User:Hoary/Archive22

John Asfukzenski

John Asfukzenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — he's gotta be kidding, right? I mean "Ass-fucks-inski"? Surely he could be permablocked on the username alone? ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The resemblance hadn't occurred to me, and now that you bring it to my attention I find it unremarkable. Still, you're welcome to bring it up here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the template {{uw-username}} to express your concern about the username. WP:UAA is not the place to go as the username has been around for a little bit (just about four months, in fact). WP:UAA is only for recently-created usernames. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Anyway, I'm much more concerned about Asfukzenski's bizarre editing pattern, delayed but not altered by a block, than I am about his name. -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how much longer User:John Asfukzenski's unexplained content removal will be tolerated? Despite two blocks and multiple warnings, his editing pattern has not improved. APK because, he says, it's true 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Basket.

Well well, what a to-do. If posterity is interested, the Great Debate may be found here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Hi

Thanks for your contributions. It was an outburst after I realized that Opinoso (a foreigner) has been controlling Brazilian related themes at wikipedia, and he has bullied Brazilians (check the history of his posts, some are contributive, but in most cases he bullies Brazilian posters). Opinoso claims to be Brazilian, but he is not, he is definitely a liar. As for the "lier" instead of "liar" I apologize.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Holtby

Hey, I'm only messaging you because you currently seem to be active :) Could you please take care of the speedy on Holtby‎ please so I can move the page back? Thank you :) Jeni ^(talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a pleasure (a pleasant change from unrelated silliness). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! While a small act alone doesn't deserve a barnstar, you can have a picture of one instead! Jeni ^(talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Hi! Are you doing OK? Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? I took a quick look at his talk page and saw lots of stern messages about his edits, but when I looked through his recent edits I didn't see anything that merited a block. (Irritation, maybe; block, no.) In one article I saw what seemed like a low intensity edit war between both of you, but I didn't see any sources adduced by either side, or any attempt to discuss matters on the talk page. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're right; it's past my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he seems to be a reincarnation of this banned user who never used talk page when other users suggested and drove us nuts. Both users' edits are basically the same. Irritation, yes, yes, yes. But it's OK. I trust your judgment. Sleep tight and have a good and dirty pinku dream, Sir! Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Welsh placenames

Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to add them. Any other addition will be regarded as vandalism. Skinmeister (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[Non] conversation closed. (Anyone wanting earlier and later messages should see here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Henri Cartier-Bresson

If his work generally can't be described as photojournalism, then he shouldn't have been in "photojournalists" in the first place. If "photographers" is more appropriate and accurate, then he can certainly be in that one instead — but it's not necessary or desirable for a person to be in both categories at the same time. I'd note, however, that the article's lead paragraph describes him as essentially the father of photojournalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree on all counts. If a substantial amount of his work is photojournalism, then he's a photojournalist; and even if this is true, if a substantial amount of his photographic work is not photojournalism, then he's also a photographer aside from being a photojournalist. His fatherhood of anything is irrelevant here. (The last time I looked at it, the [poor] article said that he was the father of modern journalism, or similar [a statement that might actually mean something if elaborated; until then, one might as well say that Salomon or Peress or somebody else was the father]; but it didn't say he was the father of photojournalism, which would be plain wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hedvig Malina

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your actions at this article. It would seem that you are engaging in the edit war,[1] but also using your admin tools to then protect the article on your version.[2] Your comments on the talkpage also seem uncivil, as you are repeatedly referring to "boneheadedness".[3][4] Is it possible that you are too close to the situation to be using admin tools? Or am I missing something? --Elonka 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by a freshly created puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. As far as I remember, that's been my sole change to that article. Further, I haven't edited any related article in months. (I'm thinking of Bratislava, which I observed descending from FA status to a battlefield thanks to boneheadedness on both sides of a dreary ethnic feud.) In the recent history of article (about somebody of whom I'd never heard until this evening), I saw evidence of what I could most easily call boneheadedness. (I've no reason to think that either side has a monopoly or even majority of this boneheadedness, and don't think I suggested otherwise.) As the article was being edited by a puppet of a bad-tempered and freshly blocked person, sprotecting seemed an excellent idea. The version is not "my" version, it's the version preceding the edit by the puppet. I have no opinion on which version is better, just as I have no opinion or knowledge of the facts of the sordid little story described in the article. I hope this answers your questions. -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a bit. I've done quite a bit of admin work in the Hungary/Slovakia area, so I know how complex some of these situations can be! I agree with the semi-protection, though it probably wasn't a good idea for an admin to do any reverting directly since I'm sure the normal editors on that page would have jumped on it. If an admin does do such a revert, it probably would have been better to include a more detailed edit summary, such as "reverting BLP violation" or "reverting edit by banned user (name)".

I also still have strong concerns that language such as "boneheadedness" was used at the talkpage, and I'd appreciate if you'd refactor your posts to something more neutral. Especially in this topic area, it's very important that administrators, who are perceived as authority figures, set a good example. Or in other words, if one of the normal edit warriors were routinely calling other editors "boneheads", or referring to their edits as such, I'd probably give them a civility warning, and then if they continued, I'd block them. So it sends mixed messages if an administrator is using the same language (with seeming impunity) that other editors might be blocked for!

Thanks for listening, --Elonka 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry for lacking the stamina to elaborate, but it's already an hour or so after my desired bedtime. I wish you luck dealing with the miscellaneously aggrieved parties. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much.  :) One of the reasons I was so concerned about this, is that I know from experience that the Hedvig Malina article is a "flashpoint" article that most of the parties (on both sides) have on their watchlists. Disputes at that article can rapidly overflow to multiple other articles. I do appreciate your administrative help in this topic area though, and would be delighted if you would stick around to help! The more admins to help stabilize things, the better! In any case, sleep well, --Elonka 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this block. I have grown SO tired of Mary Surratt dancing her way into our dreams and that pathetic little addition detailing her hanging. The only edits I tend to see at that article is that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That blocked user

Hi Hoary! The blocked user Magyar nem ember, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magyar_nem_ember contribs) who made the disruptive edits at article Hedvig Malina returned as IPuser: 195.30.17.81 and user:78.99.230.65. Please check this edit, and his contributions and compare them with user:78.99.230.65's edits, (his contributions).--B@xter⁹ 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this with this and this--B@xter⁹ 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Magyar nem ember" is blocked as a username. As far as I know, the person who used that username is not blocked as a user. As long as he isn't, he is in principle welcome to edit without logging in via whichever IP happens to be available. This is of course not a license for him to indulge in an edit war, just as nobody else has a license to indulge in an edit war with him. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? (+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "principle welcome to edit"--B@xter⁹ 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." | I think this template is misplaced, but the person who placed it there states on his own page that he's not available for questioning.

From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." | Yes, no question about this.

This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? | I don't think he is violating it when he posts as an IP, no.

(+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "[in] principle welcome to edit" | Will you next ask me when I stopped beating my wife? If you're asking me whether I think it's good that racists are allowed to edit articles about this kind of thing, then I'd answer no, I think it's very bad indeed. Moreover, I'd rather that there were hugely more stringent requirements than just "not a racist": would-be editors would have to prove that they were openminded, sceptical, and dispassionate. But this is just my own personal opinion.

Back from what I think to what Wikipedia tends to think collectively. Your own editing history, compounded by the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view. This being so, if you see any editing behavior that both (a) appears to be partisan and (b) appears to break this or that (partisanship-irrelevant) Wikipedia rule, and if you then revert it on the grounds that it breaks some (partisanship-irrelevant) rule, it's likely that your own reversion will be (rightly or wrongly) decried as partisan. So don't revert. Instead, bring the matter up as dispassionately as possible at WP:AN/I or some other place where uninvolved people may see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, from WP:COI "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." So would you explain to me how could a Slovak racist editor with a name "Hungarians don't belong to the Human race" edit a Hungary-Slovakia related article without violating this or WP:NPOV?

"the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view." You mean that I am not neutral???? Why do you think so? Would you specify this? Design??? You mean I have a "Hungarian pogácsa" on my userpage or what?! And exactly what is the problem with my contribution list???

Should I count how many times did I post a comment at ANI?--B@xter⁹ 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"A suggests that there is a possibility that B is true" does not imply "B is true". Please reread what I wrote, carefully and slowly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what gives you the "suggestion"?--B@xter⁹ 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I will do what the other Hungarians (87%) did in the last years.... If you want to find out why, read article Hungary–Slovakia relations and ask user:Elonka. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of Hungary–Slovakia relations. I do not know what you are referring to when you talk of what 87% of Hungarians did in recent years, but I am not going to trouble Elonka with a request to explain other editors' allusions or intentions. Now, the article Language law of Slovakia is a dreary partisan battlefield, with many sane and informative parts and also some parts that are so bad that they are unintentionally (if only blackly) amusing. I hope that you can help improve the article. One way to do so would be to source some of what is now unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The design of your user page emphasizes Hungary, Hungary, Hungary, Hungary. As, of course, is your right. Now, if you participate in some editorial dispute that can rightly or wrongly be interpreted as a Hungarian/Slovak dispute, then it's unlikely that you will be perceived as disinterested. Please do not ask me again to spell out what really should be obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on usernames

Hoary do you find usernames like "Jews are not human" "Blacks are not human" and analogous usernames acceptable? Do you think a person with that type of attitude should be editing wikipedia under any account or circumstance? Do you find such name as prima facie evidence of it's user being a fascist editor, or do you view it as something not to worry about? Please answer these questions. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No I do not find such usernames acceptable. Do I think people who'd choose such usernames should be editing an encyclopedia under these usernames, under innocuous usernames, or with no usernames? No I do not. Choice of such a username is compatible with fascism, but hardly evidence of fascism. Fascist or otherwise, I worry about it. I hope that I have answered your questions. ¶ However, I wonder why you ask what I think is and isn't right. I suspect that you presume that I suppose that this encyclopedia is run as I'd like it to be run. It is not. For one thing, if this were instead Hoaripedia (let's call it), then the right to edit would be not only easier to lose but also harder to get. And another: in Hoaripedia, a lot of other policies would be very different from the way they are now: fascists, racists and the like would be out the door very fast. Here in Wikipedia, however, such people are, by default, entitled to edit, whether you or I like it or not. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation help

A problem with a translation of a few words could be solved very easily and in multiple ways. If you visit this link [5] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [[6]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or you can request the translation of the whole "sentence". Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem" [7] and "ember" [8]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More Marilyn

Well, "that film" has re-appeared in Marilyn Monroe. I've left comments on the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

First you have "that film" and soon thereafter you have discreet little plugs here and there for this dreck to video. I quote: "Warning! This synopsis contains spoilers". Let's spell it out: she's dead. The non-necrophile majority have got over it; but some people just continue to go rouge. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Reason

I have to ask, "Being silly" is a real reason to block some one now? Now I don't question that s/he had it coming, but being silly, really? By the by, very quick, was it reported at WP:AIV or did you just notice it in the RCs? Rgoodermote  08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to expend more than four syllables on attention-seeking nitwits and I'm reluctant to aggrandize their silliness by calling it "vandalism". As you said, "s/he had it coming". If somebody wants to report me somewhere for abuse of something or other, then, if I may quote a bad movie, "Make my day." (Not that I mind your polite question, of course.) ¶ I saw a couple of the edits in my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did anything wrong, just was a rather odd block reason and a right funny one at that. Rgoodermote  09:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to satisfy your curiosity. Happy editing! (Me, I'll mostly be editing WP-unrelated stuff for the "RL" for the next few days.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about arrogance. Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I understand there is no rigor in Wikipedia's administrator recruit policies but come on, it's as if you're trying to fit the definition by being a carefree asshole. Ytny 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I'm rather lost, but since I did talk of "attention-seeking nitwits" I think the "you" is me and the "him" is Rgoodermote. ¶ Rgoodermote had a simple question that I was happy to answer. This shows me blocking somebody for "Vandalism: being silly". Here "being silly" is an optional gloss provided for "Vandalism". "Vandalism" seemed the least inaccurate among several short words/phrases suggested by the blocking software as a terse description of what this person was doing. However, for me "vandalism" still has a link, however tenuous, to the sacking of Rome and the building of an empire; it seemed to aggrandize this IP's puerile behavior, which strikes me now, as it did then, as silly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you thought he wasn't being serious when he vandalized the article, hence the suffix "being silly". That was a bit hard for me to comprehend with all of the pretentious synonyms and weird syntax used in your response, but I managed to figure out what you were trying to tell me so no biggy. Ytny 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMMORTAL SAMURAI (talk • contribs)

No biggy! Considering the wrath of the immortal samurai aka Ytny elsewhere, I tremble and consider myself lucky to have got off with mere accusations of (i) being or resembling or attempting to resemble "a carefree asshole" and (ii) use of "pretentious synonyms and weird syntax". -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Magibon

I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New sock poppet is back

Hello. You blocked this user because of his multiple accounts in WIkipedia. The user is back as User:Grenzer22, with another sock poppet. Notice that both accounts are the same person because they speak the same things: [9] [10]. Opinoso (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Grenzer22's edits are worrisome. I've already issued one warning and I'll copy it to their talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably sock puppet

Could you please investigate this case ?. It seems to be another user with a sock puppet. Opinoso (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too busy to investigate their editing patterns and even if I were not too busy I'd be reluctant to do it as I am heartily sick of the matter of ethnic affiliations and skin colors of people in south America. Meanwhile, I have no checkuser privileges. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vivian Maier

Hello, I have seen your name in the history and discussions of photography-related articles. Could you tell me what you think of this article? I started it after reading a news story about the discovery of her photos. They seem to have created a buzz in the blogosphere, but there are few mainstream media sources so far and I found myself dependent on the blog of the discoverer Maloof for some facts. See my argument here. The question is whether it was premature to start this article in the first place? Perhaps it would be better to delete it for now and wait for some more substantial publication to appear? --Hegvald (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, thanks but... I have just been arguing vehemently against the refname-type footnotes at the VP and for using a list of references to keep footnotes lightweight. You will now find me ungrateful if I revert you... --Hegvald (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oop, crossed edits.

That's a jolly surprise; I like to hear of photographers I've never heard of. (I exclude self promoting photographers and specialists in such dreary areas as sleb portraiture.)

No, there's no reason to delete. True, a blog is not normally a reliable source, but the efforts of the writer of this one have been recognized by newspapers so your use of it is appropriate.

I consolidated the notes+references and then saw this edit of yours. I understand your point and am happy to revert myself or be reverted, but then I'd urge that the notes should be shortened: see Ueno Hikoma for a (not quite consistent) use of the combination of terse notes and detailed reference list. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that Maloof gives bits and pieces about Maier and the story of his discovery of her photos in different places, so it is difficult to find a single good text to refer to. Some is in the subheading of the blog, some in the sidebar, other things in dated blog entries, and yet more in the interview with The Independent. I also found a forum discussion on Flickr, where he had written about it. Hopefully, there will appear a longer article somewhere soon. I was surprised not to find any article in Chicago newspapers through Google News.

Good to know that there is a WikiProject History of photography. I mistakenly posted to the talk page of the WikiProject Photography without looking about for a better place. --Hegvald (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Another problem seems to be that Maloof is a careless writer. (I don't want to make a big deal of this, and don't want to bring it up on the talk page of the article, unless necessary.) So I'd urge care, though not because I think Maloof intends to mislead (I don't think this).

As you've probably noticed, WikiProject History of photography is, uh, somnolent. Hope I don't sound too vampiric when I say that new blood is always welcome. Do please announce your new creation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is not a writer, after all, and at this point he is holding back stuff that he is saving for the book he is planning. I wonder how he will solve the copyright issues. If Maier did not write a will giving her property to her former charges from her early nannyhood (with whom Maloof appear to be in contact), there could presumably be a nephew from France suddenly appearing to claim the rights to her images. --Hegvald (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But WP:BEANS prevents me from adding comments that might be misinterpreted by any such nephew. I just wish Maloof would go over the text material that he does choose to divulge now -- but that's blogs for you. He (or somebody) is certainly doing a good job with the photos themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with user Opinoso

Hello, Hoary. I was wondering if you could clear some doubts that I have, please. There is an user called Opinoso in the article Brazil who is causing trouble. Here goes a summary about him:

1. His behavior has been criticized by at least three other editors beyond me in that article. Grsz11 in here, Debresser in here and here and Ninguém in here.
2. It was found that he fabricated information that his sources does not have. See in here. This is very serious, as it damages Wikipedia image as a reliable enciclopedia.
3. It is not the first time that he enters in trouble and is punished for that. See in here a serious warning given by an Administrator towards him.|
4. He creates trouble with other editors and complains with Administrators like he was an innocent victim while taking words out of its true context. It is also common to him to accuse editors for things he does.

I must confess to you that I do not know what to do with him anymore. What should I do? - --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these allegations against Opinoso interest me very little. However, those by Ninguém and yourself are indeed serious because they charge that Opinoso misrepresented sources. It's now past my bedtime and I am not right now in a mood to look any further, but I believe that the material whose interpretation is disputed is all in Portuguese. If this is so, I cannot be of help because I cannot read Portuguese. The issues discussed seem to arouse passions among a lot of Brazilians but I'd hope that they'd be viewed more coolly by a large percentage of Portuguese editors. (Perhaps wrongly, I assume that the number of editors from Mozambique, etc, is negligible.)

I suggest that you stop complaining about his general conduct (however much this seems to merit complaint) and instead work relentlessly toward sourcing the material that you want to add or that he wants to remove. If there's any dispute over this material, let's hear about it.

A long time ago, I tried to encourage this approach here. Ninguém was cooperative, but not quite enough so. Opinoso did not cooperate at all. That was of course his right (nobody is under any obligation to edit as I propose) but it did not endear him to me. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But, that is exactly the problem. Ask the other editors if you want to. I'll give as an example the history section: I took paragraphies and more paragraphies from history books written by renowned historians, both Brazilians and foreigners (who have even their own wiki biography articles) and showed to everyone. Then Opinoso appeared and called it "personal theories" or something similar. He got to the point of saying that his grandmother did not agree with me! See here. So, who is right, his grandmother or the historian Thomas Skidmore? Not only that, but when he tried to use sources, as I told you, he was not faithful to them! Can you see how hard is it to deal with someone like him? - --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I should make it clear that I do not value foreign historians over Brazilian historians, or material in English over material in Portuguese. It's just an unfortunate fact that I can't read Portuguese. (Incidentally, I also do not have easy access to any library that has more than a token amount of material about South America in any language.)

Now this is a most interesting diff. Respected historians can and do disagree with each other. If (a) historian S disagrees with historian Y, (b) unschooled grandmother Z agrees with historian Y and (c) historian Y happens to be right, then indeed unschooled grandmother Z beats respected historian S. But of course this doesn't legitimize Opinoso's argument. Instead he has to come up with convincing material from historian Y.

Clearly you are unhappy with Opinoso and Opinoso is unhappy with you. I'm trying to keep an open mind on the matter. (Or more frankly I'm trying to keep out of the matter. And for a period of about one week starting very soon I may well be too busy to do anything with Wikipedia, let alone consider questions about Brazil.) But if you really want to have something done I recommend that you create a list of up to ten of the most convincing diffs relating to any one article (the article itself and/or its talk page), and a short explanatory comment by you. The comment must provide a minimum of information for those who are unfamiliar with the relevant issues in Brazilian social history, and it must be cool and polite. No capitals, no "!". Say nothing whatever about Opinoso (or any other editor); just stick to the content issues. Write it but don't post it anywhere. Then think hard about how it risks being interpreted or misinterpreted by a hostile reader, and revise it defensively. Revise it and revise it, and when you're sure that it's persuasive and bulletproof carefully follow the instructions and advice at here. Yes, this is a request for comment (RFC) on an issue of content, not an RFC on a user. If you start an RFC on Opinoso (or if he starts one on you) without first trying this, people will just yawn and dismiss it as a personal feud. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to adress some of the points you made, if you don't mind:

1. I understand that you don't speak Portuguese. There are few editors in here that are Brazilians and could help on dealing with this issue, unfortunately.
2. About Historian X and Y and someone's grandmother's opinion: I took the work of one British historian, two American historians and four Brazilian historians. See here. Opinoso said that all of them were biased, gave his grandmother's opinion and then made his edits that were later proved to be fabricated once I found an online copy of the book he said that he had used as source and revealed that none of his claims were in it. None. The link to it I already gave it to you.
3. Don't worry, I am not asking you to pick sides, but only to guide me on this issue.
4. Please, do not think as this issue as something like "Lecen x Opinoso". I have never, I repeat, never had any issue with any other editor until now. He, on the other side, cannot say the same. And as I revealed to you, other editors on the article do not apreciate what he does.
5. Do you want to know how we settled the dispute in the history subsection in the article? Me and the other editors we discussed point by point and agreed with a final solution at the same time that we simply ignored Opinoso (because it is him and only him the one who disagrees).
6. I always, always and always keep my head cool down. I try to be polite and I warned Opinoso several times that he had to stop attacking me. Another editor asked for an Administrator help and that's where he got that warning that he would be blocked if he continued doing it. I said that I would ask for his head, it is truth. I was tired of all wrong things he did and I do want him to be banned from here.
7. About the RFC: Although I had several reasons to ask him to be banned from here, from the fact that he fabricates info to personal attacks, I prefered to let him in peace, because I believed that he would simply vanish. Of course, he did not. It was he who opened the RFC, it was he who started reverting without waiting for other editor's opinions. Not me.
8. Beyond me, there other two editors who are on my side at this new dispute. Opinoso has the support of an editor called Auréola that not only write exactly like him, uses the same sources as him, and attack editors for no reason just like him. Opinoso already accused me of being Racist, of being Anti-Brazilian (although I am Brazilian) and having a political Agenda. Hoary, that is not the attitude of someone who has only a different thought on a content.
9. Lastly, I would like to thank you for your patience and help. I do really apreciate it. I will try (again) to discuss the content. However, as long as an editor like Opinoso stays in here, trouble will always arise. - --Lecen (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. I'll get back to you within 24 hours, but now unfortunately am in a rush. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly upset by a lot of factors. For now, let's consider two of them.

First, you claim that Opinoso has misdescribed the content of a book by Darcy Ribeiro -- that in various places O claims that DR has written one thing whereas DR wrote something substantially different or remained silent on the subject. For this charge to stick, you have to do two things. (i) You must demand just where or how DR wrote what he's alleged to have written. DR's book appears here and in the following pages. If something is contentious, ask for the Portuguese-language phrase or sentence, so that it can be found. (ii) We have to find a neutral person who can read Portuguese in order to judge. Portuguese people of course qualify. (Don't look for them; I can try to do so.)

Secondly, you have elsewhere claimed that DR's book, even when correctly understood, is a piece of communist/Marxist propaganda with strong messages of racial hatred.[...] Now, I happen to think that some communists and Marxists can and do write excellent history books and I'm untroubled by part of your longer description of the book. However, I'm also troubled by part. Should DR's book (when represented fairly and accurately) be taken as scrupulous, reliable or fairhanded? Clearly you have one view on this and O has another. Deservedly or otherwise, obviously DR was a prominent writer. I'd have thought that the value of his writing would have received intelligent academic commentary by now. Can you cite some? -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Hoary. I was not clear enough. The matter about mishandling sources and fabricating them has already been discussed and settled. That happened when Opinoso appeared complaining about the history section improvements. Everytime I and any other editor asked him to explain himself on why he fabricated information, he simply ignored or tried to evade the matter. It was not only the Darcy Ribeiro's books. Another example I can give to you: he added to the text that during Emperor Pedro II of Brazil reign was the moment in Brazilian history that most slaves were brought to Brazil. He used a website as an online source. We looked into it, and found out (surprise, surprise!), that such information did not exist in it. About Darcy Ribeiro himself: DR was a renowned radical communist who was banned from Brazil in the 1960s for plotting with the old USSR to make of Brazil a communist dictatorship. But, ignore that. The problem is that his books has passages that attack (unfairly) Jews, Whites and the Catholic Church. Things like "The Jews dominated the Portuguese for hundred of years" in the sense of conquest, of tyranny. I don't remember any Jew conquering Portugal any time, but... You asked me if we could use his book. Well, we could use Mein Kampf from Adolf Hitler to explain Nazism. Should we use it to explain ethnicity? No! At most (at most!) to reveal how ethnicity was perceived in the beginning of the 1940s. But forget all this, this is not the issue anymore.

So, you ask me: what the hell is the problem, then? Here it is: the discussion now is on the Demographics subsection. See, Brazil is the product of three main people: Europeans, Native Brazilians and Africans. Depending on the region, the mixture between those three people might be higher or lesser. For example, African slaves were brought mainly to Rio de Janeiro to work in coffe farms in the 19th century. This is why today Rio de Janeiro has those beautiful mulatto women (descendants of Whites and Blacks). At the end of the 19th century, hundreds of thousands of European immigrants came to Brazil and settled in the southern region and in São Paulo. That is why there in Brazil today most of the population (from 70% to 85%) are whites. What about the Northeastern and Northern regions? In htere, the majority of the population was composed of Native Brazilians (Indians). Once the Portuguese began settling in there, within some time, their offsprings (the Caboclos) became the dominant group as it is today.

So, what is exactly the problem? Well, in Brazil, officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. Pardo, in plain English, means "Brown". But while in the United States a "Brown" person means and Afro-descendant person, in Brazil, as I wrote, it means a much broader category. Translation is not an issue only in this case, also. Another example: in Brazil, the Portuguese word "Mestiço" (Or Mestizo in Spanish) (half-breed) is used to represent any multiracial Brazilian. In Spanish America, "Mestizo" is used to represent the descendants of Spanish and Indians only. Got the point? So, what does Opinoso do? He look in "Pardo" and add its numbers to "Black" category in the IBGE data and call both "Blacks". Ta-dã! Magic! Out of nowhere, all the Indian descendant population of the famous Amazon rainforest (the northern region of Brazil) become Black as an true African. A Pardo in the northeast will probably mean a descendant of White and Indian, while a pardo in the southeast will probably mean a descendant of white and black. As I said, officialy, they are all grouped in one group only. However, in day-to-day life, on Encilopedias, or in other books, they are divided in Caboclos, Mulattoes and Cafuzos, so to avoid the Amazon rainforest example that I gave it to you. So, what does Opinoso do the prove his point? First, he says that IBGE treats both Pardos and Blacks as Blacks only. That is hilarious, because then, if IBGE treats both as the same, why does it lose its time counting both categories on its data separately? What do we call that? Personal research. Second, Opinoso gets DNA studies to prove that everybody is black. So, if in the Northern region the population has 15% of African genes, to him, that means that they are blacks. A person who has 40% of African genes but looks white as an European, to him, it is black. It is the same as to say that the Portuguese are Arabs only because 30% of the population has Arab genes (Portugal was conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages) even though they do not look as Arabs. I could even go farther, if you want to: Black Brazilians have an average of 48% non-African genes, most of them may come from Portuguese ancestors. Check the link. At least 50% of the Brazilian population's Y Chromosome comes from Portugal. So, if half of the genes of Afro-Brazilians are from White people, are they considered white then? Of course not! Of half of the Brazilians are considered Portuguese? No! Can you see how absurd are Opinoso's claims? - --Lecen (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Above, you write officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. But here, after some reformatting and a lot of abridging, is what I read at Pardo:

In Brazil, Pardo is a racial classification used in the official census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in censuses since 1950. The word is Portuguese for "brown" or "grey-brown". The other classifications are branco ("White"), negro ("Black"), amarelo ("yellow", meaning East Asians), and indígena ("indigenous", meaning Amerindians). ...

According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Pardo is a broad classification that encompasses Brazilians of mixed race ancestry, mulattos, and assimilated indigenous people ("caboclos"). ...

The Brazilian census is based on self-classification, then any person can claim to be Pardo. ...

Races are molded in accordance with perceptions and ideologies prevalent in each historical moment. In the 20th century, a significant part of Brazilians who used to self-report to be Black in earlier censuses chose to move to the Pardo category. A smaller but also significant part of the population that used to self-report to be White also chose to move to the Pardo category. Magnoli describes this phenomenon as the "pardização" (pardization) of Brazil. ...

Unofficially, Brazilians also use a racial classification of "moreno", a word that also means "brown". In a 1995 survey, 32% of the population self-identified as "moreno", with a further 6% self-identifying as "moreno claro" ("light brown"), and 7% self-identified as "pardo". Telles describes both classifications as "biologically invalid", but sociologically significant. ...

As that's Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. But for what it's worth I understand it as meaning that people are whichever they say they are among the options of branco, negro, amarelo, indígena and pardo. If so, people are free to fantasize (cf the character "Ali G") or even to misrepresent what they believe; but putting aside those extreme possibilities, somebody who would be commonly regarded to be mixture of θ and φ -- where θ and φ are any two of branco, negro, amarelo, and indígena -- would be entirely free to call himself θ or φ or pardo. I see no hint of anyone putting anyone in any category, and don't know what you mean by officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only unless it's merely there are no categories "Cabloco" or "Mulatto" in the census and it's assumed that such people will call themselves "Pardo".

Is there any pressing reason to go beyond self-reporting when analyzing the "race" of Brazilians? -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The IBGE does not tell people what hey are. It simply asks how the people consider itself. So, someone who is a caboclo might call himself "Moreno" while someone who is a mulatto might call himself also "moreno". Because "moreno" in a free translation to English would be similar to "Brown". However, a caboclo and a mulatto are clearly not the same. When I said "officialy" I meant that IBGE simply gather all multiethinic categories into one: Pardo. However, if you pick a history book, or an enciclopedia, both will be more precise than IBGE. Here are a few examples of the ethnic composition of the Brazilian population:

Brazil: "The whites, in their majority, are descendants of the atlanto-mediterranean people (Portugueses, Spanish, Italian); ; therefore; it is the country with the greatest white population in the tropical world. The mestizos occupy a place of great prominence, being represented by caboclos (descending of whites and amerindians), mulattoes (of whites and blacks) and cafuzos (of blacks and amerindians) the blacks are equivalent to around 10%, while the remaining are yellow, particularly the Japanese and theirs descendants". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.230)

Northern region: "More than 60% of the population are formed by caboclos, mestizos of white and indian, provenient of crossings done in the region iteself or that came from the northeast region, during the rubber rush (1877-1910). The blacks are very scarce (04%). Beyond the whites, descendants of Portugusse-Brazilians (30%), there exist yellows represented by a minority of Japanese [...] and a decreasing number of indians, many of which still far away from civilization". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.255)

Northern region: "The northeastern population, of Portuguese origin finds itself intensely mixed with the primitive indian population (from which remain only modest residues) and with black elements, brought of Africa."(Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.258)

Where in the Northeastern region the Africans had a greater impact:

Bahia: "The population of Bahia presents a strong contingent of blacks and mulattoes, concentrated in the Recôncavo [the region around the capital Salvador], beyond numerous caboclos, who predominate in the plateaus [all the remaining area of the state], not mentioning the population of white color." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 3: Aparelho digestivo – Battle y Ordóñez. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Bahia", p.399)

Maranhão: "The population is concentrated mainly in the plains in the litoral and in the Itapecuru valley with strong ratio of blacks and mulattoes, beyond indian remainders of the tupis and jês groups." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 10: Judô – Merúrio. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Maranhão", p.355)

According to Opinoso, Pardo and Black are the same, which they aren't. And also according to him, 85% of the population in the northeastern and northern Brazil are blacks, which they aren't. Most are caboclos, followed by a minority of whites and mulattoes and a few blacks. - --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

All of your quotations are from a single source. I've no reason to think that this encyclopedia was not edited intelligently or fairly, given what was known at the time. However, not only ideas on "race" but also knowledge of pigmentation have changed. I quote an admittedly brief remark in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (Harper Perennial paperback, p.229):

[Dr Oliver Curry, 'evolution scientist' from the Darwin@LSE research centre] has perhaps not been to Brazil, where black Africans, white Europeans and Native Americans have been having children for many years. The Brazilians have not gone coffee-coloured: in fact they still show a wide range of skin pigmentation, from black to tan. Studies of skin pigmentation (some of them specifically performed in Brazil) show that skin pigmentation seems not to be related to the extent of your African heritage, and suggest that color may be coded for by a fairly small number of genes, and probably doesn't blend and even out as Oliver suggests.

If true, this makes one's skin color a very different matter from the average skin color of, say, one's 256 great×6 grandparents. So we can talk about either ancestors or color if we want to, but we'd be unwise to mix up talk about both.

Does this newer edition of Enciclopédia Barsa use the same language?

This is congruent with what Goldacre writes, and looks like the kind of thing that articles here should be based on, though they should not be based directly on such papers but instead based on academic works that aggregate or review these papers. -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with user Opinoso, part 2.

You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:

Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ([11] [12]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:

First message: “You have added several pictures of White Brazilians and, maliciously, erased pictures of Black, Mestizos and Asian Brazilians. If you have problems with racism, you should look after a psychiatry medic because, in Brazil, racism it is a crime with no bail and, in the future, you might end up in jail.”

Second message: “Your ignorance manages to scare me. I did not know public education in Brazil was so decadent to the point of producing people like you. [...] You probably have inferiority complex, because you must had wanted to be Nordic White but you are not. With all sure you are not descendant of European immigrants. [...] You are a Pardo boy who wanted to be European. It is really sad. I just warn you to be careful, because racism in Brazil it is a crime and I already have enough proofs to denounce you for this crime and put you in jail [...]. Those are enough motives to keep you behind bars for some years.”

This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ([13] [14]), Sparks1979 ([15] [16]) and Felipe Menegaz ([17]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ([18]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ([19]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ([20]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”([21] [22] [23]) if not “racists” ([24] [25]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ([26]).

Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? --Lecen (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right then, let's look at the charges:

He accused editors João Felipe C.S (9

Not a charge of racism, though close to one.

10),

Not a charge of racism, though close to one.

Sparks1979 (11

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

12)

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

and Felipe Menegaz (13).

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj (14).

Yes, stunningly rude (in 2007).

He also has no respect for rules or anything (15)

He's insisting on his right to post non-consensus comments on a talk page. There is indeed nothing wrong with doing so, and (in itself) pointing this out does not indicate lack of respect for rules.

and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English (16)

I see nothing wrong with the request.

He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”(17

Yes, a comment that's bizarre at best, rude and/or stupid at worst (2008).

18

Yes, a comment that's bizarre at best, rude and/or stupid at worst (2008).

19)

Yes, an allegation of vandalism. However, it's not immediately clear what it refers to, and since this was almost two years ago I'm not in the mood to spend time looking.

if not “racists” (20

Yes, a bizarre (at best) allegation of racism (2007).

21)

Yes, an allegation of racism (2008).

when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail (22).

Yes, something like that (2008).

Yes, you have established that Opinoso was a highly problematic user in 2007/2008. If I'd known that at the time, I might well have been on his case. But perhaps others were. After all, he was blocked from editing four times in 2007 alone.

I am well aware that Opinoso has got into long and dreary arguments with numerous editors. I am not happy about this. On the other hand a propensity for long-drawn-out squabbles isn't a blockable offense.

Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around?

Oh, this could well be because of a notorious design flaw in Wikipedia. Look, if the head of Wikipedia were not Jimbo Wales but me, the right to edit would be rather hard to acquire and pretty easy to lose. But fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the way Wikipedia is run. I can only block according to the existing rules concerning blocks: if I do otherwise, my blocks will be overturned (and rightly so).

I've never been to Brazil (though I'd like to), I know little about it, and I have very little interest in ethnic affiliation or skin color. I'm an outsider to all of this. I hope these articles improve in just the same way that I hope any other article improves. I'm willing to look at complaints and to act on them: and if they seem called for, to deliver long blocks. I'm also pretty busy. I have little patience for long complaints, no matter how heartfelt. I want recent diffs, with concise and understated comments. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, unfortunately, you keep seeing it as a content dispute. I am not even talking about that anymore. What I am talking is about a problematic user like Opinoso who gets into serious trouble more usually than it should be. I, and other FIVE editors, spent two entire weeks trying to stop Opinoso's anarchy in the discussion about the history section. Only when he was warned by Gwen that he would be blocked if he kept with his behavior was that he stopped and disappeared. That happened two weeks ago. Not a year. Two weeks. Then he reappeared, and I will transcribe exactly what I wrote to Gwen:

"About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([27] [28] [29] [30]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54 (yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([31]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment?"

And also:

"Because the first dispute I had with Opinoso I was backed by at least five other editors while he was alone and by himself. And that dispute was about the history section where he accused me of many things and you even warned him. Not ethnics, history. Six editors against one problematic editor like Opinoso can not be considered simply POV. I believe you are being a little bit unfair with me. Now on the ethnics dispute there are three editors against Opinoso. It always him and only him." - --Lecen (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to find the facts here.

You say above:

The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory.

If this is not just your personal theory, let's have some references for it. Please answer on the Talk:Pardo, which is on my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I will do that, but on the Brazil article. It will not be only the Pardo matter, it will anytime someone writes something that displeases Opinoso in the articles he owns. No matter the subject. Anyway, things are not going as I hoped. I try to reason, I try to talk with administrators, with other editors, and in the end, I am treated like the same as Opinoso. And it's unfair. It is the first time I have issue with an editor before. He, on the other hand had dozens before. I did not act "flawed" and nowhere I was not "carefully" when talking with you, or Gwen or anyone else. And if in any moment I did something that you may had considered as such, I am sorry. I am going to try to mobilize the reminaing editors from the article to deal with the matter. It is us against him, as always. I thank you for everything you did and for the patience you had. I mean it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About Opinoso, etc.

Hoary, you left this message in my Talk Page:

I think that you are referring to Gwen Gale and myself. I do not see this as a simple content issue and I don't think that she does either. Please read what she and I have written carefully, and then reply carefully. Then we will respond carefully and, where justified, firmly. But don't let the signal-to-noise ratio decline.

This may have been intended to Lecen, since I don't think I mentioned you or Gwen Gale.

Anyway, I have to agree with Lecen regarding the problems in Brazil. In fact, I have pointed those problems (though in other articles, White Brazilian and German Brazilian specifically) before Lecen became involved in the article. There is an enormous difficulty here, because content and behavioural issues get mixed. When behaviour problems are pointed, they tend to be dismissed as "content disputes". When content problems are raised, it is recommended to find a third opinion. But a third opinion is very difficult to find, due to the behaviour problems (Brazilian editors have been chased away from articles on Brazil, particularly on Brazilian ethnicity and demography, by the behaviour Lecen has described above). So we have a vicious circle; we cannot solve behaviour problems, because they are content problems. And we cannot solve content problems, because they are caused by behaviour problems...

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Brazil. In short, Opinoso wants to edit the page ("Yes, the article may be unblocked and the unreal Caboclo majority informations you added, which are not even cited in Barsa, will be erased.") to remove this part:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia[261] and Maranhão[262] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss] (the "dubious" tags were inserted by Opinoso)

He argues by quoting that:

"On the map, one can see that the black population in the Southeast and South of the country is below 40% - notably in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, where it stays below 25%. But in large parts of (states) of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá and in different points of Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins the map shows that blacks are more than 85% of the population."

According to him, this is by the IBGE. But, unhappily, the link he gives as a source ([32]) is not by the IBGE; it is a newspaper report about a publication that should have been issued in May 13th, 2008, but that I can't find in the internet.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about that. The IBGE counts Blacks ("pretos") and "pardos" separately. But other government agencies - notedly the Secretaria de Promoção da Igualdade Racial - sum the "preto" and "pardo" percents for practical purposes (which makes sence, since the "parda" population is subject to the same problems regarding racism and discrimination as the Blacks). This is then conflated into the notion that all "pardos" are Blacks, and therefore have African ancestry. It is by this reasoning - and in no other way - that it is possible to come to the conclusion that 85% of the population of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, or Piauí, is Black.

All bibliographic sources available (this includes Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro) point in a different direction: that the majority of the population in the Northern Region (where Amazonas, Pará and Amapá are located) is mainly of Euro-Amerindian descent, and even that the majority of the population of the Northeastern hinterland ("Sertão") has such characteristic.

When confronted with this, Opinoso opts out by making generic statements of the kind "all human beings are of African ancestry". Besides, of course, of accusing Lecen of using "personal theories", even "fake theories", and even more of course, posting this gem:

I won't answer Ninguém, because this user is angry with me for months, since I realized he was using Phone Books and surnames of people from Brazilian colleges to claim they are of "Portuguese descent"[28] (as if African Americans who have British surnames are of "British descent"). Since then, this user's account is dedicated to criticize me whatever there is an opportunity.

(This, of course, is a personal attack; and I find it very weird that while I am forbidden from "commenting on other editors", this individual gets along with this bald-faced lie. If you can do something to put an end to this situation, I would appreciate it very much.)

And to complement it, Opinoso states that the word "caboclo" makes no sence, and isn't used by Brazilians. Though, of course, it is much used by Darcy Ribeiro, who even has a whole chapter about "O Brasil Caboclo"... Ninguém (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and more:

Ribeiro may be used as source, he was a famous and renowned anthropologist. But Phone Books and vestibular lists may not. Ninguém (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ninguém, I was primarily writing to Lecen and not to you. But I was well aware that I was doing so on your talk page, and that you'd read it. In fact, I was hoping that you'd read it.

I can agree with much of what you write above, and find some of the other things you say above plausible. Again, I am most dissatisfied with the fact that articles on these subjects turn into battlegrounds, and am prepared to take drastic measures when I know that these are right and that they will stick. On the other hand I will not be swayed by the fact (if it is a fact; I haven't counted) that there's only one of him and six of you: unpopularity is not an offense.

I'm disappointed that Lecen doesn't seem to have responded to the section above on this page, in which I quote Goldacre. I've a hunch that a lot of the confusion results from lack of clarity and lack of scrupulousness over meanings. An imagined example: pardo may have meant both "brown [skinned]" and "multiracial" when it was assumed, or even sincerely believed, that brown skin and mixed ancestry meant the same thing. Now, however, it's known to geneticists that they do not mean the same thing, and this knowledge is starting to percolate elsewhere. Pardo may mean one thing to one scholar and another thing to another; a third scholar opposes its use because of its conflation of two factors that should not be conflated; a fourth uses it as a handy shortcut for what she asserts is a long-lasting misunderstanding; a fifth campaigns against it for ideological reasons that may color, but do not degrade her scholarly work. Meanwhile, the census merely presents it as a label, not (at that place, anyway) attempting to explain what it means by the label; the census bureau perhaps regrets the fact that it did previously explain what it meant by the term. Etc etc. All pure inventions on my part, but I guess there's something to it. So if there's a presentation of one source in which pardo does indisputably have this or that single meaning, I do not want this accompanied by anything that looks like a gleeful "So you see, he was wrong and I was right." I want to see willingness that the one citation, no matter how authoritative, may not be the whole story.

Incidentally I shall be very busy for about a week starting right now. I'll look sympathetically at helpful comments and also at diffs showing new misconduct; I'll probably not read essays (however justified) and I shan't be posting any comment as long as this one. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, did not ignore what you said. I told you that I would answer the matter about ethnicities in the article. Gwen told me that I did not have sources, which I thought it was unfair of her to say that. Here are the sources. Read it. It is interesting as it explains well how Brazilian experts look at the matter since the 1970s. Books from the 1970s up to the 1990s. Opinoso has what? An online newspaper as source. Can't fight that, I confess. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try very hard to be scrupulous. What I see are quotations from a single recent geography book. I have no reason to think that this is not an excellent geography book. However, it's one source, singular. And although it's recent, it predates recent discoveries in genetics. NB I am not dismissing it or complaining about your presentation of it. On the contrary, let's have more of this kind of thing: reliable, recent sources for assertions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I didn't understand what you mean. Those are not quotations from a single recent book. In the link I gave to you, there are four different books used and their pages included:

• Geografia do Brasil (En: Geography of Brazil), written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).
• Panorama geográfico do Brasil (En: Geographic Panorama of Brazil), written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st sidition).
• O Brasil e suas regiões (En: Brazil and its regions), written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.
• Enciclopédia Barsa (En: Barsa Encyclopedia), written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.

Those are books that cover the last three decades: 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Do you want me to get more books? For what reason? Why Opinoso can stay with that single newspaper online source that was not even written by an expert in this field? Those are how the ethnic groups in Brazil are categorized by Geographers. However, Opinoso says that "Everyone has 10% of Black genes". Yes, I don't doubt that, but this is not genetics. That kind of information should be in an article that is focesed in the matter, but not in a subsection that has only one paragraph in the article about a country. I am sorry, Hoary, but I can't follow your thoughts. P.S.: I can send you scans of the pages (they also have graphics that explain the sub-categories of Pardos) so that you can see them by yourself. --Lecen (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I made a stupid mistake there. I'm sorry for that, and for wasting your time writing this additional explanation for me.

Now let's look at the sources:

Geografia do Brasil, written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).

Good.

Panorama geográfico do Brasil, written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st edition).

Worryingly old, but the material that you cite from it is innocuous.

O Brasil e suas regiões, written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.

Very old. Better not use "whose descendants constitute the majority of our population" because geneticists didn't know then what they do know now. Even though it may very well be true. Avoid anything that smacks of genetics.

Enciclopédia Barsa, written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.

Looks good, but as I wrote above (start at the top of this page and search within it for "bad science") you should try to see what's in the new edition. However, I realize that you may not be near a library that has it.

So this is the newspaper article. It's short and apparently unsigned. Portuguese is so close to French that I have the very flattering illusion that I can understand at least part of it: On the day that Brazil commemorates the 120th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, Seppir and IBGE present a map of the spatial distribution of the Black population. If I am right, then where is the map?

Uh, it's right here, I think. I see a map that's 9.4MB. I am not going to make yet more of a fool of myself by attempting to interpret it, but I'll make a wild guess that what it says is that there exist small (by Brazilian standards!) areas where such-and-such goes up to 85%. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added three more experts in the area to Brazil talk page: Carlos César Guterres Taveira, Igor A. G. Moreira and José William Vesentini. There there now seven different books about the matter, dated from 1971, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988 and 1996. Notice that all have the same view towards Brazilian ethnics groups.

About the map of the Black population, it is in fact a map of the Pardo and Black population. The more red and darker it gets, more Mestizos exist in that area. You will see that the Northern and Notheastern region are more red, that's because of the high numbers of Caboclos. Mixing Pardos and Blacks it is a mistake, because it may give the impression that there are blacks everwhere that it is red, something that it is not true. The writer of the newspaper article probably added Pardos and Blacks believing that Pardos are African descendants only. However, as José William Vesentini noticed, "these [official] data are very questionable, as they do not take in account the ethnic origin of the people (black or Indian ancestry, etc.), but only the color of skin. Moreover, the notion of 'Pardo' is not very rigorous, as it includes from very dark Mulattoes to Caboclos and Cafuzos." --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added another source, this one by the famous Brazilian historian and geographer Caio Prado Júnior. His book is considered a classic of Brazilian literature. Now it is a total of eight books written by eight different experts. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work finding the additional sources. In the light of what I'm about to say, this may sound sarcastic. However, it isn't. All things being equal, a range of sources is a good idea.

If I understand correctly, the source you mention last above is a 1999 reissue of a 1942 book. If I'm right here, this certainly does not mean that what it says is worthless, but it does mean that what it says should be treated with great care, despite its status as a classic.

Numbers are important but they're certainly not all. If you say that nine, nineteen or ninety-nine respected books all agree on one thing, your argument can be shattered by the careful citation of newer, better informed research, recognized by the Brazilian government, that says something else.

Which does not mean that your position is wrong. Below, Ninguém raises legitimate questions about the nature of this newer work and the way in which it is cited. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the distribution of the "parda" and "preta" populations added up. As I pointed elsewhere, this may make sence to the SEPPIR, which is interested in the policy aspects of such distribution (quotas and other affirmative action). But it does not implies, contrary to what was suggested in the Talk Page, that the IBGE "counts" "pardos" as Blacks.

At this moment, it is quite clear that Blacks are by no means a majority in the Northern Region. Even Opinoso's sources point exactly to the contrary. Things are more complex in the Northeast, because the region is not homogeneous - the litoral has relied heavily on slavery on the past, especially the litoral of Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, as well as of Maranhão. The hinterland - and possibly the litoral of Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte and Ceará - was not, because its predominant economic activity, husbandry, does not fit well with slavery. This is not to say that there was absolutely no slavery in this subregion, or that there aren't Blacks and "pardos" that are of African descent, of course.

Another thing is that the economy of the Northeast - including the slavery-based regions around Salvador and Recife - underwent a serious crisis before the abolition of slavery, and Northeastern slaveholders sold huge numbers of slaves to the more prosperous Southeast - this may have had some impact in the "racial" composition of the Northeast. Ninguém (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments such as these, and what you have cited on the talk page, do look impressive. Perhaps it's now time for you to draft your own proposed text. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But there is not text to be proposed. This is what I added to the demographics subsection (only to better explain what is a Pardo and where they can be found): "The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia[261] and Maranhão[262] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss]" The dubius tags were added by Opinoso. As you may have noticed, this paragraphy is taken from the information that can be found in the eight sources that I added in the talk page. In sum, all I think it is necessary is that we need to remove the "dubius" tags and that's it. P.S.: The reason I did not add the Juçaras (mix of Whites, Blacks and Indians) and Ainocôs (mix of Whites and Japanese) it's because they are rare (or at least, not as numerous as the other Mestizos) and should be mentioned (and detailed) in an article that focus better on the subject. --Lecen (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes 257 to 262 (and beyond) all cite the one Enciclopédia. You may wish to propose something like this:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officially called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (those of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (those of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss],[NNPCEBACSE] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] regions. Bahia[261][NNPCEBACSE] and Maranhão[262][NNPCEBACSE] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE]

in which NNPCEBACSE means "new source note(s) perhaps citing the Enciclopédia but also citing something else if possible". -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could do that. But exactly how? The article is closed and I can't simply write in the talkpage that it should be like that and that's it. --Lecen (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest it or something similar in the talk page. Rather than "NNPCEBACSE" write "note X", "note Y", etc., and after the suggested passage write out what each of these notes is, for example

"Note Q": Marcos Amorim Coelho, Geografia do Brasil, 4th ed. (São Paulo: Moderna, 1996; ISBN 8523739543), p.28. (in Portuguese)

(NB my bibliographic details are purely imaginary. You'll have to use real ones, of course. Well, you don't need the ISBNs, but it's good to show how informative and helpful you're trying to be. And I always try to provide ISBNs myself, tedious though they are.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would propose this:

The mixed-race* population (or Pardo as it is officially called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (those of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (those of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss],[NNPCEBACSE] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] regions. In the Northeastern Region[259][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE], Caboclos also predominate in the hinterland ("Sertão"); in the litoral, particularly in Bahia[261][NNPCEBACSE] and Maranhão[262][NNPCEBACSE] there is a predominance of Mulattos.[dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE]

• It sounds strange to use a Castillian word such as "mestizo" when discussing Brazilian demography.

The divide between the Caboclo and Mulatto areas does not follow the borders between the states; rather, in each state, there is a gradient, from a litoranean area (particularly around the biggest cities such as Salvador and Recife), where there is a strong predominance of Mulattos, to the dry areas of the Sertão, where commercial crops like sugarcane or cocoa were not viable and extensive husbandry was the main economic activity, and where a population of Caboclos predominate. Ninguém (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very plausible and helps to explain. But of course every tiny part of it must be immaculately sourced. (Yes, I do realize that this requirement is extremely irritating.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Only to echo Hoary, yes, as I tried to hint elsewhere, every little shred will most likely need to be carefully sourced, written and cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to establish a double standard. Some editors have to be very careful, write very carefully, source very carefully and cite very carefully. Others can just lie, misinterpret and distort sources, hurl insults around, and generally own articles without consequence. Ninguém (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for specific advice; I gave it, specifically. I even devised pretty markup for it, and splattered the markup all over it, making various mistakes that I then had to tidy up before hitting the submit button. This was an unexciting use of half an hour of my life. I went to bed, woke up, and now see no sign of an attempt at progress.

Every editor has to cite, source and write carefully. As is well known, this principle is rarely adhered to in Wikipedia, which is brimming with various species of junk. Yes, people can frequently get away with sloppiness. In an article such as "Brazil", however, tempers flare and each side of any argument pounces on the smallest piece of carelessness (actual or imagined) of the other.

If you want me to block Opinoso, start by giving me diffs clearly showing his very recent breaking of rules. (If this sounds too partisan, I'll say that the same offer is open to Opinoso: he's free to persuade me to block you.) If you want me to make a speech in Talk:Brazil or elsewhere, I'm not going to do so, for several reasons that I do not intend to specify here.

My time and patience are finite. I'm willing to expend some of both toward improving articles and proofing them against attempts to degrade them. I trust that you will work toward these ends. I understand that you too may not always have the time and energy to do so. During these periods, please do not use this talk page as a place to make complaints (however understandable) about the unfairness of Wikipedia, etc: I already know, and general complaints are worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [33].

Edit warring, blind reversal: [34].

Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [35], but the source is here: [36]. Article ownership.

Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [37]. Article ownership.

Edit warring, article ownership: [38].

Sheer article ownership: [39].

Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [40].

Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [41].

Edit warring: [42].

Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [43].

Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [44].

Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [45]

Edit warring: [46].

Article ownership: [47].

Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].

Edit warring: [53], [54], [55].

Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [56].

Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Ninguém (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I (unenthusiastically) wrote If you want me to block Opinoso, start by giving me diffs clearly showing his very recent breaking of rules. You responded by giving me a long list of diffs. I looked at the first. It's from October. October is not "very recent".

I'm not going to look at any more of this list above: I lack the energy to go through a list to see which diffs, if any, occur in a timeframe that makes them actionable. If you want me to look at some of them, then you whittle them down to those that have taken place in the last 48 hours.

Of course, a long list that goes back in time might be very useful if somebody were to start an RFC on this user. But no matter how much anyone badgers me to start an RFC, I am not going to do so. I have several reasons for this, and just one of them is that an RFC on a user is a waste of time unless done very adeptly, and to do it very adeptly takes very careful preparation, and I do not have the time for this.

You may wish to turn your attention to this. The question is posed well, and a few minutes ago, when I last looked at it, nothing in the thread had yet been degraded by any name-calling, etc. I hope that none occurs later; but if it does, I shall be prepared to issue warnings (or, if warranted, blocks) to miscreants, regardless of their standpoint. -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From the last 48h: [63]. Notice this: "Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't." Nobody ever is simply mistaken or wrong; people who disagree with Opinoso are always acting in bad faith, "hiding" something, or "selling" ideas. Ninguém (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil ethnic groups

Well, I created another section, because the old one is too big and hard to follow. I hope you don't mind. You had told me that in case the view towards ethnics groups had changed since the most recent book I used as source and someone else used it, it would blow away everything I said. It is true, I agre on that. So, I got the most recent edition of Panorama geográfico do Brasil (Geographic Panorama of Brazil, 456 pages) written by Melhem Adas published in 2004 and it is on its 4th edition (the one I used before was the 1st edition published in 1983). On page 268 there is the exact same picture that there was in the first edition on page 103:

Main Brazilian ethnic groups.

The official website of the book is this one. However, you still did not explain to us how we would end the present dispute. The article can not be edited and even if it was, Opinoso would probably revert it or do something similar. Don't you think it would be better if you write something in the talk page? P.S.: The sole sub-ethnic group not found in the picture in Melhem Adas both books is the Juçara, because it is a very rare crossbreed and appears mainly in Maranhão. However, it is mentioned on Aroldo Azevedo and Igor A. G. Moreira works. P.S.2: Melhem Adas book is used in high schools in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no "magic bullet" that would end the present dispute. I am at times tempted to go into it and give three-month-long blocks to five or more editors (the choice of the five varying from week to week); but if I did that, then within 24 hours the blocks would be overturned and considerable sympathy would be expressed for the temporarily "martyred" editors, who would return with even more vigor and bile. (And I would rightly be "de-sysopped", not that this would be any great loss to either Wikipedia or myself.)

You're right, the article cannot be edited. So please present your new (in both senses) evidence on the talk page, in as cool and persuasive way as you can, and without any mention of any editor. Part of your job is to persuade any newcomer to any dispute there that you are a cool, disinterested, dispassionate, open-minded participant in it. It's very likely that somebody will come along to find fault your new evidence. No matter how pig-headed or inane this objection seems to you, you reply to it coolly, persuasively and politely. (It's even possible that the objection will have some value; please read it with an open mind.) Eventually there will be "consensus" (i.e. agreement among most people) that there is a "consensus" on the issue. Then the article may be edited. (And thereafter, wilful attempts to edit the article away from "consensus" can be treated as vandalism, with the usual penalties.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see that you're following the discussion. Well, I admit (for the first time!) that I was highly ironic and not so mature as i could have been. As you may have seen, the other editor clearly contradicts himself so much that it's hard to take it serious. And his points are nothing more than a compilation of his own twisted personal view of the subject. But, although I was ironic, all I said I meant it, truly. Unfortunately you met me under this circuntance. Everything I do, every little thing I do in here, is based on reliable sources. I deplore, I confess, internet sources. Anyone can write whatever it wants in a website. That's why I always use books written by professionals. You won't see me writing (ever!) anything in here if not followed by a source and its page. Others, however, stick themselves to one source only (Darcy Ribeiro!) and does not give us a single page! Not a single page! Just the name of the book and that's it. And coming from someone who fakes information from this same Darcy Ribeiro's books, how could I react if not in an ironic way? Anyway, at this moment one editor prefered to stay neutral (Rich Farmbrough), another one said nothing that could be considered helpful at all (Slrubenstein), so I will count him as neutral. There are four editors who support my view (myself, Ninguém, Grenzer22 and Elockid). So far, only O. has voted for his own view. Score 4x1. But I will wait a few more days to see if other editors will say something.

Strangely, I am not happy with that. All that, all that, because of a single paragraphy. It took too much time from a lot of people, and took way too much patience out of many more. I told Gwen that it would be a matter of time until someone else complain of O.'s behavior. And so it happened. My behavior was "flawed"? Not so "carefully"? Perhaps "childish"? No, it wasn't. You may not know, but before all this happened, I sent a private message to O. asking to reach a consensus peacefully. He ignored me. I tried to reason with him on the talk page. He was ironic, atacked me, insinuated about my reasons, lied and fabricated information. I asked him repeately to stop with it, he ignored. Only when five other editors moved against him that things settled down. A few days later he returned and started all over again. I was, and forgive me if I am being rude, in a certain way abandoned by the administrators. What I wrote to him was indeed ironic. Yes, it's true. I was not rude, nor I attacked him, or anything similar. Just dry humor at its best. In 72h O. will be back after his block ends. And I'll repeat to you I said to Gwen: it will be a matter of time until another user complain about him and his typical dishonest behavior. I hope this is the last time I will ever bother you. I expect (really!) that next time we'll meet ourselves in a better situation. Thank you for everything you did and for your assistance. I am in debt with you, Hoary. --Lecen (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hoary, the article Brazil was unblocked today. Several editors (Hentzer, Debresser, Marek69, Elockid, etc...) has already made edits in it. One of them, Hentzer, even removed the dubious tags added by Opinoso. I don't know if that was precipated, but since the other editors were warned by me about the ongoing discussion and did not participate into it and have already made changes today, I will asssume they won't be part of it anyway. As the "score" is 4 x 1, I don't think what Hentzer did should be considered wrong, but that's my guess.

Anyway, that is not the reason I am writing to you. An unknown editor has changed the "mixed-race" info in the demographics section for "brown".[64]. I reverted it explaining the reason.[65]. Next he reverted what I did.[66] I will not lose my time reverting it a second time, however.

This unknown editor has no previously contribution in wikipedia. Check his log.[67]

I don't know if he is someone's suckpuppet, as this same someone is blocked until tomorrow. But I know that what he is doing is not right. Brazilian schoolars calls the multiethnic Brazilians "mestiços", that in a direct translation to English it would mean "Mixed one", or more precisely, "Mixed-race". The IBGE, however, calls it "Pardo". In plain English it means "brown". And IBGE does calls it "brown" in its reports written in English. However, in English, a person who is brown is someone who is descendant of white and black, such as U.S. President Barack Obama. And as you you are probably tired of hearing, the Brazilian mixed-race category (or Pardo) has descendants of whites and Japanese, whites and Indians, and also whites and blacks. So, to avoid confusion, it was written "mixed-race" in the text, as Brazilian schoolars calls it, and "Pardo", as IBGE names it. What should it be done about it? I am quite sure that if I revert it this unknown editor will do it again. And opening a discussion to deal with an unknown editor is not worth it. --Lecen (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take pardo for now. Thank you for not reverting; I've raised the matter on the article's talk page and I hope I've done so in a way that won't give rise to much bickering. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I answered there. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your approach.

As you may notice, I've also asked there for reliable sources for seemingly wild assertions about the work of a geneticist.

(Not that I care either way about ancestry or skin pigmentation in Brazil or either of the nations where I've lived. We're all from Africa originally and some of us get sunburned more quickly than others.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote there, the issue is not being of African descent, but to prevent unwarned or not well learned readers from misinterpreting the text by believing that a "brown" category represent a single ethnicity such as "white", "black" or "yellow". About the unknown editor, I couldn't care less. This is the second one that appears only to cause disruption (it's quite obvious that he doesn't want to be a legitimate part in the discussion). Anyway, the matter about Caboclos and 85% black population can be considered settled and you shouldn't worry about that anymore (or at least for the present moment). We could also make the translation of "Pardo" to "Brown" but followed by the "mixed-race" or "multiethnic" noun. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thomas McElwain

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thomas McElwain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. BejinhanTalk 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bratislava

Hi there,

You posted on Wikiproject Hungary some months ago (21 April 2009) about this article. At that time I had little interest in it. Since then, I have edited a few Hungarian articles where its name comes up.

the missus and I have discussed this, she is native Hungarian (I am English) and settled that really we think the name should be used as it would make sense to an English audience, so that Bratislava is the right term to use for that reason. Of course, in the Hungarian articles we then put the Hungarian afterwards. We might take the opposite tack if e.g. on a historical Hungarian article it would in our eyes make more sense to put the Hungarian first, but in any case we will put both, and say which languages they are (using {{lang-hu}}, {{lang-ro}} etc). Does that seem to make sense to you? It seems pointless to me to change the article's name, I agree it would be edit warring and I think as far as I know in English it is generally called Bratislava, that is what it should be called. There are similar edit wars with a lot of Croatian articles too, that used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary. While I accept national sentiments can run high, if the historical context means to use the Hungarian name that should be used, and if it is the modern name, that should be used, cross refering to the other name. Would you agree?

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for writing thoughtfully on the matter.

But no, I don't think even the most fanatical Magyarphile [if the word exists] has ever suggested that the article should be retitled. The last time I looked, the question was rather of whether the Hungarian name should be mentioned within the article minimally, more than minimally (and if so, how much), nor not at all.

I found my attempt to get agreement on that and related matters exhausting and particularly depressing. I could hardly believe that, in the 21st century, people claiming to be natives of one or other of what are adjoining constituents of the EU could be so keen to perceive slights to national honour in anything said for/by the other side.

Aachen starts

Aachen (German pronunciation: [ʔaːxən] ^ⓘ; French, and, historically, English: [Aix-la-Chapelle] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Ripuarian: [Oche] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Dutch: Aken) is a historic spa city in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Its talk page has one irritated comment on the earlier inclusion of a Polish name, but that's it; which is how I'd expect the talk page to be.

My uneducated guess is that a great number of people of Slovak and Hungarian extraction would edit with the maturity and grace shown by the editors of Aachen, but that the minority who like to nurture grudges are disproportionately drawn to editing articles such as Bratislava. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG

Okay... only today, after three and a half years without correction, did I notice (and revise) this phrase in the Felice Beato article: Photographs of the 19th century often now shows the limitations of the technology used... But who perpetrated this subject-verb disagreement?  :~) Pinkville (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agonizing over inflectional morphology is for wimps, Pinkville. Real men spend their lives doing such things as drafting new MoS guidelines for semicolon use.

I note that Requests for adminship is a boring blank. As you're an editor in good standing, and in view of the joyful enthusiasm on view here, how's about standing as autocrat dixiecrat plutocrat bureaucrat? -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of my voluminous contributions in the past year? Pinkville (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you speak diactically, Sir. No, because of your discerning contributions and proven ability to keep your nose clean during the last year. Getting cratted would be your Spiral Up Structure, your action line. Just be sure you have multicoverage. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To be sure... by hardly being involved the past year i have managed to keep my nose clean... As for diactics and multicoverage... {some part of this post vanished under my fumbling fingers...] Pinkville (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So long and thanks for all the fish

I'm off out of here. You're an editor I'll remember fondly. So long! --Paularblaster (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

More relating to Diactics etc

Seeing your notes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diactic, I'm thinking you may also be interested in these edits to Actant and Implied Author, though only the latter brings Mr Sumioka into the article. Clear the articles ain't, though I reckon separating wheat from chaff would be awkward. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thank you for letting me know, but . . . please, is there a "narratologist" in the house? This Thought is too Deep for me. ¶ What do you think of "diactic" and stablemates? -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did enjoy the concept of a "camera parson" in the Multicoverage article. A swinging cleric akin to the opening scene in La Dolce Vita, I imagine. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UGG® EL deletion

Interested in the deletion of the link to http://ugg-advice.weebly.com which (although provided by Weebly) supports much of the content of the main UGG® article by promoting the brand name and values and warns consumers away from fakes and fake retailers. I also added why it was added to the discussion section of the site. I created http://ugg-advice.weebly.com as a warning to others after myself falling foul to a fake retailer, and didn't want anyone else to make the same mistake. I make the presumption that many visitors to the UGG® article on Wikipedia may be looking for help and advice on finding the real deal.

http://ugg-advice.weebly.com isn't monetised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For my reply, see Talk:Ugg boots. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikos Oikonomopoulos

See the reply on my talkpage. Best, Athenean (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Improving references and Greek is Greek

Thank you, Hoary. I hope I have actually improved the lead section of that article. The former version, with its circular and mistaken definition of "White Brazilian", bothered me no end.

I have tried to reformat the references, but I don't think with much success; I managed to include a summary (not exactly a title, but in this case a title would be misleading, for, as the tables are generated by ignoring some of the variables available that are irrelevant in the context - for instance, sex -, more would be promised in the actual title than delivered in the resulting table), but what you called, somewhat generously, "blahblahblah" is still there.

I am sorry that I can't help you with Greek, more than suggesting that the translitteration of "Φωτογραφίες" should be either "photographies" or "fotografies". My knowledge of Greek is null, or rather limited to half a dozen words and a rusty knowledge of the phonetic value of the alphabet. Ninguém (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it often seems strange to specify a title. In my latest opuscule I only specify titles for a minority of the external links. But I do provide some text after the URL and a space; this I think makes the result a bit easier to read.

You're ahead of me with the Greek alphabet: I find to my embarrassment that there are many individual letters that I don't know.

I'm sorry to link Brazil to the homicidal and depressing, but talk of Economopoulos reminds me that I was looking with admiration at this set of photographs by João Pina, a Portuguese photographer I hadn't previously heard of. I wish WP had many more articles on people such as him; I could happily live without articles on celebrity photographers and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent photographs... I didn't know João Pina, but he obviously knows what to do with a camera.

Two small observations: first, "Polícia Militar" shouldn't be translated as "military police" (that would be "Polícia do Exército"). The Polícias Militares are armed and have a military hierarchy, with soldiers, sargeants, captains, etc., but on the contrary of the American "Military Police", they are not linked to the Army. Instead, they are state-level police organisations, under the command of state governors. Second, the game the drug dealer is playing is known in English as "table football", but in Brazil "futebol de mesa" (table football) is this quite different (and much more fun) game:

[68]

[69] Ninguém (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that the Guardian story gets things wrong. I don't want to defend the mistakes, but I'll praise the newspaper for at least making an attempt, and for paying a good photographer for his services. By contrast, here's the list of international news stories at Japan's most respected newspaper; I see no photos whatever.

Digging around for João Pina takes me to his page at "Lightstalkers". He's good at producing the kind of material that news magazines would have been interested in here back in the era when news magazines existed here (Asahi Journal, Asahi Graph... currently redlinked so their very existence may soon be forgotten). Now the magazines that purport to show news present photographs of slebs, of food, of the immediate aftermath of disasters, of murder scenes, of arrested criminals, of girls whose most exciting parts are or aren't covered by bikinis, of food, of politicians bowing or waving, and of more slebs. And that's it. News lite, you might say. In the "global village", where anyone is supposed to be able to find out about anything, the consumers [a telling word!] are incurious and revert to infotainment "comfort food". -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the midia... it makes us either apocalyptical or integrated.

But don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about The Guardian. Just pointing out an explanation about the structure of Brazilian Police, and - which is much nicer - about a popular indoor game in Brazil (about this one, they - The Guardian - aren't even wrong, after all).

I have done some further cleansing in White Brazilian. There are still some references to include, but this will have to wait, at least until tomorrow. And then I am going to "be bold" and completely remove the sections about Portuguese/Italians/Germans/et caterva, that turn the article into a piece about immigration instead of "White Brazilians". Ninguém (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Greek is greek, but Japanese is "greeker". Ninguém (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ara Güler

I see your position and agree that the best way in this case is to order at internet. I will try to name some mail order bookstores, and briefly describe the topic of the books there, which are available and in English only. I hope this will help you a little. See below:

• Net Kitap
  • Call Of Aphrodisias English: Aphrodisias
  • The Miracle Of Divriği An Essay on the Art of Islamic Ornamentation In Seljuk Times English: Divriği Islamic Ornamentation Seljuks
  • Seven Landmarks of the World English:

• Idefix
  • All the World in Their Faces
  • Aradan Yetmiş Yıl Geti/Best of Ara Güler English:

• Kitap Denizi
  • Vanished Colours English: Istanbul

Kindly note that the prices are discounted but include 18% VAT, which should be exempted for export. Please don't hesitate to contact me for any other detail. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. No, I don!t have a copy of the Magnum Photos collection. CeeGee (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blind reversal

Thanks, Hoary.

I am impressed to the request to justify things without even being notified of what are the things that should be justified.

But I am trying to stay cool. Not that it is easy, though. Ninguém (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The chutzpah is unbelievable. He reverts everything, and then asks for time to make his points, with no deadlines. Good grief. Ninguém (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... [70] Ninguém (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I could transcribe into the talk page of that article the scholars' view towards White Brazilians similar to what I did in the article about Brazil. It would not be Opinoso, Off2riorob or Ninguém's view, but Brazilian scholars'. Do you think it would help? --Lecen (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be welcome, but please put them in a new and separate section. Of course, you are very welcome to add your own comment to Ninguém's first set of edits, and in this comment you may wish to refer to the quotations that you've added elsewhere on the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, what future do you see for the discussion on the Talk Page, given that Opinoso has declared that he is too busy to discuss, and Off2riorob has up to the moment not stated any substantive objection to the changes I made? Is this going to be a repetition of the previous fiasco, in which I become the only person who has responsibilities toward the content of the article, while the others ignore all discussion but get to keep the article phrased in the way they propose? If you look again what happened there, you will see that your initial position - that Off2riorob's reversal should be discussed, that the burden of proof was on him - is already gone. It is up to me, now, to justify the changes I made, but this is going to be very difficult to do if the other editors don't clarify what they think is wrong with them. Ninguém (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll ask very soon, and read the answers. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, if you don't mind, I must tell you that I don't agree with your approach in the article's issue. To ask Ninguém to tell once again why he made the changes will result in time and space lost. It has been discussed over and over already (and I know you know it because you took part in the old discussions). It is not him who sould point them out (again?!) but editor Off2Rio that should bring sources and reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. If you take a look in Off2 Rio arguments they are nothing more than "I don't like your edits and so I will revert them." He didn't say "What you wrote is wrong because author X said Y about it". And as usual the discussion is taking too long over too little. It's unfair to an editor appear in an article and say that does not like a change and then tell everyone that he was sick or does not have time to discuss. Well, if that's the case, then when he find time to do it, so let it be. But until then, he, or Opinoso, has no right to disrupt an article by making it become blocked with a discussion that will clearly not be over soon. You should, in my opinion, tell him or anyone else that unless they have good reason (that is, sources, reliable sources, not Opinoso's fake sources), they should let other editors contribute in the article. Because if not, all I see is ownership. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikos Economopoulos

Hi, Hoary, You asked me to look up a Turkish interview about Nikos Economopoulos.

The interview (2006 by Özge Bayram) is about his exibition held in Pamukbank art gallery, İstanbul. Pamukbank was a former bank in Turkey (later on merged with Yapı Kredi Bank) Most banks in Turkey have their art galleries. They consider this as a public service ( and of course a type of advertisement.) The photos exibited are the same photos he had exibited in an Athens exibition of 1999 "100 photos in 20 years." Some interesting notes are as follows.

• He prefers Balkans as a field of study. The majority of photos are about Muslim minority in Balkan countries. But he adds that he is professional and can work everywhere.
• He is sorry to watch the chaos during the disintegration of former Jugoslavia. He believes at least 20 years is needed to end the chaos.
• He uses a caravan during his travels to rural areas. But he no more feels safe in his caravan in Balkans. He adds that he feels safe in Turkey.
• He notes that there is paradox in Balkan people . Even during weddding ceremonies there is a sad look on faces.
• He thinks that Balkan people decide by heart, but not by mind.
• He is sorry no note that he has lost his childhood Greece environment. Tavernas are replaced by McDonalds he says. He also notes that the same thing is true for west Turkey, although east Turkey still preserves the values of the past.
• He is introduced to Magnum Photos by Constantine Monos who is a Greek from Turkey.
• He works for Magnum for editorial stuff. But he is also free to bargain for his exibitions.
• He feels that there is no future in photojournalism. There is a loss of quality in photographs in newpapers. Robert Capa would't take photographs if he's lived today he says. Still, he adds some like Abbas and James Nactwey believe the opposite.
• He seems impartial on the discussion of color and monocolor photos. He is not against new technologies and he stores his photos in digital medium. But at the present level of technology, he prefers analog photos.

I hope this much is helpful to you. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Here's my first attempt to incorporate this material.

I think your "Constantine Monos who is a Greek from Turkey" is Constantine (Costa) Manos who's a Greek American, born in the USA. But perhaps his parents were Greek immigrants from Turkey, or perhaps he has some other link with Turkey.

I hope I didn't get wrong anything that I added. I wrote up the reference as Refik Akyüz, Özge Baykan, and Serdar Darendeliler, "Balkanlar, Paradoks ve fotojurnalizm üzerine" (2001 interview), website of Özge Baykan, 2006. I don't even recognize a personal name when I see one, and guess that Refik Akyüz and Serdar Darendeliler are personal names and more specifically that they are co-interviewers/co-authors. How stupid a guess is this? At the foot of the page is Geniş Açı, 2001 [...] © 2006 Özge Baykan; is "Geniş Açı" perhaps the name of the magazine or similar where it first appeared? -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your guesses are right. I'll add the following:

I've over summerized his talk about the origin of Constantine Monos. Actually Nikos says " ...an America photographer whose family had moved from Anatolia to South Carolina "

You can easily translate the name of the article ." On the Balkans, paradox and photojournalism." You are right about the three authors. The guess is not stupid, just the reverse. Geniş Açı (English: Wide angle) seems to be the name of a magazine of photography published between 1996-2006. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn that my guess was correct. Thank you for the additional detail; I've already added it. (Although you and other authors are of course most welcome to edit the article too!) -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you can reach links to Ipektsi Award for peace and friendship between Greek and Turkish people over Yahoo search engine. But if you use the name İpekçi instead of Ipektsi (Ç is a Turkish letter) you'll find even more links. (Capital İ and ç are Turkish letters, you can copy and paste them.) Have a good time. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked for "İpekçi" with award (at Google) but mostly got hits (from both Greek and Turkish sources) with "Ipekci" (no diacritics). There's a fair amount, but all that I saw was in dribs and drabs. And there's a great variation in the name of the award in English, which makes me wonder whether the names in Turkish and Greek have themselves changed over the years. Anyway, I think that an article here on this would have to be started by somebody who can read Turkish or Greek (or of course both), though I might help with it at some point thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin action

Hi Hoarey, I see you have protected the branco article, I would dispute that protection was needed, and if you are to preform administrator actions on an article that you should not be involved, also could you please clarify the status of your involvement as regards the article, I notice you have never edited the article but you have commented on the talkpage, I also noticed that when I reverted to the original article position that your were one of the two people that user ninguen immediately deemed to notify. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[71] It is really tiresome to try to be civil towards this individual. He is quite obviously trying to start a fight. Ninguém (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Until I take the link, I think you mean Off2riorob. When I take the link, I realize that you don't mean him. Please be careful. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Brazilian People

Well, I know you requested to stop looking after articles that involve Brazil and all that. However, after some time translating, I managed to transcribe a chapter of a book about the Brazilian people that might interest you. The book was released this year, and take in account the most recent studies on the matter. Take a look, you will enjoy. You always said that it was sad that you did not know much about the subject. Now you will, but you will not be surprised.

The Indians are asking: where are the Indians?

During the three first centuries of Portuguese conquest, no family had more power in the village that gave origin to Niterói, in Rio de Janeiro, as the Souza. In 1644, Brás de Souza demanded to the Overseas Council [Conselho Ultramarino] the position of Major-Captain [Governor] of the village of São Lourenço [later Niterói], using as main argument his family name. The request was accepted. According to the letter that granted the office, it was necessary to remember that Brás was “descendant of the Souza who had always exercised that position”, therefore had right to “all the honors and prominences that have and had enjoyed the Captains and their predecessors given in this city of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro”. A century and half later, in 1796, Manoel Jesus e Souza was Major-Captain. After the Overseas Council checked, it was found out that he should continue in that position because of “his noble descent”. These Souza were typical members of the colonial gentry class.

The interesting part is that these noble gentlemen were not descending of a powerful Portuguese noble. The man who created the Souza dynasty of Niterói was called Arariroba. He was the chieftain of the Temiminós Indians, who had helped the Portuguese to expel the French and tupinambás from Rio de Janeiro. With the war won, many Temimimós and Tupiniquins were baptized and adopted a Portuguese last name. Arariroba became Martim Afonso de Souza (in homage to the first [Portuguese] settler of Brazil) and would earn the county of Niterói, where he went to live along with his tribe. Less than one hundred years later, his descendants already did not see themselves as Indians: they were the Souza and they were part of the Brazilian society. Perhaps they identify themselves as such up to nowadays.

Many historians show awful numbers on the genocide that Indians suffered after the Portuguese conquest. They say that the native population was diminished ten, twenty times. The tribes became indeed empty, but not only because of illnesses and attacks. It is quite common to ignore the colonial Indian, the one that departed from his tribe, adopted a Portuguese name and was to compose the known Brazilian miscegenation along with whites, blacks and mestizos - and whose children, little time later, did not identify themselves as Indians anymore.

There were no few times, not only in Rio [de Janeiro], that that happened. All over Brazil, Indians left towards cities and started to work in the construction of bridges, roads, as woodworkers, carpenters, musicians, selling hats, planting vegetable and cutting trees - and also hunting black slave fugitives. In the villages around São Paulo, it is not known if there were hereditary positions such as the ones of the Souza from Niterói, but there are signs that Indians were also assimilated. In 2006, the historian Marcio Marchioro found documents with name, position, age, profession and number of children of the native chieftains in the turn of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century. They all had Portuguese names, “all proceeded of the word ‘Indian’". These natives of the land must have helped to make some Brazilian last names common.

About the Indians from Minas Gerais, documents that tell the precise moment when they left the tribes and entered in the society of Minas were found. Searching for documents about Minas in the Overseas Historical Archive, the historians Leônia Maria Chavez de Resende and Hal Langfur found dozens of registries of the entrance of Indians in the villages heated by the gold rush during the 18th century. They found out that many natives moved to the villages by their own will, probably because they felt themselves threatened by conflicts with the whites or tired of their own Paleolithic lifestyle. Dozens of them arrived; they received an initial aid from the government and went to work in the property of settlers. Both historians affirm that:

To only cite an example, the governor Lobo da Silva tell that that, as soon as he took office, “appeared twenty and something wild Indians called Coropós, Gavelhos and Croás”. Due to the royal decrees, he gave orders to dress and give tools to them. Some days later, other thirty Indians came “with the same will [to be baptized], after they were told of how well the first group was treated.

If they were enslaved by farmers, the Indians could go into justice and require their freedom. They frequently won. The Indian slavery was forbidden by king Dom Pedro II of Portugal in 1680, and prohibited again, a century later, by the marquis of Pombal, first-minister of the Portuguese kingdom. The governor of Minas Gerais between 1763 and 1768, Luiz Diogo da Silva, respected the law and tried to uphold it. In 1764, the carijó Indian Leonor, of Ouro Preto, asked to be freed from the farm of Domingos de Oliveira. The settler kept the Indian, her three children and grandsons in captivity and treated them with beatings. She won her cause - an escort went to the farm to guarantee the freedom of her family. Out of captivity, during the gold rush in Minas Gerais, Leonor probably did not take long to mix with the population of the city. Cases such as hers are pretty much different of the simplistic chronicle of the Indians genocide. They prove, such as the historians Maria de Resende and Hal Langfur, “the undeniable presence of the indians in the hinterland and villages during the whole colonial period, demonstrating, therefore, that they were never extinct, as the traditional historiography affirmed”.

In many cases, the Indians did not need to leave their tribes to enter into the society. The western people came after them. In the 1750s, when the Jesuits were expelled from Brazil, Portugal decided to transform the Indians tribes into villages and counties. With this, the prohibition of whites in the tribes was extinguished. Many city blocks and cities were born and that exist up to nowadays. The cities of Carapicuíba, Guarulhos, Embu, Peruíbe, Barueri, Moji das Cruzes, in the São Paulo metropolitan area, also São Paulo downtown and São Miguel Arcanjo and Pinheiros blocks were tribes before. Also it is the case of cities such as Niterói, São Pedro da Aldeia and Mangaratiba, in Rio de Janeiro, as many others for Brazil. In the coastal tribes, the population did not mix much, so it goes on with a strong Indian influence. It is the case of the caiçaras, the beach Indians. As well as in 1500, they are present in almost all the Brazilian coast. They plant cassava, they use flexible baskets and some fish in canoes of carved trunk. However, as they do not consider themselves Indians, they are not accounted in the present Indian category [by IBGE].

In the Amazon rainforest, that phenomenon still happens. Anyone who visits the region will be surprised to meet people who look like Indians, almost dressed as Indians but that get upset when called Indians. As in the last centuries, many Indians prefer not to be called as such: 25% of the Indian population of Amazon already live in cities, and only half of this contingent, according to FUNAI, consider itself Indian, even if they talk a second language [other than Portuguese] and practice rituals.

It is truth that this miscegenation was not as intense as much the one that occurred between Africans and Portuguese or Indians and Spanish of other regions of the Americas. Research of ancestry genome, that measures how much an individual is European, African or Indian, suggests that the Brazilians are on average 8% Indians. A 2008 analysis involved 594 volunteers, the majority students of the Catholic University of Brasilia who considered themselves whites and pardos. The average genome ancestry of the university students was of 68.65% European, 17.81% African, 8.64% Amerindian and 4.87% of other origins. It is little Indian blood, but not little if taking in account a population of 190 million [Brazilians] inhabitants. If we could organize these genes in individuals one hundred percent white, black or Amerindian, 8% of the Brazilians would be 15.2 million people, or more than four times the Indian population in 1500.

The number gets bigger if we consider as descendant of Indians everyone who has a single drop of Indian blood. In 2000, a study of the Gene laboratory, of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, caused astonishment when it revealed that 33% of the Brazilians who considered themselves whites had mitochondrial DNA that came from Indians mothers. “In other words, even so since 1500 the number of Indians in Brazil has been reduced to 10% of the original (or about 3.5 million to 325,000), the number of people with Amerindian mitochondrial DNA increased more than ten times”, wrote the geneticist Sergio Danilo Pena in A Molecular Picture of Brazil. These numbers suggest that many Indians left their tribes and began to consider themselves Brazilians. Today, their descendants go to the movies, travel by airplane, write books and, as their ancestors, take bath every day.

Source: Narloch, Leandro. Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. São Paulo: Leya, 2009, pp.39-45 ISBN: 978-85-62936-06-7

My comments:

1. The assimilated Indians are nothing more than what we call today "Caboclos" and who form the majority in many areas of Brazil. You must remember the name "Caboclo" from the discussion in the article Brazil.
2. That comment made by an unknown user in the talk page of the article Brazil and that you restored a couple of days ago because you thought that it was important was correct. A Brazilian white who looks white and would be seen as a white in the USA or Europe probably has an Indian ancestor (or African). After centuries of mix, the Indians were slowly assimilated.
3. As Ninguém said in the article White Brazilian, race in Brazil is a "social construct". People who are clearly Indians, who look like Indians do not consider themselves Indians. In what category they end up falling? "Pardo". Do you remember all that discussion we had in article Brazil where I revealed that Brazilian scholars treat the category Pardo as having several sub-categories, including Caboclos? Do you also remember that Opinoso erroneously affirmed theat Pardo were "blacks" and that´'s it?
4. Now you know why I am tired of Opinoso. I bring sources, reliable sources, and the guy appears and says "Get consensus before you make such huge changes.", "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know.", "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source.", etc. Take a look at the talk page of the White Brazilian article. It's a mess. Impossible to read. Impossible.
5. I bring sources that says that authors X, Y, Z, A, B, C, and D says W. Not a surprise, because it's what Brazilian scholars think on the subject. Opinoso brings nothing and only says "I don't like what you did", "You need consensus to make any god damn change in my article" or something similar. And hell, I hate that article and everything related to race. I like history, Brazilian history. I am only there as a favor to Ninguém and because I despise Opinoso because I know that he does nothing to improve Wikipedia.
6. And last, but not least: the race or ethinicity in Brazil matter is much more simple than you might think. All Brazilian scholars (I don't know a single one who disagrees) divides the Brazilian people in whites, blacks, indians and half-breeds (Caboclos, mulattoes, ainocôs, etc...). Whites are everyone who looks white and has mainly European or Middle-Eastern (a very, very, very small minority) ancestry. So, a guy who looks like Al Pacino and has mainly Italian ancestry is nothing more than a white dude in Brazil, even is he has 5% Indian blood and 5% black blood. A girl who looks like Gisele Bündchen and has mainly german ancestry (quite common in Brazilian south) but has 5% black or 5% indian blood is simply a white Brazilin girl. There is no mistery, just that. --Lecen (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the text above, which is indeed interesting. However, I note that it's from a book titled Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. I imagine that politicamente incorreto is a calque on "politically incorrect". Perhaps its meaning has diverged, but in English "politically incorrect" tends to be used in book titles as a label that the content unashamedly expounds ideas that are anathema not only to people on the left but also to people who are well-informed by recent, apolitical theory or research. So in English a "politically incorrect guide" to the history of XYZ tends to mean an uninformed guide to that history, produced by an ignoramus or charlatan, and likely to be touted by the windbags of "talk radio".

I shan't go through each of your points but will say that "race", as it's generally used, is indeed a social construct. (Earlier, I found an excellent source for this and I can find more if requested.) On the other hand "race" can have different meanings besides. If, or so far as, the article uses a different meaning, it should explain forthrightly that its discussion of "white people" or whatever is not about "white people" as the term is generally understood.

You have a long-running dispute with an editor that you say you despise. Of course you're within your right to despise anyone and anything, but expressing this is very unlikely to be helpful. If you have clear evidence of misconduct within the last 48 hours, you're free to bring it up at WP:AN/I or a more appropriate place, rather than to a particular admin. If you want to bring up long-term problems, then see this, but read it very carefully; I warn you that the process will take a lot of time and care and may well not be worth the effort or even backfire. Whatever measure you take, and however fairly and scrupulously you do it, your opponents are likely to quote back at you any earlier declaration that you despise the user in question. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I brought the text because I thought you would be interested in the subject, not because of the ongoing discussion in the White Brazilian article. Although the name of the book is "politically incorrect" it is only because it takes a light tone approach in the subject (that is, Brazilian history). About Opinoso, well, after being threatened, called a racist by him and seeing him giving fake informations to prove his point, how could I have another feeling about him? And I do not worry about him anymore, because as I said to Gwen Gale once: "It's a matter of time until someone appears and complain about his behavior". He will end up getting kick out of here sooner or later. But coming back to the race matter, things would be far easier if all editors simply took a book about the subject and use it as source. I am going to try to transcribe and translate what is "white" in Brazil from the books I have, but it will take time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not talk about Opinoso.

As for the book, it's unfortunate for your Brazilian writer that his title echoes "politically incorrect", a phrase that might have started out well (and I either don't remember or never knew), now in English has such dreadful applications. The typical example of the "politically incorrect" is marketed as being very humorous; if it's humorous at all, it's the humour of ignorance and complacency. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't know if I should continue this discussion, because we are reaching a dangerous point here. Racism a la brèsilliene has a few rules; some (there are probably many more) of them seem to be:

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

Ronaldo broke rule #1, and, as such, opened himself to racist attacks. A few can be seen here: [72]. While the article by journalist Mirian Leitão is reasonably contained, it sparked a row of comments in the vein of, Let's send him to Alabama or mississipi state, leave him in a Redneck bar by a road, if he is welcomed, we shall find if he is really White... Brazilian racists, poor things, have few opportunity to publicly spew their hatred; they become very excited when someone makes a mistake like Ronaldo's - it is the rare and precious opportunity to make openly racist remarks under the cover of "political correctness" ("yeah, I'm calling him a nigga, but he deserves it, for being such a racial traitor...") I fear that the stream of blind hate we are seeing in the Talk Page isn't much better than this.

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

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

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

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

And not, like it is done at the present moment, using a different definition in different sections or paragraphs of the article, without discussing the definitions and without even realising that different definitions are being used. Ninguém (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém, since when pardo means black? --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In some people imagination, it does: Ronaldo is not White, but "pardo", so he should publicly say he is Black. If you read Mirian Leitão's article linked above, you will see that this is the reasoning behind all this outrage about Ronaldo's race. Ninguém (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly see merit in your argument, but perhaps it's better (a) to keep the discussions on the article's talk page and (b) for me not to enter the discussions, except occasionally. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed myself from the discussion. Off2Rio keeps evading when asked for reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edit. No matter how many times we ask why he did it, and what is wrong according to what author, he simply ignores it and changes the subject. It's a loss of time. Good luck, though. --Lecen (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to do the same. Evidently Wikipedia rules are not able to protect good faith editors; on the contrary, a bully behaviour seems to be systematically rewarded. Ninguém (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The rules are defective and their implementation is defective. But I don't think that bullying is systematically rewarded.

I continue to hope that more disinterested, levelheaded, openminded people will visit that talk page and see what has happened and what is going on. The more dramatic the conversation elsewhere about that talk page, the less these people will want to take a look at it: as you must know, even at the best of times it's hard to get sane, educated people interested in matters of "race". Please avoid the appearance of additional drama. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin actions

Hoary, I have requested that due to you involvement that you do not take anymore admin actions there, there are plenty of admins that are not involved if they decide to unprotect then fine, but please don't do it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem there. In this edit to WP:AN/I a few minutes ago, I reiterated that I do not want to unprotect the article and I repeated my invitation to other administrators. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I mistakenly thought you said there that you were going to unlock it.. I'll tell you what I'll do..I will take two steps back and we'll get the article unlocked at the version it is now and if you can have the editors in question work a fair bit slower with the alterations which would allow for a degree of involvement from other editors, removing the possibility of a rewrite by a single editor and that the mentioned concerns about altering the point of view of the article too much by perhaps keeping a fair bit of the established content excessive detail in the lede are kept in mind, and if say I wanted to comment regarding a particular edit that civility is kept, lets see how it goes, I am not thinking that I would be disputing each and every edit, but perhaps one or two, this is a good faith offer, but to be clear these are the conditions, I still dispute the single revert to the disputed version. Have a word and see if there could be any support for this offer. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, tak a look at this. --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment

I don't think that my actions should be discussed, in quite a negative way on talkpages in Portuguese, I have requested that they stop and use English but it has continued, if in the future these comments are required for discussion or report it will be very hard to use them, I thought that this was generally the correct language to use here on the EN wiki, please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you threatening us, now? --Lecen (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote: Ele está apenas enrolando e você está caindo no jogo dele. Está mais do claro que o sujeito é um vândalo que não está preocupado com algo no artigo, mas sim em frescar com a nossa cara. Se ele tivesse algum interesse honesto, teria dito o que estava errado nas suas edições. Reclamar que se tratam apenas de "edições em massa" não faz sentido algum. E por mais que nós perguntemos o que está errado ele simplesmente muda de assunto ou fica falando bobagens. Desde o começo eu avisei ao Hoary que era tudo uma grande sacanagem e que ele deveria era ter desbloqueado o artigo e proíbido o sujeito de reverter a não ser que ele tivesse boas razões. Nada foi feito e cá estamos, em mais uma longa e estúpida discussão. Logo ficaremos conhecidos como a dupla encrenqueira, que se mete em discussões o tempo todo que acabam resultando em artigos bloqueados e intervenções de administradores. Da próxima vez, não cometa o mesmo erro: simplesmente exija que o administrador interfira e que proíba as modificações do outro editor a não ser que ele tenha um bom motivo.

Translation: He is only fooling you around and you are falling in his game. It's more than clear that that guy [Off2riorob] is a troublemaker who is not worried about something in the article, but instead on making us all of fools. If he had any honest interest, he would have told what was wrong in your edits. To complain that they are nothing more than "mass edits" doesn't make sense at all. And no matter how many times we ask him what i'ts wrong he simply changes the subject or keeps telling nonsenses. Since the beginning I told Hoary that was everything was nothing more than fooling around and that he should have unlocked the article and forbidden that guy of reverting anything unless he had good reasons. Nothing was made and here we are, in another long and dull quarrel. Soon we'll be known as the troublemaker duo, that gets involved in quarrels all the time and that result in locked articles and interventions of administrators. On the next time, do not commit the same mistake: simply asks to an administrator to intervene and to forbids reverts from another editor unless he has a good reason.

I wrote: Chega a ser hilário as bobagens que ele escreve. Veja o que ele falou agora no artigo: é necessário que todas as pesquisas sejam incluídas, assim como versões. Que pesquisas? Que versões? Ele não colocou nada! E sugerir que você fique brincando de castelo de areia com o texto do artigo no seu espaço privado é ridículo. O que ele quer é que o artigo não seja modificado. Você tem alguma dúvida ainda de que ele está ligado ao nosso velho amigo?

Translation: Some of his nonsenses even manage to be hilarious. See what he wrote now in the article: it is necessary that all the research are included, as well as all versions. What research? What versions? He didn't gave any so far! And to suggest that you stay playing of sand castle with the text of the article in your private space it's ridiculous. What he wants is that the article doesn't be modified. Do you still have any doubt that he is connected to our old friend?

I wrote: O Hoary criou uma nova seção na talk page. Eu não irei me envolver mais. Caso você o faça, seria preferível que antes de perder o seu tempo reescrevendo completamente o texto que pergunte algo muito simples: "afinal, como posso saber o que reescrever se Off2Rio não explicitou o que há de errado e por que está errado e de acordo com quais autores está errado?" P.S.: Você já percebeu que o Off2rio está implicitamente intimidando o Hoary? Está tentando colocar o Hoary numa saia justa e assim impedí-lo de se envolver de qualquer maneira no artigo. Resultado final: o artigo continuará intocado. O que me surpreende é que esse sujeito nunca apareceu antes no artigo. Por que tamanho empenho, então?

Translation: Hoary has created a new section in the talk page. I will not get involved anymore. In case you do it, it would be preferable that before losing your time completely rewriting the text to ask something very simple: "well, how can I possibly know what to rewrite if Off2Rio did not explicitly said what is wrong and why is wrong and according to which authors?" P.S.: Have you already noticed that Off2rio is implicitly intimidating Hoary? He is trying to place Hoary in a hard situation and thus prevent him from being involving in any way in the article. Final result: the article will continue untouched. What makes me surprised is that that guy [Off2riorob] has never appeared before in the article. Why so much persistence from him, then? --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ABCs

I'll drink to that, Freshacconci. No, wait, I can make two at a time. Sugar? (None for me, thanks.) Hoary (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pish posh. It's too early in the morning to alphabetize correctly. freshacconci talktalk 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

message

Thank you Hoary. I'll stick around, though I'll not contribute directly to the "white Brazilian" topic. The topic itself bothers me too much, to be sincere. I'll let others do that. I appreciate your administration, and I am sorry for some of the things that I have said. As far as I have seen now, unfortunately Opin is Brazilian indeed, and I was very wrong about that. Cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you're back there too. Stick around! -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

My first edit as a free man should be to thank you for all your words on my behalf. I believe the last words I left on your talkpage were in sarcastic anger over your refusal to block another editor over the use of a racial epithet, letting him get by with a "First strike" warning. It would be much better for Wikipedia if more Admins had even a fraction of your integrity. Take care, and best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad if I helped. And I can almost say the whole affair was worth it for the laughs I got out of all the pecksniffery. This wrapped it up beautifully. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at the silver lining: At least this outed one more of your character traits, a "shameful, myopic drama-monger." :-) One of the lesser Wiki-lessons I take away from this is that the discussion is closed before the condemned gets to say a word in his defense... I was preparing a statement to post at the board, but then looking through that trial, I notice that the subject of much of my editing comes up as justification for my harsh treatment, and it's even suggested elsewhere that I'm a menace who should be banned... (How dare I call someone a 'bigot'!?) So there's no point in attempting to get a fair hearing there... (On that subject, I suppose it's eventually going to have to come out, so I'll say it now: I'm totally opposed to violence of any kind-- to anybody-- much less to Asian women, whom I consider the loveliest creatures on God's green earth-- and to what goes on in many of these films I write about, and, actually, have no desire to see many of them. I find reading and writing about them to be quite interesting for a variety of reasons though-- the Grand Guignolesque thrill of extreme cinema, not the least of them... I'm also opposed to assembling a living being from body parts of corpses robbed from graveyards, eye-poking, dragging saws over skulls, putting your brother's head in a vice, slitting people's throats and cooking them into meat pies while singing Sondheim tunes, but I do enjoy watching this on the screen. It would be easy to get up on a moral high-horse and shriek about cannibalism as entertainment, but rational people are able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality... And if I could write about the naughty things that I really like, it would be be about several nice, plump, jiggly, bouncy lasses whose careers I follow with some interest. Google-Image 安岡たまき if you dare. The only "violence" in their oeuvre is inflicted upon the lucky gentlemen who are the recipients of their bouncing. That I can live with... But unfortunately if I'm going to write about this particular niche of entertainment, "notability" requirements force me to write about what wins awards, and what gets most written-about. And, unfortunately, that's often the SM-type stuff. And the only emotional reaction that elicits from me is usually laughter... End of confession.) Pecksniff? Martin Chuzzlewit! That's it! I just picked it up and had barely made it through the first paragraph when tears were rolling down my face with laughter. Something tells me now is the time to finally read it... Thanks again. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to fill you in on the aftermath of my village stoning: The ruling class has gone back to using Wikipedia as an online Lord of the Flies simulation game (didn't one of them say "Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" in the block review?) , and I'm back to destroying the project by churning out this kind of crap: Rumi Tama... Ever wonder if Jimbo thinks about how WP's resources are being put to use? Am I wrong, or could every talk page, every project, guideline and policy, every AfD, everything out of the mainspace be deleted with zero harm to the "Encyclopedia?" Or is my perspective warped from inhaling dust from books, and over-use of <ref> tags? Dekkappai (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrased like "Google-Image 安岡たまき if you dare", that's irresistible. Ah. Well. There's no accounting for tastes. Mine would run more to this. It's a curiously compelling book; perhaps I'll decide some day to buy a copy. But since I'm already buying a photo book every couple of days (or so it seems), I have to go easy.

Perhaps I'll join the great drama-out myself. I do like to think that when I participate in drama I'm not quite as hammy as some others, but I suppose that everyone likes to think that. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad at all... I've always preferred something nice & soft & comfy & ぽっちゃり. (ddungddungi they call them in Korean). Built for comfort, not for speed. My taste is in the minority, especially in the Asian models, but I'm happily eccentric ;) ... Yeah, I know I can ham it up pretty good myself, though, obviously, I'm a very low-profile bit-player in the world of Wiki-drama. The drama-out last year forced me to stick to producing a lot of... uh, crap... and I'm thinking about finally delving into mainstream Japanese cinema this time... You did get my email? Dekkappai (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Troll

Careful! Trolls are hungry and if you feed them too much, they'll want more and more! That's even more true when such troll says that "But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians" when he had clearly said just a few lines before that "in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies". If the society is racist, that means that the race subject it's important to it. Of course, that troll is quite known for getting too much into contradiction and fabricating sources (when he gives any!) to prove his point. Now you know why I think it's a waste of time to discuss the thread. The final objective is only one as the same troll wrote that "The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it". In sum: don't change what belongs to someone else. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The following comment (or final statement, perhaps) is also instructive.

A White Brazilian is a person who said to be White in the census. That's all.

Especially when written ostensively in support of a version that states White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

At some level, it becomes funny. Ninguém (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Poss sock

I had the same thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Gordon Bleu", yes! Which somehow reminds me: What ever happened to "Orly Taitz"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And now?

I confess that I am at a loss on what to do next in White Brazilian. Off2riorob seems to have withdrawn his objections, the other editors involved (you, Lecen, Grenzer22, Dwarf Kirlston) seem to agree with the changes that were reversed. What should be done now? Ninguém (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression that neither Lecen nor Grenzer22 agreed, although their disagreements might not be as strong as their disagreements with the current version.

I don't see that anything has changed to the status of "White Brazilian". A reasonable point that -- if memory serves me right (I'm too lazy to look) -- was pointed out by at least two of Off2riorob, DGG and Orlady was that the introduction of the proposed revision is unsatisfactorily long, because it contains material that (so far as it's worthwhile) should really be somewhere else. And I agree, and I thought that you did too.

If (or so far as) people are no longer objecting, good. This should mean that getting agreement on a new article, "Race in Brazil", should be that much less painful.

Now I think is the time to propose such an article to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil". For if it is not proposed and agreed to there, I think it's highly likely that it will be turned back into a redirect.

I'd be happy to make the proposal myself. I'm now going to go home and have dinner. After that I'll see if you've replied to this, or if anyone else has made any pertinent comments. If there's no objection I'll go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I say that Lecen and Grenzer agree, I mean they agree with the general direction of the changes. I by no means want to have an iron grip over this or any other article; they should be open to constructive contributions from everybody. As long as they are rebuilt within the lines of modern anthropology, sociology, genetics, demography, etc., things are fine. What cannot subsist is the essentialist tone that dominates them (there are "real" and "fake" Whites, Brazilians "lie" about their race, the only actual "Whites" in Brazil are those of recent immigrant descent, etc.) On this I think there is by now a general agreement.

Up to now, the only valid criticism of the changes I made I have seen was about the lenght of the lead. With this I agree, and I have even proposed a shorter version; as far as I can understand, the only objections to this came from Off2riorob, who wanted to keep a sentence about "ancestries" (inserting the Japanese...), the notion that the Brazilian Census is exceptional in its use of self-identification (which I understand he later recanted) and the comparison to the US.

I would be more than happy if you made the proposal at the Brazil Project; please do so when you have the time and stamina...

Cheers! Ninguém (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very, very much! Ninguém (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DC's Post on ANI

While I do not agree with this revision, as I see anything DC is doing as clear digging up of drama, I will respect it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

People mark discussions as resolved, or they hide them. Better to limit deletion to what any sane, sober person would call offensive or cretinous. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete the thread, I wouldn't do that I can assure you. At first I did delete (more like cut and paste) it to move it to the already exsisting thread on the subject. This diff shows it better on my revert. I wouldn't outright delete something unless it was vandalism or some other form of edit that needed a clear deletion. This was a simple cut and paste move (via two edits) and later a revert. I have made my feelings know on the post and will let the admins move/close/archive/etc. as they see fit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"grammar"

Black is a color or an adjective. Unless used in the title of a book or movie it is not a proper noun and therefor should not be capitalized. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 23:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Make your point at Talk:Kwanzaa, not here. And get agreement for it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Its really not something that needs approval or a consensus. Proper grammar is proper grammar. I didn't write the language. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your continuing confusion of orthography with grammar (compounded by your reference to "proper grammar") suggests that you may not be the best qualified person to make pronouncements on either. (Incidentally, if we're concerned about orthography, not "Its really not something" but "It's really not something"; note the apostrophe.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said to you once, pointing out every error I type doesn't automatically make me incorrect on the topic at hand, it really just makes you look like a wise ass. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 03:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that blacks is not a proper noun and need not be capitalized, I must now warn you to comment only on sources and content, not on other editors. Not only will Hoary be utterly unswayed by being called a wise ass, it's a personal attack and not allowed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, this is all fair game in love, war and orthography. The ass is a charming beast, and I'm delighted to appear wise. A merry Kwanzaa to you and yours, Aspensti and Gwen! -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I've met one or two wise donkeys :D As I hinted Aspensti, you won't get what you want by calling Hoary names. Meanwhile, merry kwanzaa/christmas/yule to y'all! Oh! Oh! I didn't capitalize! Woe is me! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ending a Sentence with a Preposition

Hi. You removed a link from Preposition and postposition. The link ([73]) dealt with ending a sentence with a preposition, which I found useful. You mentioned Pullum et al, but they are only listed as a reference, not linked. I am a grammar layman, which is perhaps why I found the link useful! Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable request. I'll work on it immediately (or anyway until interrupted by something else). -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My premonition came true, in spades. I was immediately interrupted by the notice below of some silly AfD, and by the arrival of two splendid packages. ¶ This apocryphal story seems to have spread across en:WP: it's not only in the bizarrely titled Preposition and postposition (why not either "preposition" or "adposition"?) but also at Hypercorrection, Preposition stranding, and even List of linguistic example sentences. I've fixed it just now at Hypercorrection, but the days here are short, the sun is shining, and thus I'm itching to get out of the house. I'll fix the others within 24 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The link dealt with an apocryphal story about how Churchill allegedly made fun of a prohibition on "ending a sentence with a preposition". No evidence has ever been adduced for the claim that Churchill did this, and there's good evidence that he didn't. Assuredly somebody did say it, at least as early as 1942. Putting aside the question of who said it, and taking "preposition" to have the meaning accepted in the 1940s by linguists and the man on the Clapham omnibus, it does not demonstrate what it's claimed to demonstrate. (Yes, this prescriptivist prohibition of preposition stranding was asinine, but the sentence attributed to Churchill doesn't show this.) All in all the story that Churchill said this, combined with the inference commonly drawn from it, would belong in some English-language dictionary of received ideas (a successor to Henry Root's World of Knowledge, which I warmly recommend), but it deserves only a small, inconspicuous place in something purporting to be a general encyclopedia rather than an encyclopedia of misinformation.

I've fixed the references to it in both Hypercorrection and List of linguistic example sentences. I believe that it would be inexcusably trivial and redundant in either Preposition and postposition or Preposition stranding; neither now mentions it.

I did no more than glance at the remainder of these articles. The impression I got was that two or more of them were mostly junk. One problem is that most people who have a moderate interest in grammar use grammar books, however recently published, that merely recycle what the grammar books of the preceding generation said, and that these in turn merely recycled what their own predecessors said. The dictionaries too recycle these myths.

If you're a grammar layman and have some spare money lying around, forgo your next pair of overpriced sneakers or your next gaudy wristwatch, and instead buy a copy of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (ISBN 0-521-43146-8). If you don't have the money, instead buy a copy of the same authors' very much shorter and cheaper but yet excellent A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (ISBN 0-521-61288-8). Come to think of it, I'd recommend the latter even if you can also buy the former: it has excellent exercises that go to show that even descriptive linguistics requires hard thinking. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work! Thanks for that. As it happens, I don't spend much money on sneakers (overpriced or otherwise) and none on gaudy wristwatches. Your suggested reading and associated exercises might be just the thing for these long, dark Scandinavian winter nights! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got taste. Pardon me, but the "peter" part of your name suggested male rather than female, so I thought of the stereotypical masculine purchasing silliness. (Is Scandinavia like Japan, in that one corporate commuter (deskbound or sales) in three sports an uncomfortably heavy wristwatch whose face advertises some pointlessly macho claim, e.g. to survive 200 metre submersion?) Not that I'm totally immune to masculine purchasing silliness myself. ¶ The one major irritation with CGEL is its index, which typically leads you to look up anything in four places. Trouble is, even if CUP could spare the personpower to make a significantly more detailed index, this might add another fifty or more pages to what is already a very thick book. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack_Obama

Hello, Hoary. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack_Obama.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership in article Brazil

Hello. The article Brazil has several issues, the main one is the fact that it's simply huge and overly detailed. In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and taking as model other Featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru as I explained in here. As I made the changes, I explained carefully why and where I made them such as in here.

However, editor Rahlgd reverted all with no explanation at all as it can be seen in here. He is the only one who can edit the article without being reverted. Just see the history log in it. Also, this is not the first time he reverts an edit.

His behavior is clearly ownership. Please, help us. --Lecen (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One point. I frequently infer that an editor wants to "own" an article. But I delay saying so. If the editor does indeed want to "own" it, then making this accusation earlier tends to rigidify his (yes, usually male) position and turn any discussion into dreary point-scoring exercise. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I wouldn't be crazy to say such thing without a good reason. That same editor added a couple fo days ago information into the military section about intention plans that the Ministry of Defense has for Brazilian military. Intentions. They are not even projects, even less something real. I removed them explaing why I did it in the talk page. Another editor (Elockid) agreed with me. Rahlgd simply reverted without bothering to explain why. I wrote: "You have reverted what I did for a third time. That is a motive to be blocked. However, I will not request that because I believe what you did, although wrong, was not with any bad intention. You have insisted on adding information about projects that didn't begin to be developed yet." Now, he reverted everything. --Lecen (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That an allegation would be fully justified doesn't necessarily mean that it's wise to make it. If an editor is wrong to revert something, say so as persuasively as you can. Telling him (with however much justification) that he's violating "WP:OWN" is unlikely to persuade him. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will be more careful with what I write. Not only he reverted everything I did but he added some stuff that do not make sense such as a picture of an airplane called Su-35 as being part of the Brazilian Air Force program to buy new fighters. There are only three fighters in the dispute (Rafale, Grippen and F-18) and none of them are the Russian airplane. I could go on and one with everything he adds but it would be uselless. The article is huge and has too many non important info in it as you pointed out a few in the talk page. This is the last edit I made. Feel free to compare with the present version. I took as model the articles (Featured class, BTW) about [[Canada[[, Peru and India. Take a good read on the session "Etymology" on both versions. Also, the sections (on my version) "Portuguese colonization and territorial expansion" and "Independence and Empire" are a little large because I was about to make it smaller when everything I did was reverted. On my version the history section had Four subsections instead of the present Six. Also, the present section "Sub-division" was made much smaller in my version, taking as example the India and Canada similar sections. Instead of a section with Five subsections, on my version it was only one section and it was part of "Government and politics" sections (again, taking as model other countries' asrticles). The same with economy and geography sections. I had no time to make changes in the remaining ones, unfortunately. And don't worry, whatever I removed could be found in the appropriate article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have downsized the article to 111kb long (from its original 185kb). My last edit was this one. It was originally like this. Please, tell which one you support in the article's talk page. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I believe that the article is now fine. How do I request a review? I would like to see it nominated for featured. What should be done, do you know? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

First, no matter how good it is, it can't be promoted to FA, because disputes are so recent that it can't be described as stable. (Just to take a very simple example, there's an argument over whether a section on etymology should be reinstated.) Secondly, even I can immediately see that the article is riddled with problems. Indeed, one problem that I pointed out simply here on the talk page hasn't been addressed after days. (Also, I was being polite about the issue of time zones. The English is so confused there that I honestly don't understand what the writer intended.) ¶ None of this is to deny that the article could become an FA within months rather than years or that it has improved a lot in the last few days (and mostly at your hands). But let's be realistic about it; and realism here requires stamina and patience. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it still has several issues but now at least (as you pointed out) the article is "workable". About the time issue, I don't know much about the subject so I prefer not to get involved in it. Although I would like to see it raised to featured class (because it has the potential to) I was thinking on asking a peer review to let known all issues that there are in it. As you said yourself, it has many, but which one are they exactly? P.S.: I believe that now the article will be more stable. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in asking for a peer review at this point. Really, every paragraph I look at seems to have problems. I lack the energy to point out most of these, but just as one I put forward the extensive use of Encarta, a tertiary source. And since the CIA has recently been both (i) only dubiously competent at getting the kind of info that the US most wants and (ii) obviously not independent of US politics, I wonder about the value of its "World Factbook". I've just been going through the section on transport, where I find mistitled articles, sourcing to the anonymously written and advertising-heavy "Encyclopedia of the Nations" (whatever that's supposed to be), etc etc etc. Once the people who are working on the article are fairly happy with it, then it can go to peer review, in the hope of getting comments on matters we're not already aware of. ¶ Incidentally, the way in which Portuguese-language articles have been given fictional English titles (titles that clearly aren't English translations of the original titles) makes me wonder about how accurately they have been used. I am very deliberately not writing "accessed" or "retrieved" at today's date: doing so might imply that I'm confirming that they say what they are used to say. Unfortunately I can't read Portuguese (as you know) and therefore can check. I can read English, and have already found that at least one "source" said nothing like what it was claimed to say. I'm sure that somebody conscientious should check every single one of the claimed sources of this article, checking its content and credibility. Indeed, until I know that this has been done, I'll oppose any effort to have this made a featured article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm good at history, but checking sources in Portuguese is not a problem. I'll do that. P.S.: I also agree that we should avoid internet sources if we can use in its place reliable books. --Lecen (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nothing against internet sources. I just want good internet sources. The same for books, really. There's nothing magically authoritative about a book: it has to be a reliable book. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it going? Another rewrite? Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You may see Brazil and its talk page for yourself and form your own judgment. -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I already have been watching the discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Daiko Group

I have moved this article to User:Nihonjoe/Daiko Group to allow more time to find reliable sources. I'm positive that a company that's this large has to have some other references in magazines or newspapers which do not have online archives. If you can look around, call or email the company to ask if they have a list of any such articles, etc., that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I had intended to look in the library, but when I got there I realized that (as corporate history is not my area) I had no idea of which databases or books to look in and that I therefore wouldn't be able to find anything in the limited time then available.

(I'm stunned by how agonizingly difficult it is to do things for the first time. Yesterday was the first time I attempted to use Gimp for illustration rather than fiddling with a photograph: just finding out how to color the white areas of a black on white drawing took me over two hours. Once I found out, coloring was easy -- though of course software can't make up for my lack of カラー・センス; however competently applied, the colors look poorly chosen, even to me.)

I think that there are searchable CD-ROMs of 日経 but I fear that yes, they are still mere CD-ROMs rather than DVD-ROMs and that each covers some irritatingly short period. As you probably know, Japan is in the process of closing down for a week or so, and in fact "my" library already has closed. Later, later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)