tables are useful to show information in a organized matter, it is better to use them on sub-articles where there is no problem with WP:SIZE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference for the statement The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Well, there are several studies linking both factors, and it's fairly logical that a mid-income country with such a big amount of poverty must have big economic inequality as well. But enough talking; the most influential and respected studies on the subject are made by Ipea (Economic Applied Research Institute), which published "Desigualdade de Renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente" in 2 volumes. On the first volume, the 10th chapter discusses the importance of the recent drop on inequality rate (gini) to poverty. The title: A Importância da Queda Recente da Desigualdade para a PobrezaAuthors: Ricardo Paes de Barros, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, Rosane MendonçaThe link: http://www.ipea.gov.br/sites/000/2/livros/desigualdaderendanobrasil/Cap_10_AImportanciaDaQuedaRecente.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you get the information about the percent of water in Brazil is just 0,65%? In other countries they have "more water" than Brazil like Argentina(1,1%) or even Estonia(4,6%), and we know, at least I know(hehe) this is not true. Or, better, someone can explain me what this indice counts? Tks! Leonardomio (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the percent of the area cover by water.--ClaudioMB (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why has this been not submitted to FAC yet? Looks mighty promising. With very little push this might get through. Anyone hearing this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't stable enough, in my view, and the sizing issue is still a concern.--Dali-Llama (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article will probably not reach FA status for a long long time because of stability problems. I've given up on it and have been focusing my attention on subpages where there are few editors. I've learned in a place like Wikipedia it's almost impossible to work on controversial topics. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This reference, "The World Factbook: Brazil". Central Intelligence Agency., has a grotesque misinformation about Brazil. In its People section they mention that "estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2007 est.)". This sentence is used in that book for all countries with such a problem. I'm not a health expert, but, that sounds weird for Brazil. I couldn't find another source for that affirmation. There are no mention of such "excess mortality" in HIV/AIDS in Brazil. List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate doesn't show death, but give a good idea that HIV/AIDS in Brazil (0.7) is not that far from the United States (0.6). This report (page 18) also shows that Brazil's numbers are not excessive, not far from the United States' numbers and much smaller than other countries that that book doesn't use that sentence. Even their own number shows that Brazil's numbers (HIV/AIDS deaths/population 0.000088%) are not so far from the United States (0.000057%), and very far from South Africa (0.0082%).
So, until they fix that, it should be removed because it's not a good reference to readers of this article. --ClaudioMB (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. They've based that affirmation on this report that says that the Brazil's population is around 3.5 millions shorter because AIDS. Man, if they are right, I'm just a stupid ignorant person who should accept everything anyone says and thanks God for my family and I aren't in that number.--ClaudioMB (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed.--ClaudioMB (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the removal of CIA's world fact book. Makes Brazil sound like a sub Saharan country in terms of AIDS epidemic, which is far from true. In fact, Brazil is praised for its AIDS prevention scheme. --Pinnecco (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to do some work on standardizing proper name versions and translations, not only for Brasil, but throughout Wikipedia. Focusing on Brasil, the proper and official names should be listed in the Brazilian versions with clear English translations. Even though the article is in English, the country is not. So, even the "common" name for Brasil should be stated as "Brasil". Then, yes, there are official English versions of the names. These should be stated as such along with any reference that makes them so. (For example--to be researched and verified--the US Bureau of Standards specified English versions, the US Congress specified recognized English versions, the Mexican congress specified English versions, etc.)

The actual name of the article, however, can certainly be left in the English common version, "Brazil", because it is an English encyclopedia and the most commonly used version of the name. However, the name should be clearly disambiguated so that any proper spelling leads to--and is validated by--the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an English page, so let's just write in English. I don't believe there is a need to write the name of the country in its native language. In Brazil they use the acronym EUA instead of USA. Should we require that they use USA? No, it's their language.Prizerl (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian myself and I agree to you. If the encyclopedia is written in English, countries must be referred to as it is in English. This place would become a mess if we had to write "Magyarorszaság" instead of Hungary, "Bharat" instead of India or "Ellas" instead of Greece. Plus, the form "Brazil" with a Z was used by Brazilians themselves for about 3 centuries, it was only in the late XIX Century that people decided it should be written with an "S" instead. Alberto 189.106.6.146 (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the president should be Luiz Inacio da Silva. "Lula" should be removed. It is a nickname. It'd be like writing William Bill Clinton or Ronald Ron Reagan. It is indeed common to informally write Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (like saying "Bush father" or "Bush son" ) but this is not his real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.136.118 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is not purely a nickname - since 1982 it has been part (and in some ways the most important part) of his legal name. Bagunceiro (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It WAS his nickname until about 1980, then he officially ADDED it to his civil name as a part of that. In other words, he had his real name changed from "Luiz Ignacio da Silva" to "Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva". It's Lula with only two "L's" not three (as in the very common mispell "Lulla" which is wrong). Alberto 189.106.6.146 (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not his real name, but it's the name he, as well as the entire rest of the country uses. References to "President Da Silva" sound ridiculous, and I'm not the only brazilian who took a while to notice what the hell people were talking about the first time I read it. The man is President Lula, at best; and I've never heard a single brazilian call him anything other than simply "Lula." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.90.39 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He addopted "Lula" as his official name. See [3] - Brazilian government's Official site, in Portuguese, but in the first line appears "Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva nasceu...". Leonardomio (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am bringing that section into the discussion again because I noticed that this section has been under debate for a while. This section has several issues that I would like to address:

• Link between social issues and level of crime - I've already expressed my concerns about that in previous discussions. There is no proven relation between the two issues. The relation between crime and social conditions is still highly debatable and non-conclusive. Therefore, I propose the removal from that section of any statement that connects these two separate subjects.

• Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development - We cannot confirm that. Furthermore this statement is unreferenced. There has been in recent years, some social improvements such as the "Bolsa escola", "bolsa familia", more children enrolled in schools than in the past, etc. I understand that every encyclopedic content must show a balanced view of facts, not just one side of the equation.

• The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality - Unreferenced and debatable statement.

• While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards,[2] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.[3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings[4] and gang violence[5] are common in the largest cities. - Again, the section is about social issues and the text correlates this with crime issues. I propose to remove every statistics about crime and keep focused on social issues.

• Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). - This statement is a bit contradictory, it places Brazil in a low rank but it highlights its high HDI. I propose removing the HDI comment.

Grammar issues

• Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment - I suppose there is a grammatic issue in this phrase, I suppose we should read it as : Brazil ranks among the world's highest Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. This statement is followed by:

According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.

which has nothing to do with how the Gini coefficient is calculated. Furthermore, the last sentence should be read: "...a 19.8% reduction from the previous four years."

• ...remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living... It should read:

"...remote upcountry regions that suffer from economic underdevelopment and low standards of living..."

"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards." It should read:

"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding standards of living."

Mhsb (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it would be great if whoever just restarted this discussion signed his or her comments.

I’m the person who “wrote” most of the current contents of the “social issues” section and I understand it’s a delicate topic. Obviously the section isn’t perfect, and I’m open to new ideas. However, I don’t agree with some of the criticism that has just been made.

• Link between social issues and level of crime. Crime is a social issue itself, so I don’t see the problem here. I guess you don’t agree with a link between poverty and crime, but the article doesn’t establish this type of link. It is simply mentioning different types of social problems – crime, poverty, a badly structured social security system, lack of infrastructure and so on. The text is not directly connecting poverty to crime, although they appear in the same paragraph. Maybe the information could be reorganized.

• Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development This used to be part of the introduction and it should have stayed there. Brazil still has dramatic problems regarding the public education, health and social security systems. I don’t understand why you are saying “we can’t confirm this”. It’s a widely accepted fact.

• The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality The rate of poverty is obviously related to the country’s economic inequality. Any economist will confirm that claim. The only reason we opted for “in part attributed” is the existance of other factors also affecting poverty.

• Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). I agree with your criticism here. I think this sentence should be removed or something like “although Brazil faces several social issues, it is has a high ranking in the HDI chart” could be added.

As for the grammar issues, I see no problems in your suggestions.

Sparks1979 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing on my previous edits, my bad, I fixed that. Following the discussions, regarding the issues you highlighted:

• Link between social issues and level of crime. Crime is a social issue itself, so I don’t see the problem here. I guess you don’t agree with a link between poverty and crime, but the article doesn’t establish this type of link. It is simply mentioning different types of social problems – crime, poverty, a badly structured social security system, lack of infrastructure and so on. The text is not directly connecting poverty to crime, although they appear in the same paragraph. Maybe the information could be reorganized.

=> I agree that crime is a social issue itself, however, what I disagree is the way the section is suggesting that the root cause of crime is social inequality. If the article wants to discuss crime issues, my suggestion is that this should be placed in another topic, not under "social issues".

• Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development This used to be part of the introduction and it should have stayed there. Brazil still has dramatic problems regarding the public education, health and social security systems. I don’t understand why you are saying “we can’t confirm this”. It’s a widely accepted fact.

=> I am not denying that all those problems you've listed have been solved. What I am questioning is the statement that there has been no social developments at all as a result of economic achievements because there has been, in fact, some social development landmarks. May be the word "reflect"here is misplaced or the statement lacks reference.

• The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality The rate of poverty is obviously related to the country’s economic inequality. Any economist will confirm that claim. The only reason we opted for “in part attributed” is the existance of other factors also affecting poverty.

=> Sorry, but this statement is debatable and if you have any reference it would be great to add to it. For instance, Japan's gini index is higher than India, but India is poorer than Japan. If everyone is poor, economic inequality is lower and the country as a whole is poor. Furthermore, this kind of discussion goes well beyond the scope of the section and the article itself.

• Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). I agree with your criticism here. I think this sentence should be removed or something like “although Brazil faces several social issues, it is has a high ranking in the HDI chart” could be added.

=> Agreed.

Mhsb (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's face it! Brazil has a high HDI (0,800). So, It cannot be removed. Like or not... It is official. Crespus2006 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new text

Besides Brazil's recent economic achievements, the country faces serious social problems. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population^[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.

Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards,^[2] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. ^[3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings^[4] and gang violence^[5] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread.^[6][7] Innefficient public services,^[8][9][10] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s.^[11]

Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated high at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life.^[12]

Justification for removing and adding other statements

The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality.

=> It removes unreferenced and debatable statement.

According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.

=> It keeps the text simple. Don't need to include more statistics on social issues if the first part of the sentence contemplates that.

Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living.

=> I believe that the illustrated picture of that section already contemplates that information.

with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. [3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings[4] and gang violence[5] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread.[6][7]

=> It keeps the text simple. There is no need to list all types of crimes in the section. The main section will detail those issues. Furthermore, the section is about social issues, not crime issues.

Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800).

=> It keeps the section simple. There is no need to cite the article and section of the constitution. HDI index is discussed further ahead.

Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life in the recent years.[12]

=> Provides unbalanced information.--Mhsb (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Some short comments regarding your statements:

=> It removes unreferenced and debatable statement.

This sentence can be reworded if it bothers you, but you have to mention poverty and economic inequality somewhere in the section. Although the rate of people living below the poverty line has improved in recent years, there is still a lot of poverty in Brazil. Also, Brazil has one of the world’s highest rates of economic disparities between the rich and poor classes. This is a well-documented fact and it must be mentioned under a “social issues” section. If you don’t want to establish a link between poverty and social inequalities, that’s fine, but we can’t simply skip these aspects of Brazilian life.

=> It keeps the text simple. Don't need to include more statistics on social issues if the first part of the sentence contemplates that.

Personally I don’t mind the removal of this sentence, but in past discussions many users supported it – thus, I guess we should leave it as it is.

=> I believe that the illustrated picture of that section already contemplates that information.

The picture doesn’t contemplate the information for the casual reader. A person that is not familiar with Brazil or with favelas needs a short explanation of what the picture is showing.

=> It keeps the text simple. There is no need to list all types of crimes in the section. The main section will detail those issues. Furthermore, the section is about social issues, not crime issues.

A social issues section about Brazil that doesn't mention crime is useless. Crime is considered one of the main social problems in Brazil in any random poll. If you talk about social issues in Brazil without mentioning poverty and crime the fact is you aren’t truly talking about social issues in Brazil. You would do a better job scrapping the whole section, and that would be a step backwards for the article.

=> It keeps the section simple. There is no need to cite the article and section of the constitution. HDI index is discussed further ahead.

You need to mention the minimum wage constitutional article so the casual reader can know where the “official requirements” are found. Deleting this would be like deleting a reference. “Keeping the text simple” isn’t really a very good argument if it comes at the cost of keeping the text incomplete or lacking references.

=> Provides unbalanced information.

I agree this needs to be reviewed. It sounds a bit contradictory.

If we follow your suggestions, we would have a social issues section that doesn’t talk about social issues. Also, the reasoning behind most of the changes is “keeping the section simple”, when it comes at the cost of removing vital information. If we followed your advice, we would have a Brazilian social issues section that doesn’t mention poverty, social inequalities, violence, problems with the minimal wages and so on. In other words, we wouldn’t talk about any of the main social problems that affect the daily life of most Brazilians. Therefore, I have to disagree with them.

I say instead of removing all this crucial information, we should work on reorganizing the text so it looks more scientific and technical, that is, let’s improve grammar use, let’s avoid contradictions, etc, but let’s not remove essential data in the process.

Sparks1979 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government.

OK, good enough, let's recap the section:

The topic about social issues begin talking about economic inequality, poverty, then economic inequality between regions, it lists some types of crime, it talks about police brutality and corruption, then inefficient public services, low minimal wage, then about high HDI and finally, the social security system. Structurally, I must agree with you that this section needs organisation. Furthermore, we need to distribute the information avoiding undue weight on some of the issues, such as crime. We need to balance the information in order to comply with WP:NPOV. I agree that crime is a social issue, but we need to avoid undue weight, otherwise we run the risk to talk about another subject instead of social issues. I should list below some Brazilian social issues:

• Low minimum wage
• Inefficient pension system
• Poor health services
• Poor social security services
• High level of violent crimes
• Income inequality
• High illiteracy rate
• Difference on life expectancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhsb (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Other issues

We need to distribute the information along the suggested issues and then we need to balance the information by talking about what has been done or have been achieved to address those issues, even if they haven't solved all the issues. This creates unbalanced opinion and keep the section neutral. Furthermore, we have to make the section short, keeping in mind that the article is about the country and that the article should size below 80K, current size is bearing 100KB. There are still lots of work to bring this article as a feature one and to me, this section is where we have multiple problems, starting with grammar and misspellings.

--Mhsb (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you said in your last post. I think it would be nice if you could post a new suggestion of what you think the social issues should look like, then perhaps we can use that as a model to work on. Anyway, I liked what you said in your last post - I'm starting to think we can agree on certain changes in the section. Sparks1979 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The current Social issues is way too big fro this page. It's even bigger than the Culture section (something much more important). The suggested new text is much better. Please, use it. Or remove the Social Issues all together. All countries have troubled social issues, and I don't see them on their main page. --ClaudioMB (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to work on a new one. If you read any GA or FA article on a third world country, you will see their social issues scattered along the article. The only difference here is we created a subsection for this and many people like it this way, since it looks more organized. The article has had this subsection since its creation many years ago. By the way, the "culture" section is larger than the "social issues" subsection. "Culture" includes an introduction, "religion" and "sports" - I think you were looking only at the introduction. Sparks1979 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I find offencive call any country, as "third world" or "developing". That's a political definition that wrongly "classify" a group of countries ("first world" or "developed") automatically better than another group ("third world"). Things are not blank or white like that. All countries have good and bad things (rich countries also have lots of problems). So, if there is a need to include that sub-section, it must not be because Brazil is classify as such thing, but because that's an outstanding issue for Brazil that readers should know about it right away. --ClaudioMB (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with "third world" or "developing"? They are widely used terms, both by the general public and by scholars. If you don't like them, fine, but Wikipedia is not a place where we edit things according to our personal taste. Also, I don't understand your reasoning when you say information must be "outstanding" in order to be included in the article. Sparks1979 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, classifying countries as "first" and "third" gives the idea of better and worse. That's is rude, even if it's true. Second and worse, that classification is not scientifically based, it's politically based. So, politically classify countries as better or worse is discriminatory and offensive. That is the closest you can get to racism (only replacing people for countries). Also, that gives an unfair advantage to those "first world" countries, because as long they are "better" than others, their products, ideas and political views are automatically "better". No wonder their media spread so well those terms.

About the social issues, you cannot define an article based on others. Each article is independent. Even if you want to consider other articles, you'll always find examples on both sides (for example: FA article Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chad, Indonesia and India don't mention social issues. I stopped in India and I couldn't find one mentioning social issues). If social issues are outstanding (essential and very important to know Brazil), then it should be on the main page. I don't agree, I see the ethnic composition of Brazil's population much more important, because it's unique in the world. That should be a sub-section. The only point in social issues I see as outstanding is the Gini coefficient, because Brazil has one of the worst in the world (and it's scientifically proved). That could be placed in the introduction with some data about poverty. But, urban violence, growing social security debts (I bet France and Germany beat Brazil on that), inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are public administration issues and they are not part of the big picture.

It's not rude if it's true. It's a fact. Who says this has no scientific basis? Any book on History and Geography will talk about "developing nations" and "third world countries". Granted, the first term is slowly getting more popular, but the idea is still the same. Even our own government admits we're a developing nation. If you think "social issues" are an important part of Brazilian life, or an "outstanding" part as you say it, then I'm afraid you are gathering your knowledge about Brazil from postcards and tourism magazines. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Summing it up, I think countries' main page are not the place to talk about social issues. This article will be better without it. Maybe, it could be placed in Demographics_of_Brazil, which, by the way, doesn't have it.--ClaudioMB (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the past many users discussed this and we reached a consensus. You have to talk about important facts regarding any country - wether you do this in a special subsection or with facts scattered around the page is a matter of choice. However, the facts must be there. If you want to hide the bad part of Brazil you will be taking a step backwards in this article. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes third world is a POV term without neutrality and it cannot be used on articles. There is also no scientific basis to support this term on those countries claimed as "third world". By the way, "many people like it this way" are only Sparks and Opinoso, other users see problems with this section (not sure about Dalilama). Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's a POV term then use the term "developing nation", although I can find the term "third world country" to address Brazil in Brazilian History and Geography books. Funny. Even Brazilian experts use the term, but apparently some of you think you know more than them. About users that "like it this way", there are several people, just look through the archives properly. I think there are two groups of people in this article - people that want to write about the real Brazil, with its good and bad parts, and people that want to talk about the postcard version of Brazil. I think it's not difficult to know who is more technical here. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that "third world" was a phrase that was self-labeled by developing nations during the Cold War between the US (and allies) and the Soviet Union (and allies). The Non-Aligned Nations took up this phrase to proudly indicate that they were unaligned with either side in this conflict. It originated with a French writer (Alfred Sauvy) who declared that the capitalist West was like the nobility (the French "First Estate"), the Communist East was like the clergy (the "Second Estate") and the rest of the world was the common man (the "Third Estate"). It was a term of praise, because in the French Revolution, the common man rose up and overthrew the clergy and nobility to declare a government managed by the masses, and Sauvy believed that the Third World would in time be the real power on Earth. It truly had nothing to do with "better or worse" as a ranking of countries, but was a reference to the French Revolution.Bishop^ (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the term has been associated with "developing nations" for a long time. If you dislike the term, then call Brazil a "developing nation" instead of a "third world country". This is a matter of semantics, but the idea is still the same. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was, just read the article Third World (don't forget to look the Third_world#Criticism_of_the_term section). But that definition has been lost for a quite some time ("second" world doesn't even exist more). The media have already changed that definition. I bet, currently, 99% of the world population associate those terms as a ranking. That's different from the term Western world (used by western media as synonym for "first world"). It's a political definition, but the term itself doesn't imply to be better than others. --ClaudioMB (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just use the term "developing nation" then. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mhsb suggestion

Mhsb, feel free to remove this section. The unreferenced and tendentious argumentation which you brought were added by only one user, without any consensus or discussion, even with your very improved text, it does not fixes issues with undue weight and the section is still unbalanced. The WikiProject Countries also does not recommend a social issue section. As ClaudioMB said some information should be moved to Demographics section linking to Poverty in Brazil and Crime in Brazil with a balanced information about Brazil effort to combat crime and poverty, all the other details will be cited on these articles not here. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Only one user" - anyone that checks past discussions in our archives will see many users support this section. The fact they are not editing Brazil right now doesn't mean you can simply disconsider everything they had to say. I've had problems with you in the past and I don't feel like starting it all over again. I've never seen you reconsider your opinions or admit you are wrong when you clearly said something wrong. Nowadays I don't have much time to edit Wikipedia so I'm not going to engage into long debates with "Mr. I'm always right". In the end it will lead to nothing as always. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. Yes unreferenced and tendentious argumentation were added by you without discussion and consensus in the following edits: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

First Victor12 (talk · contribs) suggested the removal of sections which do not follow WikiProject Countries on Archive 4, you were only editor against him. João Felipe C.S (talk · contribs) supports the removal of section and I believe Dalillama (talk · contribs) also sees lack of neutrality. So, the first step is removing unbalanced information, undue weight, synthesis of material. The second step is adding factual and balanced information summarized on Demographics section. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that was a personal attack, let alone something that deserved a block... but you are the administrator, so I guess you have the "power" to decide even if I personally feel it's an unfair decision... Regarding past discussions related to the "social issues" section, you forgot to look at all the archives before Archive 4. Even in Archive 4, Victor12 wasn't talking about the "social issues" in particular, we were all discussing article size. And I didn't oppose size reduction, I opposed the way things were being done. In the end, I myself helped remove lots of information from the article in order to adjust it to the article size guidelines. I even removed information I had written. So, in short, I didn't oppose Victor12's proposal of size reduction, since I carried out the changes myself. And Victor wasn't talking about "social issues". I think you are mixing things up. About the "unreferenced" and "tendentious argumentation" claims, they are completely wrong. Anyone can see I used sources such as BBC World. How is that "unreferenced" or "tendentious"? Sparks1979 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the recent comments I am removing the social issues section from the article as we are better off with no section at all than with a section with inaccurate data. One other point to note is that this section directly reflects the contents of its main article, Social issues in Brazil, which, in my view, is completely distorted when it comes to talk about the subject. There we find there same mistakes: lack of NPOV, use of weasel words, tendentious argumentation, lack of references, incomplete information and so on. Nevertheless I find this topic relevant and it deserves more edits under its main article before we sumarise it here, I tried to add more stuffs there but there are still much more work to be done there.

--Mhsb (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not how we do things in Wikipedia. This section has been under intense debate for many years until it slowly reached its current state - you can't simply delete it after 3 users said something against it during a week. Just check the archives and you will see many people supporting it. The fact they are not editing the article at the moment doesn't mean you can simply ignore what they had to say. Mhsb, I thought you were here to improve the section, not to delete it. I thought we agreed we can rewrite the subsection and make improvements. You can't simply nuke things just like that. I'm still here with an open mind towards new ideas, although I can only work on it occasionally - we can redo the whole thing if you want. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Sparks1979, don't start an edit war on the subject. So far, you are the only editor that is supporting this section. As I said earlier, I am not against a section about social issues, what I am criticising is the current version of the section that is completely inaccurate. and unencyclopedic. Please, have a look on the main article, Social issues in Brazil, and compare the current edit to the edits before my last two edits, then you'll get my point. If you are interested on the subject, please I invite you to a discussion under the main article Social issues in Brazil, I am quite sure that you'll agree that are lots of work to be done. --Mhsb (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not starting an edit war. In edit wars there are no "winners", only opinions that prevail temporarily until the next edit war on the same subject starts. I assure you this is not the last time there will be a discussion regarding the social issues section in Brazil. Since the Brazil page was created we've always had this discussion, and this is one of the reasons this article will probably never be a Featured Article. The article editors have always been divided into two groups: people that propose a more "realistic" version of Brazil, and people that support a "light" version of Brazil. I think you understand what I mean. I don't know which editors are in which group, I can only guess... lol. I have worked a lot on this page in the past, and I'm happy to see a good part of my work is still here after almost a year has passed, so I guess it wasn't too bad. However since the last big debate related to the sport section pictures, I decided I would no longer work on controversial pages. Brazil is a page that is permanently locked. That shows just how difficult it is to work here. I think you shouldn't have removed the social issues subsection because many editors support it. Many of these editors aren't here anymore, but you can still find their opinions in the archive pages. Even now, you can still see I'm no alone here - Opinoso and Dunadan agree with me. The thing is, like I said, since the last big discussion, I've lost my interest in this page. Sparks1979 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised at Mhsb's relentless insistence on having a section he wrote himselfon Crime and Social Issues at Mexico—a tendentious section without reliable sources but instances of crime and using Lonely Planet's "advise to tourists"—and yet, he insists on deleting a fairly accurate section here at Brazil with reliable sources that has been part of a stable article. Since the section here at Brazil was not added (as was the case at Mexico), but has been part of a stable article in which many editors have participated in the past, then, it must not be deleted on personal grounds of like/dislike, especially when that section has plenty of reliable sources. It must be improved upon not removed. So, I am the second editor in accordance with Sparks1979, opposing the unilateral deletion of that section—a section with plenty of reliable sources.--the Dúnadan 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete is a technical measure which only administrators can use, there is not deleted information. All the information are merged on Crime in Brazil and Poverty in Brazil. The Social section does not contains reliable sources at all, the major problems are lack of neutrality, undue weight. It also is not accurate due to synthesis of material on tendentious argumentation which Mhsb brought. Another important point is that I will work with Mhsb to balance information trough this and other articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you say sources are not reliable if we're using references such as BBC World and Amnesty International? Sparks1979 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Balanced information and synthesis of material

Mhsb is the information balanced now or there is still tedious argumentation? I merged some information and balanced with neutrality, it is better, but we can add a better response to crime in Brazil. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)}. What I am trying to argue here is that social issues is a very broad and complex concept that encompasses several areas. I am trying to expand the main article, Social issues in Brazil, in order to embrace those concepts, so as we can have a more reliable section under the article Brazil. Please see Talk:Social issues in Brazil page to see my opinion to improve the page. Also, have a look on the page Social issues in the United States and compare its format, not its contents because we are talking about different countries. For Brazil, I believe that the major social issues would be in the areas of:

• Education - the education systems, public x private education, quality of education, illiteracy, child's work and school evasion, "Bolsa Familia" program, One Laptop per child program, etc.
• Health - the decentralisation of the Heath system and the SUS system, private x public health and their partnership with SUS, Health insurance issues and its distribution among the population, tropical diseases, infant mortality, life expectancy, generic anti-HIV/AIDS program, generic medicines, government efforts to fund the health systems such as the CPMF, higher budget to health than to defense, etc
• Indigenous peoples - diseases, land rights
• Black people - history of slavery, huge economic gulf existed in the country between the black and white population, racial quotas for universities, extension of the same quota system to civil service jobs, the private sector and even television.
• Poverty and inequality - famine, difference between regions, cities ans classes, high inequality rate, "Fome Zero" program, "Bolsa Familia" program, etc
• Crime - low paid police, drug gangs and the organised crime, the "favelas", transnational crime and border control, construction of Federal prisons, creation of National Public Security Force, etc
• Retirement and the pension system - large deficits, public x private gap of paid benefits, reform of the system, Parallel PEC and the projects to privatise the social security system.
• The landless and land reform plans - the MST movement, the land issue in Brazil, the redistribution of land by the government, etc

So, from my point of view, the section that I removed from this article didn't contemplate 30% of the issues above listed. Therefore, i propose to workout the article Social issues in Brazil before we proceed to include such a section here. Myself and Carlosguitar made some changes in the article but this is a big task and we need help from other editors...

--Mhsb (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that Social issues have no place in a country's main page. A main page cannot be too long and there are many more important topics. This page is already too long (92k) and need to be reduced. Wikipedia suggest that an article should not be more than 50k (Wikipedia:Article size). Another problem is, why only social issues? If we include it, why not include ecological issues, economic issues, culture issues... Only because the media gets large audience showing too much of it, that doesn't make it the only and most important issue. Also, issues are too much of recentism. So, another article dedicated to it will be more reasonable.--ClaudioMB (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No democracy?

We've always had many debates, discussions, and sometimes even fights in this page. However, in most cases we tried to find democratic solutions to resolve each problem. This time I'm surprised to see there was no "debate". There are three users supporting the "social issues" subsection - Sparks1979, Opinoso and the Dúnadan. That's three people or three votes. Then there are three editors who want to see the social issues subsection removed or revamped: ClaudioMB, Carlosguitar, --Mhsb. That's clearly a 3x3 score. So far so good - the problem here is that for some reason the opinion of the first three users was completely ignored, and the subsection was removed without much of a debate. Is this how democracy works in Wikipedia? Even if there was a majority either way, it would have to be an overwhelming majority, or else changes should be put on hold until an agreement is reached. Quite frankly, I have a feeling something unfair was carried out over here.

I haven't been very interested in this page since the last big discussion occured some time at the end of last year, when people were fighting over the pictures in the sports section. I think that showed just how difficult it is to work on pages like Brazil or Mexico. People make everything here too personal. Wikipedia is meant to be a place where people have fun and share knowledge, not a fight arena. Why does this page have to be locked constantly? I guess we will never make it to Featured Article - not because the contents aren't good, but because this article will probably never be stable.

I see no problem at all if people want to make changes - that's what Wikipedia is all about. The problem is that changes should be made in a democratic way, and I don't see that happening here, at least not at the moment. Many people support the social issues section. If we look at the archives, we will find several users in the past were complaining about the page not mentioning violence, poverty and other major social problems in Brazil any Brazilian is well aware of. Any major city in Brazil has thousands of people living in favelas, and for some reason a few users think that's something that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I see only one motivation behind this - I think people want to hide dirt under the carpet.

Hey guys, I'm not one of these people that want to destroy the image of Brazil or anything like that. I just think information must be balanced, because that brings it closer to reality. We don't need to talk only about issues in Brazil - but we do need to talk about issues in Brazil. Brazil isn't Angola, but it's not England or USA either. People here got offended because I was talking about Brazil being a "developing" nation... some of you are being too sensitive. Even Brazilian authorities talk about Brazil being a "developing" nation, including our President and our Legislative and Judiciary highest ranking members. Our Geography and History books talk about the "developing" nation we know as Brazil. So what's happening here? Sincerely, I think some people(wether they are Brazilian or foreigners that like Brazil) are almost obsessed with the so-called touristic version of Brazil. I can undertand patriotism etc, but I've seen that harming the article ever since I started reading it almost two years ago. No wonder many good editors were slowly driven away. Some of you hold on to things in Wikipedia as if they were the most important thing of your lives or something. Guys, editing Wikipedia is only a way for us to spend our free time.

I see Carlosguitar constantly saying I added information without references, when each bit of information I added was based on sources such as BBC World, Amnesty International and studies carried out by Fundação Getúlio Vargas. I didn't invent expressions such as "war zone" - they came directly from the sources I mentioned. I think it's quite clear I'm not wrong in this case.

If you guys could take some time to review this posture, maybe we can get back on track with Brazil. I no longer have much time to edit Wikipedia, I'm mainly only a reader now. Albeit I know this may make some people happy - lol - until I have time to come back as an editor, I will keep to myself knowing I made good contributions to Wikipedia and helped with several improvements.

I've given up on this article since the sport section picture fight last year, when I noticed how people easily make things personal and are unwilling to let go of their own opinions even on the smallest little things such as a picture. I prefer to work on pages with few editors, where users don't stab each other over each suggestion someone makes.

Good luck to you guys. I will be back if I have the time and if people remember Wikipedia is a hobby, not a fight arena.Sparks1979 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy. There is consensus that this article is not list of problems in Brazil and the information about poverty and crime in Brazil must be balanced following the official policy called neutral point of view. But I do not think you understand it, since the users who remove synthesis of material and try to keep this article more neutral and verifiable are just "hiding dirt under the carpet". By the way, this article already cite favelas. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, we should reach a consensus rather than a majority vote. Hmmmm. That's a pretty rule. Only problem is, how do you resolve issues that arise when a consensus cannot be reached? In the last four years there has been intense debate over the social issues section - wether it should exist, and how it should be put together. I think after years of debate, with several users participating, it's safe to say a consensus has not been reached. If a consensus has not been reached and you want to skip democracy, how do you, as an administrator, suggest we tackle this problem? You have an opinion and I must respect it - but you don't have to respect mine? Your opinion is worth more than mine? No, I don't think so, I think all opinions have the same value - thus, if we're not going to use democracy, what do you suggest? Another thing - I also think the information must be balanced according to the so called "official policy", and I also think we should establish a "neutral point of view". However, I think the information was already balanced, and I think we already had a neutral point of view. Information is not balanced and the point of view isn't neutral just because you said so? Sparks1979 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions have importance and value, but they do not determine if there is consensus or not. What determine consensus is strength of arguments based on policies and guidelines, you do not agree then you go to the talk page of these policies and guidelines and start a discussion to change the consensus to your own belief or use dispute resolution. But it is not a matter of changing the consensus of policies and guidelines, on the contrary, it is matter to read, understand and apply. No, you are not in position to claim that "consensus has not been reached" or "information was already balanced, and I think we already had a neutral point of view" specially using so weak arguments like false dilemma with "there are two groups of people in this article - people that want to write about the real Brazil, with its good and bad parts, and people that want to talk about the postcard version of Brazil" and your persistent comment on the contributors of this article. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a consensus when people participating in any given discussion or debate have reached an agreement about the subject at stake. We can't say we have a consensus about removing the "social issues" section in Brazil because many users feel it should stay here, whilst a few others prefer to see it removed. In fact, only two users said they want it removed, you being one of them. Another user said he wanted to rewrite it, removing what had been written here while he worked on the new text, but he disappeared. Several other users wanted it to be kept, but all these people were ignored. Yes, all these people based their arguments on policies and guidelines. You can't claim their arguments weren't based on policies and guidelines simply because you privately think so - this is only your opinion, which is not necessarily the truth. Wether people have based their arguments on policies and guidelines is another matter that is also open to debate. You say my argument is weak, yet you've presented weak arguments yourself several times. I've grown tired of continuously rebutting the many weak arguments you've brought into the social issues discussion, such as "professional encyclopedias don't talk about them" - I quickly proved you were wrong. This is only one example, I could mention many more, but I'm really not interested in looking them up in the archives. Also, I'm not talking about the contributors of the article. I'm talking about the arguments contributors have made and about how many editors supported each view, two very important and valid things. Sparks1979 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Sparks, your arguments are so weak that until today you never explained why Catholic Encyclopedia about Brazil is a tourism page. It does not talk about social issues, poverty, violence or crime, yet it is an encyclopedia. It is interesting you saying that "I'm not talking about the contributors" when some days ago you was saying "Mr. I'm always right." Opinoso reverted Mhsb reasoning that he was hiding information. That is invalid since Mhsb was removing original research wrote by you and information is merged on Crime in Brazil and Social issues in Brazil. Dúnadan reverted Mhsb concerned that information was not merged, but he did not checked these subarticles before reverting, so we have another invalid reason to revert Mhsb. So the result is it, we remove the tendentious arguments which you wrote, since they are synthesis of material and remove the list of problem, since they are not balanced with Brazil effort to resolve them. Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale of established policy, no you are not not in position to say that there is not consensus here. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone fills that a consensus was not reached, try to do a survey like this one. That could help somehow. --ClaudioMB (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The consensus was reached to remove this section due to many problems with WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS and add the balanced information through the article on section such as Government and politics, Economy, Demographics, Education and health as it descriptive on Wikipedia:WTA#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. The social issues section will not be restored nor a list of problems in Brazil again. Claudio if you have any suggestion to the current version of this article you can say and we will see what we can do. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was never reached. Like I said before, "We have a consensus when people participating in any given discussion or debate have reached an agreement about the subject at stake." This never happened in this page. Also, none of these rules were ever broken: WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS. Just because a rule is mentioned, it doesn't mean somebody broke it. You need to mention the rule and then carefully explain how the rule was broken and why, correctly matching it with the situation you are analyzing. Throwing rules around is easy - anyone can just look up rules and start mentioning them. Also, I don't think you have the right to determine "The social issues section will not be restored nor a list of problems in Brazil again" - anyone can edit this information back into the article if they feel this information is relevant and will improve it. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Sparks1979 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, anyone that wants to restore it will get a new consensus. Actually we have a consensus to remove this section due to so many problems listed above. Any editor that restore this section without carefully explaining based on policies and guidelines, I will considered disruptive. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar: As long as there are people who fundamentally disagree with the removal of the section, we do not have a consensus. It's not up to you to determine who is "disruptive" by reinserting information that you have removed. That being said, I do not see it as unreasonable to include a summary paragraph on "social issues" linked to a separate article. Could you accept that as a compromise? Compromise is one of the tools we use to reach consensus, after all. This would reduce the overall size of the Brazil article and move the controversy about the details of "social issues" to a separate area so that the overall article remains more encyclopedic.

"Social issues" are part of a country, after all, but a single WP article does not need to go into detail on every aspect of a country. Bishop^ (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You must see this edit before talking in a "compromise". This article already link to social issues, because Poverty in Brazil redirect to Social issues in Brazil. By the way, my compromise that you have not seen, almost not reduced this article size, since I balanced the information. I do not see any problem with synthesis of material or NPOV on the current revision of article, Mhsb also agrees with the current revision so we have a consensus, since you, Sparks, Dúnadan and Opinoso do not explained how we resolve the problems with this section. I am sorry if you like this section and do not see problems, but we are fixing the problems now which were not fixed many time ago when Sparks unilaterally add a list of problems with original research and removed the neutrality of this. I will find disruptive, if anyone restore this section and ignore the discussion above which raises so many problems, especially the problems raised by Mhsb when he was discussing with Sparks and my compromise with Mhsb to fix the lack of neutrality, original research and other problems on this section. But what I have seen is you do not see problems with the current revision only with article size. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I'm coming into this argument late. It's a constant problem when dealing with articles that have been around a long time. (Although I would argue that we may not be agreeing on the definition of "consensus".) I certainly wasn't talking about restoring sections with problems but was more discussing the larger issue of having a "Social issues" section in the article. Hope no offense was taken; as a non-resident with a fondness for Brazil I want as good an article as possible, just like I'm sure you do! 157.127.124.15 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We will not have a Social issues section for the same motives that this article does not have a Social improvements section. Wikipedia:WTA#Article_structure describe it well, so we have consensus. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I want us to all be cooperative in this discussion, but it is *not* productive, and it does *not* make a consensus, for you to point to a rules page and say "see, that explains it". I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "consensus" means. Please do not act as if you are the final authority; I do not think I am the only one that is trying to *discuss* the issue, but you seem to believe that a decision is already made. Bishop^ (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Reply to Bishop. First off, no one is talking about authority, and please do not put words in my mouth saying that I am the "final authority", for someone that wants a productive discussion, this is very unproductive. Second the only problem that I see in the current revision of article is with size, you have not explained what is wrong with current revision nor how a social issues section will improve this article or even how to reduce this article, it is your fault if you are understanding that putting all controversial aspects into a single section is inappropriate. Third, I have not misunderstand what consensus is, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other problems are fixed in the current revision, again what is wrong with current revision outside of its size? Fourth, it is strange that you only talking about a Social issues section, why do not you talk about a social improvements section? I am following the policies and guidelines, by the way WP:WPC does not recommend a social issues section. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add two points. The consensus is necessary to have something in the article. In the moment that there is no consensus about something in the article, that shouldn't be in the article. At this moment, there is no consensus that this article should have a Social issues section. Second, a section that only describe problems is totally unbalanced and has no place, whatsoever, in any article (unless it's an article about the problem itself like Social issues in Brazil).--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Claudio, just clarifying, you do not need consensus to remove unsourced, poorly sourced, or questionable material from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. You do not need consensus to remove unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Regarded the consensus on what articles about countries should have this was reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Social Issues as well Social Improvements are mislead sections presupposing that we add a list of issues and improvements when articles on countries should not have, especially the tiny minority. Regarded the summarized citation on poverty and crime in demographics section, do you agree with that? Or you think that this should be removed too. I am fine with it and I do not see lack of neutrality or original research. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar, I will start by saying that I think we all want a good article. I believe we are all acting in good faith here. But while you did not *say* you are the final authority, I believe people could interpret it that way when you say things like "There will not be a such-and-such section because this other page says so". It sounds as if you have already made the decision and that there will be no discussion. I should also point out that I am *not* saying that there should or should not be a "Social Issues" section. I am just pointing out that it is something that was still being talked about, and that the people with different opinions had not yet come together and agreed on a solution they would all follow. *THAT* is the definition of "consensus". If there is not yet an agreement on a controversial change, then there is *not* consensus. Note that people do not need to agree with the end decision, but they do need to agree to follow it even if they disagree with parts of it. That is consensus.

You should know that I am leaning to agree with you on the "Social Issues" section, but I just want to see a decision that everyone will accept (not necessarily agree with) before someone says "it is a consensus" or "this is how the article will be, and anyone who changes it will be considered disruptive."

If I am misunderstanding any point, please inform me, as we are all here to work together, not to fight. Bishop^ (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus is not unanimity nor immutable, you are not understanding that consensus means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. We work under policies and guidelines and that is what keeps Wikipedia organized. While there is no convincing arguments to keep this section, and the way found to fix the issues with this section was by removing, we have consensus to fix this section in this way, until someone offer a better resolution. Does not exists a decision that everyone will accept in Wikipedia, there will be always one or another person disagreeing, again you are not understanding what is consensus. By the way, when quoting other users, please quote what exactly what they said. Your own conclusions of my words are never what I said and what you did is misquotation. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that consensus was either unanimity nor immutability. It means "general agreement", and does not refer to any kind of established policy - except that in the page you link to, it indicates that a consensus cannot be reached that violates established Wikipedia policy. Consensus is also an issue individually with articles and with disputes regarding those articles. We do work under various policies and guidelines, but that does not mean that consensus is the policies and guidelines. Consensus is the agreement that we come to within the policies and guidelines as to the outcome of disagreements. That is what I am trying to point out here - that you cannot point to a guideline and say "that is consensus". The guideline only limits what the consensus can be.

Also, I must insist that I did not quote you but was merely explaining how your statements could be *interpreted*. Therefore I did not misquote you; I said that I felt you "act as if" you are the authority, not that you *said* that you are the authority. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statements, but when you make definitive statements like saying a section "will not be restored" or that "any editor that restores this section... I will consider disruptive", it sounds as if you are being authoritative.Bishop^ (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"A decision that everyone will accept" is unanimity and "they do need to agree to follow it even if they disagree with parts of it" is immutability. "General agreement" is not consensus, the consensus followed in Wikipedia is written on this page, not your own interpretation. Because you erroneously think that "a decision that everyone will accept" is consensus, that never means that there is no consensus here. Yes I can point to policy and guidelines saying that the consensus was reached to fix this section by removing. Actually WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, both Social Issues and Social Improvements sections are working like pro and con sections, a segregation which is against WP:NPOV#Article structure and WP:WTA#Article structure. Exactly you did not quoted me, instead you misquote by quoting out of context, so please do no put words in my mouth. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"A decision that everyone will accept" is not unanimity, it is consensus. A decision that everyone 'agrees with' is unanimity, and has never been required. What I quoted is not immutability either. You cannot say that consensus 'is' what is noted on the Consensus page here; that merely 'clarifies' the meaning of consensus in this context. And please recognize the difference between misquoting, paraphrasing, and interpretation. If I give my interpretation of your words, that is all it is; it is 'not' misquoting. I *never* put words in your mouth because I never did claim that you said the things that you are claiming that I did. If I say someone is "acting like X", that absolutely does not mean that I claim the person *said* "I am X". It is not misquotation, so stop acting like a victim. And please remember that I have already said that I'm leaning toward your side of the "Social Issues" argument, so don't make an enemy by insisting that I've wronged you when I'm on your side!Bishop^ (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When everyone accept or agree, there is a unanimity. Before you came again with your original thought, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary accept is agree or consent to; to agree to take; to believe in, agree to or acknowledge; to receive or admit and agree to. So when you are accepting, you are also agreeing to. Since you did not read or understand the policies and guidelines, and erroneously think that WP:CONSENSUS merely 'clarifies' the meaning of consensus, from WP:CONSENSUS page: "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow." Yes, I can say that there is consensus to remove this section based on policies and guidelines, especially when WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and above discussion raised original research by User:Mhsb. When you say: "but when you make definitive statements like saying a section 'will not be restored' or that 'any editor that restores this section... I will consider disruptive'" That was a Fallacy of quoting out of context, so please do not put words in my mouth with yours misquotes. You want a productive discussion, then comment on content not on contributor, and please do not be hypocrite if you think that I am acting like victim or making an enemy. Since you joined to this discussion, you never explained how to fix the problems with this section, instead only continue talking about your original research of consensus and commenting on contributors. That is unproductive and does not help to change the current consensus here. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a connotative difference between "accept" and "agree". I don't have to agree with something to accept it for the purposes of compromise. Dictionary definitions do not tell the whole story. Also realize that while official policies and guidelines may be non-negotiable, it is often the interpretation of those policies and guidelines which we are negotiating. And please, quit saying that I quoted you out of context. I did not. Just because you do not like how someone interpreted your words, do not mean they were quoted out of context. They may have been misinterpreted, but that does not mean they were fallaciously quoted out of context. Finally, you wonder why I have not offerd suggestions on fixing the section -- but I first would have to get you to agree that the section should exist, when you insist that it should not! That was the point of this whole argument you and I are involved in. Bishop^ (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My PoV is that "social issues" should NOT be included. I've just presented the survey idea to see if anyone but Sparks1979 want to include it and, perhaps, end this discussion. I believe there is a more important discussion about this article that is to reduce its size. For readers who are looking for more details about any subsection, they should go to the article that is about.--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys! Do you really think that the previous section about social issues reflected the complexity of the matter? I would say that that section could not describe even 20%, it was inaccurate and tendentious. It clearly pinpointed a point of view because it focused in issues that affect a segment of the population. I would recommend that any editor who is interested in posting such a section in the article about the country Brazil, please, propose it here under discussion page so as we can get to a common consensus. We are better off with no section at all then with a inaccurate section.--Mhsb (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mhsb the problem start only with its name, there are so many social issues in any country that it is impossible to list them due to article size and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Therefore we will not talk about crime and social issues here, but on its own articles already created. Yes social issues is so complex that would lead to a very large article, with many disputes and probably losing its status of Good Article. This article is better off this section and will not have it again. We also should follow the recommendation on Wikipedia:WTA#Article_structure by adding information on current sections. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

The problem with what Carlosguitar has been saying over here is not his opinion per se, but the fact he has been constantly disregarding other opinions and points of view, by claiming they are supposedly invalid and not adjusted to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in his own point of view of course).

1) There is no consensus over here. Many people have debated the contents of this section in the past, many defending it whilst others disputed it. The debate has always been a valid one, but a consensus was never reached. Now Carlosguitar is trying to artificially declare there is a “consensus” when it’s crystal clear there isn’t one. Several editors have defended the inclusion of the “social issues section”, and it has been a part of this article for many years. It has also always been under intense discussions. That means there’s no consensus. Actually, WP:Consensus does not clearly define what a “consensus” is, so it looks like Carlosguitar is exploring this small loophole in the rules to pass his own idea of a so-called "consensus" when we’re very far from one in Brazil. How can we talk about a consensus when there are at least 3 users defending the inclusion of the “social issues” subsection in the current discussion (myself, Opinoso and the Dúnadan) not to mention many others in past discussions? By the way, I had a quick look at the talkpage archives and apparently some material has mysteriously disappeared.

2) If I understood him correctly, Carlosguitar claims there’s a consensus because people who defend his view (the “no social issues” view) are allegedly basing their arguments on “Wikipedia policies and guidelines”, whereas all the other people are not - thus, according to him, the later shouldn't be listened to. I ask you Carlosguitar, who are you to ultimately determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t? Can’t you see this is also a debatable issue itself? I myself think you haven’t been following certain guidelines – I think you’ve been authoritative with your arguments, for instance. So who is to say who is following “policies and guidelines”? I’m sorry, but you don’t have the right to decide and determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t - you can have an opinion about it like everyone else, but that's it. An administrator should always be helping people and finding peaceful solutions to problems - an administrator should never be igniting quarrels by presuming bad-faith from editors who solely want to defend their points of view.

3) Carlosguitar has put forth authoritative arguments by saying whoever wants to “edit Brazil adding a social issues subsection without basing their criteria on policies and guidelines will be considered disruptive”. I have a feeling that could mean, “I may block whoever dares to add the social issues section into Brazil again, because I’m the one who determines if policies and guidelines were being followed or not”. Note Carlosguitar has also unilaterally declared “we will not have a social issues subsection”. I personally find it difficult to consider this the best stance an administrator should have on the matter. At the very least, if an administrator has involved himself in a debate, he should summon one or more neutral administrators (that is, not an administrator that's his fellow friend of course) to help appease the matters. Obviously it's a bit hard for an administrator to make a fair decision when he is one of the parties involved in whatever is going on.

4) Carlosguitar claims the section had no references, when in fact it had several hard sources such as BBC World and Amnesty International for crime and violence, FGV for the social security problems, etc. People can check an old version and see this for themselves. This also means there was no "original research".

5) Carlosguitar claims the social issues subsection violates “NPOV”, but he has never explained why – until now… he thinks we can’t have a “social issues” section without a “social developments” section. What he fails to understand is that the word “issues” is not necessarily a synonym of the word “problems” – “issues”, in this context, means “aspects” or “matters” – they are highlights of a certain topic, important things that should be mentioned. That being said, in a “social issues” subsection you can talk about negative and positive sides of social stuff related to Brazil.

6) “Social issues” are a complex topic, but so are “Law”, “Economy” and “Government”. If we can make a synthesis of “Law”, “Economy” and “Government” in two or three paragraphs, why can’t we make a synthesis of “Social issues”, expanding its details in a subpage?

7) Size is not the only problem in “Brazil”. Stability is also a great problem. Note this page has been “protected” for many months and there are endless debates filling the talk page.

8) I never opposed a revision of the subsection – in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about – editors trying to improve things. What I can’t agree with is the exclusion of relevant information. So we can talk about football but there’s no room in the article to mention social inequality in Brazil, which happens to be one of the largest in the world?

Sparks1979 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Sparks1979, refer to the link below:

[[9]]

WikiProject Countries do not specify such section. If "social issues" is not included under the main Project why should we include in here? I don't understand why you insist in creating such a section under the article of a country. I would recommend you to focus your energy in the main article about social issues in Brazil: Social issues in Brazil. I didn't see your name under the contribution list, so I quite don't understand what you want to achieve here...

--Mhsb (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Countries do not specify such section. If "social issues" is not included under the main Project why should we include in here?

WikiProject Countries also doesn't mention a section on "Sports", nor a section on "Languages" or "Energy Policy". Yet we have them here. Some of them may be only subsections, but this is also the case of "Social Issues", which was never a section.

If you look at Featured Articles such as Canada, you will quickly notice many of its sections such as "International Rankings", "Law", or "Foreign relations and military" also don't follow the WikiProject Countries guidelines. I guess they are more of a suggestion, or else FA articles would follow them more strictly. There are other examples such as India ("Flora and fauna"). If they are FA articles, I think it's pretty clear your argument doesn't stand. Nice try anyway.

I don't understand why you insist in creating such a section under the article of a country.

Because I think a scientific description of any political entity should always be balanced. If only positive or only negative aspects are mentioned, we will have a distorted view. In the case of Brazil, the main problems have a social nature. Thus, it seems easier to mention them under a "social aspects/issues" heading. In any case, I'm a person open to new ideas. If people suggest a better way of organizing the information, I will be listening. For instance, the same information can be placed under a different heading, or it can be scattered around the article. What I don't accept - in the case of any article in Wikipedia - is the removal of relevant and important information.

I would recommend you to focus your energy in the main article about social issues in Brazil: Social issues in Brazil

Maybe in the future. Right now it's far from the top of my list of priorities. I prefer to write about things which I know more about, such as Law or the Military, for instance.

I didn't see your name under the contribution list, so I quite don't understand what you want to achieve here...

If you are talking about Social issues in Brazil, you are correct. My name is not under the contribution list and it will stay this way for some time. I wanted to work on the main Brazil article when I started as an editor in Wikipedia. The article wasn't so good, and I rewrote a major part of it back in 2007. Some of its sections were entirely written by me, and at the time we managed to bring it to GA status. Therefore, I feel I did a good job over here. I stopped working on this article when I felt too many people with different views were trying to contribute at the same time. There were too many discussions. Since nowadays I have very little free time as an editor, I prefer to devote it to smaller articles where few people are working and where there's still a lot to be done. Brazil is already looking pretty good, and since last year I've felt it's time new people with fresh ideas should participate. Maybe they can make the last few improvements which are still necessary before Brazil becomes a featured article.

Sparks1979 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)