Wikipedia

Talk:Brazil/Archive 8

< Talk:Brazil
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Opinoso in topic Why Lecen improved the older history text
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Original section being replaced by new one

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The issue is: in 20 October 2009, user:Lecen started to erase several sourced informations from article Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His justification to erase them was "Adding a much better and correct text with sources to Empire section"[1]. After a few days, the entire section about History of Brazil was erased by this user, and replaced with his own contributions.

Lecen is free to point the parts that he found to be "incorrect" or "worse" in the original History section. However, I can't find any rule from Wikipedia allowing an user to erase sourced informations because he deslikes what was writen there, and giving no reasons to erase them. Wikipedia does not allow this type of behaviour. Comments please.Opinoso (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know little of the subject, but blanking is to be deplored. If there was incorrect or biased information, the proper course is to correct it AND add citations of reliable sources. Without that it is potentially the editor's WP:OR. It is unfortunate that the article has been worked on since, so that it is not to easy to see what is complained of. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I will make a brief summary of the problem according to my view: I started to rewrite the section “History” in the article on Brazil. The idea was to improve the text changing the old citations based on websites for books written by several renowned historians. I had already rewritten three subsections without having received complains from other users. In the fourth subsection that deals with the reign of Emperor Pedro II, I received serious complains from user Opinoso who made baseless personal accusations against me for no reason. I sent him a private message asking him to get into a peaceful resolution to the matter, but he simply ignored me and kept with the accusations, attacks and ironic remarks towards me. After that he added untrue information in the subsection. And even more serious: he was not faithful to his own sources and created information that did not exist in the sources, as I managed to prove in the discussion page. - --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II and his reign viewed by foreign and Brazilian historians

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Nothing of what I wrote was taken out of my head or based on personnal opinions. They were all taken from history books written by renowned Brazilian and foreign historians. Anyone who reads it, will surely notice that is identical to what I wrote. I am putting in here a few of them. If any one wants it, I can put as many others as necessary until I prove the fairness of my allegations. I remain faithful to my sources, the opposite of what Opinoso does. And if to any of you they might seem "biased" it is because as historian José Murilo de Carvalho said (p.265) the all historians "tend to be sympathetic toward the monarch if not openly praiseful".

American historians

Dana Gardner Munro

(Munro, Dana Gardner. The Latin American Republics; A History. New York: D. Appleton, 1942, pp.273-274)

Under the new Emperor, Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress. Despite his youth, Pedro II soon showed a surprising capacity to give the country precisely the kind of government that its political development seemed to demand. Educated by conscientious tutors under a strict regime that left him little opportunity for contact with the court influences which had shaped his father’s character, he grew up to be serious minded, irreproachable in his private life, and indefatigable in the performance of what he considered his duty. He was keenly interested in art, science, and literature, well-informed though not profound or brilliant, an able and intelligent ruler if not a great statesman. His subjects loved him for his simplicity and his democratic ways even when they regarded his weakness with tolerant amusement or criticized his official acts with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.

Thomas E. Skidmore

(Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.73)

Pedro II brought a natural talent to his work. Even at age 14, he was steady, equilibrated and discrete. The young emperor had another advantage. As his father said on the eve of his departure in 1831: “My son has an advantage over me that is the fact that he is Brazilian, and the Brazilians like him. He will reign without difficulty and the Constitution will guarantee his prerogatives”. During his reign, he acquired the reputation of being just and objective, projecting the image of a honest and ethical sovereign who would not hesitate in disciplining politicians who were caught turning away from his strict standards. In this he resembled Queen Victoria, his British contemporary, whose long reigned (1837-1901) in great measure was parallel to his. Pedro II became more and more a point of reference for the elite, who used its straightness and firm pulse to move the country far away from the “unstable” Latin American republics.

British historians

Roderick J. Barman

(Barman, Roderick J. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp.XIII-XIV)

The task of transforming Brazil into a functioning nation-state fell to a boy aged fourteen. Pedro II devoted himself during the next half century to meeting the formidable challenge. “During what is now a long life,” he reflected in November 1891, “I have applied all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people.” Resourceful, patient, and above all persevering, he eschewed bold initiatives and avoided confrontations. The emperor first established an undisputed dominance over public affairs, his integrity and his impartiality being respected by all. Even more important, the public persona he developed embodied the values which the ruling elements in Brazil wished for their country. He was at once the model emperor and the model citizen. He literally and metaphorically towered above his fellow Brazilians. Pedro II’s achievements at home and the high reputation he established abroad convinced Brazilians that the goals he advocated would create a country as powerful and as civilized as France, Great Britain or the United States.

Brazilian historians

Pedro Calmon

(Calmon, Pedro. História da Civilização Brasileira. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2002, p.217)

The revolution that occurred in Pernambuco in 1848 – when Rio Grande do Sul was already pacified since 1845 – ended a cycle of civil-military agitations that disturbed, during the regency and beyond, the life of the nation. The politics, became British-like, and were improved, creating springs and bumpers that started to function under the vigilant eyes of the emperor, whose personal power crossed the wide time of 1840 to 1889 - the peace was consummated and allowed, with the development of the ideals, the evolution of democracy in Brazil. There is not, in the history of the South America, more continuous period of tranquility, so different of the examples given by its neighbors [the Spanish South American republics], that J.B. Alberdi considered our case the “Brazilian miracle”. When the throne fell, in 1889, Rojas Paúl, president of Venezuela, said,: “It has ended the only republic that existed in [South] America: the Empire of Brazil.” Mitre called it “a crowned democracy”.

José Murilo de Carvalho

(Carvalho, José Murilo de. D. Pedro II. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007, p.9)

D. Pedro ruled Brazil from 23 July 1840 up to 15 November 1889. It was 49 years, three months and 22 days, almost half a century. He assumed the power with less than fifteen years old in a turbulent phase of the national life, when Rio Grande do Sul was an independent republic, the Maranhão faced the revolt of the Balaiada, it had barely ended the bloody war of Cabanagem in Pará, and England threatened the country with the retaliation due to the slave traffic. He was deposed and exiled with 65 years old, leaving consolidated the unit of the country, abolished the traffic and slavery, and established the foundation of the representative system thanks to the uninterrupted accomplishment of elections and the great freedom of the press. For the longevity of his government and the transformations effected in its course, no other head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country.

--Lecen (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Carlos Olivieri

(Olivieri, Antonio Carlos. Dom Pedro II, Imperador do Brasil. São Paulo: Callis, 1999, p.22)

Until the decline of the Empire, in the 1880s, the political stability favored the economical and cultural development of the country. In the literature, in painting and music, started to appear creators, such as the poet Gonçalves Dias, the writer José de Alencar, the painter Pedro Américo and the maestro Carlos Gomes. All of them are still up to this day important references of the Brazilian culture. Enthusiastic of the arts, dom Pedro II tried to support writers and artists. He granted scholarships in the foreign for Pedro Américo and Carlos Gomes, among others. If the Government could not pay for them, he would pay with his own money. [...] Beyond favoring artists and intellectuals, dom Pedro II personally sponsored many educational initiatives, establishing or collaborating with the establishments of schools and institutions of scientific research.

--Lecen (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Karp Vasquez

(Vasquez, Pedro Karp. Nos trilhos do progresso: a ferrovia no brasil imperial vista pela fotografia. São Paulo: Metavídeo, 2007, p.38)

Although having assumed the power very young, in virtue of the artifice of the Majority, done in 23 July 1840, when he had not completed the age of 15 years, Dom Pedro II made of the Second Empire a period of stability and growth to Brazil. Reserved and melancholic, Dom Pedro II was in all different from his impetuous father, having remained in power for almost fifty years, in one of the longest reigns of the history of the world. Without letting become fascinated by power - which he neglected in favor of studies -, Dom Pedro II knew how to impose himself although so young and to balance between `luzias” (liberal) and “saquaremas” (conservatives), to lead the country into a period of stability and prosperity after 1850. Enormously interested in everything that was related to scientific discoveries, Dom Pedro II sought to modernize the country, anticipating itself in many cases the initiative of European countries.

--Lecen (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? What's your point here? Did anybody say that Emperor Pedro II did not do good things for Brazil? Of course he did. However, his government was not so perfect as you're trying to sell, neither the Republic was so evil like you're trying to sell. Both have positive and negative points, like any other government. However, your obssession with trying to "prove" that the reign of Pedro II was a great moment for Brazil seems a little bit "suspect". You choose (for personal reasons) to post only the positive points about Monarchy, and only the negative points of Republic. You erased important facts about that period, crucial aspects (negatives is most cases) and replaced them with all positive aspects. Not a really neutral attitude. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen comments on each sentence he removed

Hello Lecen, how are you doing?! This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article. Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations, and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right? Since he erased ALL the History text, it means that ALL the original sentences were "wrong" and "worse". Could Lecen please show us the wrong informations it had? Because, as far as I can, everything seemed to be well sourced and neutral. I'd like to see him commenting on each information he erased (since he erased everything, he must comment each sentence of the original text), and explain why he erased it, and why the sentence was wrong. For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.

This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).

I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude. However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place. This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed. Then, Wikipedia allowes me to re-post what was removed with no reason.

Good luck Lecen. I will wait the comments on each information that you removed (not only about Emperor Pedro II, but about the entire History text, since you erased it all). It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that, but perhaps we should first solve our issues in this section. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's great that you agreed with my idea. In my opinion, the original History text had no issues. It seemed perfect to me. In Lecen's opinion, the entire text had issues, and then he decided to erase it all. I think the first step is Lecen to point all the issues he found there, using sources to point all the informations he found to be wrong (with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home). I find it incredible that an all-sourced text could be all wrong. Then, let's give Lecen an opportunity to point all these mistakes he claimed to see there (and contradict them with sources). However, if he is not able to prove why an information was "wrong", then he is not able to remove it. Opinoso (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources, then I'm pretty sure that the informations from these books may be easily found on different websites (good works are always followed by many people and posted in millions of websites around the world). Opinoso (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Lecen, how are you doing?!
So polite now! what take you so long to act like this?
This is the place for User:Lecen to explain why he decided to erase the ENTIRE History text of this article.
As usual, you are not telling the truth. As I explained before, I have re-worked the subsections from early settlement up to the end of the Empire. When I was going to work on the republican subsections, you appeared. Unfortunately, by the way. I added a paragraph to one of the republic subsections but I erased later. So, saying that it was the entire section isn´t correct. I would not expect something else out of you, I must confess.
Lecen said that the original History part of this article had "incorrect" and "worse" informations
And they were.
and that's why he choose to erase them all. Maybe all the informations were wrong, maybe they were not. Then, he's gotta prove it, right?
If yo uread the older text and my version of the colonial era, you'ss see that they are very similar. The exception is that my explains better the territorial expansion and the treaties signed by Portugal and Spain that gave the borders that Brazil now has. By the way, if you don´t even know if the older text had correct or not informations, why have do you want it so badly back?
I think the first step is Lecen to point all the issues he found there, using sources to point all the informations he found to be wrong (with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home).
You talk like I had done all that out of nowhere. Anyone can see the discussion page and will observe that I warned in here that I wanted to improve the text. That was on October 17. Three days later, and many other edits later, I made my first modification. And I made it clear that if anyone had any opinion about it, I was waiting for. Two days later, I warned everyone that I had made other modifications and asked for opinions. No one did. In fact, other editors were correcting a few grammar mistakes on my texts but other than that, no one had complained. Three days later (October 25, a full week after I warned that I wanted to improve the text), I told everyone that I had ended working on the texts about the colonial and imperial era and that I was moving towards the republic. Two days later, I once again warned about new changes. Then you appeared.
For that, he cannot use his personal opinion or theories. He must bring us sources which claim the opposite of what was writen.
Oh, but you can use your personal opinions and fabricate infromation by giving sources that does not says what you claim?
I don´t need to bring the opposite. Read the older and the newer text, they are similar. Mine has more information and runs more smoothly. Oh, and I used as base the history section of the United States. That is why both structures are so similar.
This is what Lecen should have done before he decided to erase sourced informations: to comment on each erased information, and why he decided to delete them, and why it deserved to be deleted (with sources that we can read, not personal theories).
And I want you to explain why you were not faithful to your sources and fabricated information out of nowhere. That is not correct. In fact, I am dying to say what truly is, but I have to polite.
I'm giving Lence the opportunity to explain his attitude.
You are not a judge to act like that. I don´t want an opportunity from you. You were not faithful to your source. You took the work from someone and claimed that that person had said something that he did NOT. Why I am being treated like a criminal? You are the one who should be sanctioned.
However, if Lence cannot explain why he removed a certain sentence or information, I will return with the deleted information to the article and remove the new ones that were posted in their place.
No, you are not. You will keep them there so that everyone can see your dishonesty. You want to reomve them because now you now that you were caught and is afraid of being punished. Too late. Before all this started I sent you a private message trying to work things out peacefuly. You didn´t bother to answer me. Now you want to undone what you did? Now you want to be polite with me? It is too late. I can explain sentence by sentence that I modificated. I want to see YOU explaining what you did.
This is because a sourced information can only be removed if somebody can prove it was wrong. If the person cannot prove it, it cannot be removed.
Ow... and your FAKE sourced information is ok?
Good luck Lecen.
Good luck to you.
What you did was wrong. You cannot use someone (on that case, those sources wyou used) and put under their shoulders the responsabilites for the FAKE informations you have wrote. What if this article was about a living person and that person would try to take legal actions against the inocent source you have used? What you did was serious. Very serious. Someone cannot write a book and use other person's work as source and put an information that the other person has NOT said. That could bring serious problem to the person who was used as source.
It's fair, isn't it? What was wrong and removed, will continue be removed. What was correct and was removed, will return. Then, in the end, everybody will be happy with a beautiful article and move on.
You are trying to get away from what you did. You think I am going to back down, that we are going to return the text to the older version, and no will notice the frauds you commited. No, sir. No way. For the last couples of days you have insulted my dignity. You have insulted my honor. You have mocked me. Anyone who knows of my contributions in here knows that I do a serious work. A will not let someone like you who commits frauds treat me like I was like you and forget everything that happened. If I were you, I would disappear for a while and stop causing troubles in here.
It's great that you agreed with my idea. In my opinion, the original History text had no issues.
Yes it had. I have put several quotes from several historians in here to prove that what I wrote is correct. I am going all the way to the end now. And you are going down.
then I'm pretty sure that the informations from these books may be easily found on different websites (good works are always followed by many people and posted in millions of websites around the world).
No wonder you took an information from a population table and said that during Pedro II reign more slaves were imported than in any other moment of Brazilian history. And you are asking us to trust on sources based on websites? Are you joking? Because if you are, that is not funny.
So what? What's your point here? Did anybody say that Emperor Pedro II did not do good things for Brazil? Of course he did.
Didn´t you spend all this time giving hints to everyone that I was lying when I wrote down that his reign was prosperous for the country? Didn´t you insult my integrity to prove your point? I wrote down the opinion of several historians about Pedro II and his reign. And no ONE, no ONE seems to agree with your arguments. Oh, I forgot, your arguments are a farse.
Both have positive and negative points, like any other government.
Now you are trying to be neutral? And who said that I was saying that monarchy was better than republic? That was never the matter. EVER.
However, your obssession with trying to "prove" that the reign of Pedro II was a great moment for Brazil seems a little bit "suspect".
DO NOT INSULT ME. STOP INSINUATING things about me. STOP trying to insinuate that I am acting on bad faith. YOU DID. Your obssession drove you so far that you commited fraud to prove your point. You are the one who is "suspect". Do not insult me, ever again by accusing me of things YOU DID.
with sources that we see, avoiding sources from books that nobody has at home
So, no one can write in Wikipedia until every one has a copy of the book? If that´s the problem, I can SCAN all pages that I used and send through e-mail to everyone who is intereste to check it. You can NOT do that because your information aren´t even REAL. - --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing I must disagree with. There is no reason to use "books that people have at home". Do not make up rules, please.
I'd really like to see that you two agree first of all on a few compromises about the issues we talked about before. We had ten points and some compromises on the way. Have a look at Talk:Brazil#New_change_on_the_text and start making proposals. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Here are my thoughts on the 10 points, following what you wrote:
  1. POV language. Me: Not only I agree as I have proved that it does not match with the source's information.
  2. If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war the remove. Me: Agree. War casualties should be on its proper page.
  3. Should not be here. Me: Agree. Sames as number 2.
  4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements. Me: As I have put in here, all historians says that the country developed and grew. Its source does not even says what it is written.
  5. Relevant short mention can be kept. Me: redundant. It won´t make the text richer. Slaves were used on mines, house works, prostitution, etc... not only coffe farms. This is not history of Brazilian slavery (however, my original proposal was to add a "see also: slavery in Brazil" tag so that anyone interested in knowing more about the subject may take a look in the apropriate article), but history of Brazil. There is no reason to be so detailed if the immigrants are not even mentioned at all on the text. And remember: the text must be small and objective.
  6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept. Me: as I have proven, the source does not says that. It must be removed.
  7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here. Me: I believe that the following phrase could be added: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887."
  8. Very relevant short mention should be kept. Me: Fine, it could stay.
  9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed. Me: Agree, it´s unnecessary and the quote was taken out of context. And Pedro II's troubles with the pro slavery faction was already mentioned in the phrase "took too long to trespass the political obstacles”. Not only coffe farmers were gainst the end of slavery, but also politicians and other groups.
  10. Incorrect. Me: I agree. -
My proposal for the final text can be seen at Talk:Brazil#New change on the text on extended content. --Lecen (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, user:Lecen is not going to comment on each sourced information that he erased. He prefered to comment on my comments, which is so useless and has no consequences for the article. User Lence said he "improved" the text. No, he did not. He erased the original text, writen by several users, and replaced it with his own contributions. This is not to "improve" a text. User Lecen may be free to add informations, not to erase them.

Then, he wrote in his user page[2] that he wrote "all History sections of Brazil article". It seems user Lecen whats to show the world that he was able to write everything in the History section, and that may be the reasons he is trying to remove the contributions of other users to this specific article. There's something real wrong here.

Lecen accuses me of faking sources. I think this user should read the entire book I used as a source before making such a huge accusation (he addimits that he read only a tiny part of the book). In fact, he is only trying to change the focus of this discussion to me. I'm not the focus of this discussion, neither you are. The focus is the fact that you erased several sourced informations without explaining why were removing them. You only said you were going to remove them because they were "wrong". Ok, were they wrong? So, show us the mistakes they had! It seems you're not able to shows us what was wrong there, then you started to change the focus of the discussion to me. No, no. I'm not the focus of this discussion. Your attitude is.

It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people.[3] (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it? Later, this user apperead here erasing sourced informations, mostly informations that showed negative points of Monarchy, and replacing them with another vision of Monarchy: only positive. Strange, isn't it?

Now, I ask the user to show us why he erased sourced informations, a great opportunity, and he denies my suggestion. I'm sorry Lecen, but if you are not able to explain why an information was "wrong", then you're not able to erase it. It's not me who is saying that, they're the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot erase an entire History text because you just don't like it.

You cannot say you were "improving" the article, because what is "better" or "worse" is a subjective conseption. In my opinion, the old History text is better, and Wikipedia does allow me to re-post it, since you cannot even explain why you removed it. Debresser agreed with me, because this is the most wise way to solve this issue.

Won't you really comment on each information you erased from the original History text? Opinoso (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're getting personnal as usual. What I do on my user page is my problem as long as it does not hurt Wikipedia rules. It is written there "Other articles I have significantly contributed to". "Signicantly" does mean that I was the only one who wrote it. I am just making clear that I had some part on the overall text. And I don´t understand why I am explaing this. You keep accusing me and insinuating that there was bad faith from my part. You are not helping at all on resolving the matter.
Those Brazilian historical figures were Prime-Ministers and considered the greatest statesmen of Brazil in the 19th century. My interest is not in the fact that they later were ennobled, but their role in the political arena.
The only negative information about that era were the ones that you put and that were fake. I already put in here the opinion on foreign and Brazilian historians on that period. Is their opinion against your fake info. Which one to take in account? Anyway, you're only here to cause trouble. - --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of issue

Lecen decided not to comment on each sourced information he erased, and why they and their sources were "wrong". Then, it means that he erased the informations because he just did not like them. Since this is not allowed in Wikipedia, I am re-posting all the sourced informations this user removed without anu justification (it means I am reverting the History text to its original form.

If Lecen finds that some information is wrong, he is able to use this talk page to show us (with sources) why that information is wrong. Or, if the finds a source is not reliable, he is able to discuss the issue in the correct place. However, if Lecen starts to remove sourced informations once again without any justification, then he will be vandalyzing the article. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Added by Grenzer22

Quote: "And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?". Opinoso'(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth": that's completely false. Slavery continued in many other places in the world after 1888, you just have to look for them to find them. No more than 2 decades after the US by the way. And the labour system which was practiced in Brazil was a result of the system which was implanted by the Portuguese invaders, who since from the XV century were capturing slaves, soon to be followed by Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands (in spite of that, and a lot more, Europeans claim to be the champions of the human rights cause; and this is what has been omitted from history books for a long time). As a European colony Brazil was forced to accept slavery from 1500 to 1822, massive slavery, first the Native Americans, and then Africans who were traded by the Portuguese by the millions. From 1822 to 1888 that's only 66 years.

1865 United States abolishes slavery 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery 1894 Korea abolishes slavery 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery 1906 China abolishes slavery 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery 1970 Oman abolishes slavery 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

30 October 2009 Grenzer22

Comment by Elockid

It seems some I just don't like this is going on. That being said, the passages have some problems, I'm commenting on the new ones since the old ones have already been commented:

  • but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" (Opinoso's) - removed.
Agree with removal, it reads POV to me
  • "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed" (Opinoso's) - removed
Was this such a significant event that it needs to be added?
  • "with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.” (mine) - removed
"Extremely" is one of those unnecessary words that for the most part, enhances the effect of POV and really doesn't help convey what the sentence is talking about. This should be avoided, statement does not seem neutral.
  • "Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries" (mine) - removed
"Very well" is another one of those phrases. See above. Comparisons usually leads to disputes.
  • "The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America" (mine) - removed
See above. Word choice problems
  • "and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end" (mine) - removed
"Undisputed", again see above. This could have been left without. You might also want to use a different word other than "hegemony" or at least wikilink it. I doubt that a good number of people know what this is
  • "which left more than 300,000 dead" (Opinoso's) - removed
Don't agree with removal. This shows the magnitude of a significant war.

Added:

  • "However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles" - mention to Pedro II conflict with the pro-slavery farmers.
"too long". Watch the language here.
  • "and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery" - just changed the website source for an author.
This should be reworded to last country in the Americas rather than last American country. Even though "American country" is correct, some people still uphold the belief that term "American" refers to the United States. This is a view that is shared outside of the US also, not just in the US. The term "Americas" from experience doesn't produce the same conception as "American".
  • "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887."
There's nothing wrong with adding data about slavery since it was a big part of Brazil's history. However, the beginning of that statements makes it seem too optimistic. You could rewrite it as "Slavery had been declining after/from (choose after or from) insert year(s) here until insert year here, when slavery was abolished."

Hope that helps. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User Elockid is also able to see the same biased "words" that I do, strategically posted to sell a personal point of view. Even though these "words" may be found in the books used as sources, they sell only a personal vision about the subject, which is not a rule, neither may be the majority view of scholars. Opinoso (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
First of all I think we have to vote if the old text or if the new text should stay in that article. The old text is the one written by several users along the years and which was already there. The new text is the one exclusively written by User:Lence. When we get to a democratic choice about which text should stay there, the next step would be to correct the biased or wong informations (if they exist) in the chosen text. Nothing more democratic, right? I re-posted the old text, because it was erased without any justification, and user Lence did not want to point what was "wrong" about it.

I noticed some "brand new users" are appearing at this discussion. I hope they are not sockpuppets of other users already involved at this discussion, and I hope the votes of these "brand new users" won't also "appear" here.

I sincerely hope new users will cast their votes. Your hope that they wont is anti-consensus orientated. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that User:Lecen is not available till Tuesday, and that it is likely that that is the reason he didn't answer in detail to your questions. It took you a few days as well to start answering questions instead of making personal attacks... So please, be realistic. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope that editors will voluntarily constrain themselves to only civil discussion. -- Rico 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, Opinoso, you should probably change User:Lence to User:Lecen. I don't think they are the same person. I'm not able to because other editors are not allowed to modify another editor's comments. I'll cast a vote after I hear what Lecen has to say. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I also hope anyone can vote. But I noticed a "new user" who left a few messages here and also disappeared. It seemed strange to me. Opinoso (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I see. We have to be very carefull, because that would be a serious accusation. If you are seriously worried about this, you should post at the appropriate admin noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Let it be. I only said I hope it was not a sockpoppet. Opinoso (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confusing Lencen with Lecen. Opinoso (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Old text
  • --Opinoso (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC). The old text is not biased, is sourced, small and it recounts the History of Brazil, without personal opinions of scholars about certain subjects. The new text is biased, too long and it focus on personal opinions of scholars about a certain subject. It has several citations ("") with sentences from books, which seem biased to me, because it tries to sell opinions or a judgement that the book writer has. This is so biased that in the Emperie section, user Lencen posted a sentence of an writer as followes: "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country." This is the opinion of the writer. Nobody has to agree that the Emperor was the one that "has marked more deeply" Brazil. I asked my grandmother, and she thinks Getúlio Vargas was the best government Brazil ever had. I think the opinion of my grandmother is not less important than the opinion of anyone else. And a detail: user Lencen is always writing about Monarchy and Emperor Pedro II, then he has some kind of adimiration for the subject. This personal adimiration may reflect in non-neutral posts when it comes about Monarchy or Pedro II. Opinoso (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Emperor Pedro II is seen by historians as the Brazilian Head of State that has marked the country's history more than anyone else. That it is not inly the opinior of the highly acclaimed Brazilian historian José Murilo de Carvalho, but also the British historian Roderick J. Barman (in Citizen Emperor, p.XIII, preface), for example:
"In the history of Latin America since independence, no person has held power so firmly and for so long as did Pedro II of Brazil. The only comparable figure is Fidel Castro, who came to power in Cuba after the 1959 revolution. Through their personalities and their systems of governing, both rulers have shaped to a considerable degree the character and public culture of their nation-states."
And the author later says (p.XVI):
"Pedro II´s principal achievements – the fostering of a political culture and the inculcation of an ideal of citizenship – not only survived his overthrown as emperor in 1889 but also endured as the norms and directives of public life during three succeeding regimes – the Old Republic (1889-1930), the Vargas Era (1930-45), the Liberal Republic (1945-64). Even the military regime which seized power in 1964 was deeply influenced by the vision of Brazil as a nation-state established by Pedro II. Only in the 1980s would this vision begin to be supplanted”
It must be taken in account that the fact that Pedro II has marked the country's history more than any other Head of State does not mean that his government was the best Brazil ever had. It doens´t matter his grandmother's opinion if Vargas was the best Head of State. That's not the point. Opinoso's opinion reveals his partiality and how he insists on depreciating texts and changing their true meanings only to prove his point. ---Lecen (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
New text
Other

Polling is not a substitute for discussion

"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. ... in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. ... even in cases that appear to be 'votes', few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a 'majority rule' basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." -- WP:Vote -- Rico 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but there is an issue: an entire text was removed without any justification. The user only said it was "wrong" and "worse". He could not point why it was wrong or worse. We have to know which text will be used there: the old or the new. The old text has no issues (at least, until now, nobody was able to show what was "wrong" or "worse" about the old text). The new texts has many issues, it is totally biased. Then, if the old text will remain there at least from my part, it has no issues to be discussed. But, if the new text will remain there, then we have lots of biased informations to discuss. That's why I prefer the old text, because it was a great text, which was written by several users, and it is sourced. The new text, on the other hand, was written exclusively by one user (Lencen) and it is biased (besides being too long, which actually destroys this article). Opinoso (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor can remove an entire text, being bold. It's easy enough to revert[4][5] and then discuss it on the talk page. Whether there was justification may be debatable. My guess is that Lencen believes there was.
The issue is which version is better -- an oversimplification, and one of the reasons voting is not preferred. Per WP:Vote, "Potential problems with voting include: You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options."
I see Lencen has discussed it here on the talk page. Users are not expected to provide elaborate edit summaries after the discussion is on the talk page. An edit summary is supposed to summarize what the edit is, but not necessarily defend it.
Lencen's edit summaries look like this:
Extended content
  1. 12:55, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */")
  2. 12:57, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */")
  3. 13:31, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */")
  4. 06:38, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */")
  5. 06:48, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */")
  6. 19:46, 24 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Republic */")
  7. 13:13, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */")
  8. 13:15, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */")
  9. 17:19, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  10. 17:24, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */ Adding books to bibliography.")
  11. 18:26, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  12. 18:28, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */")
  13. 18:29, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  14. 18:57, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */")
  15. 18:58, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  16. 19:01, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  17. 19:08, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  18. 19:09, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  19. 21:09, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321993539 by 71.139.23.201 (talk)")
  20. 21:16, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  21. 00:01, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322032087 - The brown population in Brazil compass African, European and Native American mix offsprings")
  22. 00:47, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */")
  23. 18:17, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */ Adding another citation")
  24. 18:36, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */")
  25. 19:21, 26 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Etymology */")
  26. 00:39, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */")
  27. 10:52, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "No reason at all to add casualties to the small text about the history of the country. Malê rebellion was a small and insignificant revolt rarely mentioned in books, no reason to be in here.")
  28. 10:55, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "The Cabanagem is already mentioned in the text. The casualties cited are controversial and unnecessary to be used in here. It should be put in the article about the rebellion.")
  29. 10:59, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */")
  30. 13:38, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */")
  31. 14:05, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */")
  32. 14:42, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322339819 by Opinoso (talk)")
  33. 15:16, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision by Opinoso (talk) - I have changed the older and incorrect text for a much improved and with better sources one.")
  34. 15:18, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */")
  35. 15:19, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */")
  36. 15:21, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */")
  37. 15:31, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322350103 by Opinoso (talk) - Edit war. Stop it now.")
  38. 20:12, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */ Removing the old text for an improved version with sources.")
  39. 20:43, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ No reason to put the website citation. The text already makes mention to the rebellions that occured in that period with all sources needed.")
  40. 20:58, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */ Corrected grammar issues on the text.")
  41. 22:21, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Transfering some sentences to article about Pedro II and Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Now it is more straight foward.")
  42. 22:28, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Independence and Empire */ Transfered some sentences to History of the Empire fo Brazil and Politics of the Empire of Brazil. Now the text is smaller.")
  43. 22:37, 27 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Trasnfered more sentences to article about Pedro II and Politics of the Empire of Brazil")
  44. 00:34, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */ Shortened the section by removing not so important information to such a small place. Removed toolong tag. If someone is against it, put it back")
  45. 00:37, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship */ Removing not so important info")
  46. 00:41, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers */ Removed not so important info.")
  47. 00:42, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territorial expansion */")
  48. 19:03, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */ Add biased tag")
  49. 22:05, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Emperor Pedro II reign */Some modifications. SEE DISCUSSION PAGE.")
  50. 15:04, 30 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Military dictatorship and Contemporary era */ Adding more information to Contemporary era.")
Every editor has a bias/POV. Lencen may believe the article is less biased after her or her edits.[6] We'll just have to wait to find out.
I agree with you that length is an issue on Web pages. Lencen seems to too.("A idéia é deixar a seção ... pequena.")
We work on the basis of good reasons, consensus is not in numbers, and Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.
I'm not saying you are, but I would like to ask all people concerned not to get into a WP:WIN[7] mentality, tá? Wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't matter if the new text was written exclusively by one user. Only improving the article matters.
Thank you for being civil. I appreciate it. -- Rico 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lecen, as a person who has been following the discussions related to Brazilian subjects, I can tell you that Opinoso is not Brazilian. He is a foreigner, a biased foreigner, who simply has managed to control Brazilian related themes, and to implant his lies and biased agenda. As seen above (e.g that Brazil was the last country on earth to abolish slavery), he has said many wrong things about Brazil, and he carries his stick everywhere to spread his biased message on Brazil. It is not like I am delirious, but I suspect he may work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. He has had many conflicts with Brazilians over the years, he has always won (even when wrong), and he still controls Brazilian subjects. The very fact that he presents himself as a Brazilian, when he obviously isn't, should be enough for him not to be allowed to dictate Brazilian subjects as he is. Be aware that this guy is truly dangerous and has no good will towards Brazil or Brazilians (or Latin America and Latin Americans in general). Grenzer22

I would appreciate it if we could focus on the issue at hand -- what content is worthy of inclusion in the article, what content is not, what WP:NPOV violations there may be, what content has failed WP:V, etc. -- in an atmosphere of civility and devoid of personal attacks. -- Rico 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Lecen improved the older history text

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

I will explain each and every single action I did on this article on this place, not because Opinoso requested it, but because other editor did. I have ended writing, as you will see, what I did improved the text and didn´t harm it. And more important: I took as a model the history section of the United States. This is why it has similar titles and number of subsections. --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet sources versus History books sources

Opinoso wrote: Moreover, Lecen is always claiming that book sources are more reliable than website sources. I can't find any rule from Wikipedia supporting this idea. Then, since he claims that the books he uses are highly reliable sources

One of the accusations brought by Opinoso against me was of that in the old text of the history section of the article bout Brazil had worthy sources and that mine were not valid.
Yes, it is true that in Wikipedia we can use websites as sources, but we must remember the same ones can be closed, erased, shut down or their texts may even have been written by non-professionals on the subject (which is almost always the case and it is the case in the History section).
On the other hand, I used as sources history books of renowned historians and took as base the work of the majority of historians, and not of a minority (as you can all see here). For example, in the subsection on the Portuguese settling in Brazil, I used a book (The Portuguese Seaborne Empire [1969]) written by the British historian Charles R. Boxer instead of websites that not were even specialized in history, such as it was case in the old text. - --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." -- Rico 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy versus Republic

Opinoso wrote:It's funny that in Lacen's own user page, it seems that all his contributions are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy, noble and monarchist people. (History of the Empire of Brazil, José Maria da Silva Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, etc...) Lacen said he does not have any adimiration for Monarchy or noble people, but his contributions are dedicated to talk about the subject. Strange, isn't it?

Another accusation of Opinoso against me is that I would be monarchist and for that reason I would be partial and have spurious motives. According to him, that is based on the fact that I usually contribute with articles regarding the history of Brazil during the period when it was an empire.
This is a serious and baseless accusation. Because an editor contributes with articles about the III Reich does not mean that he is a Nazi (please, I am not saying that a monarchist is the same as a Nazi). Nor that an editor who contributes with articles regarding wars means that he supports violence.
Although I do find ridicule, I see that I need that to make a personal commentary on the subject. In my opinion monarchy is not better than republic, nor is republic better than monarchy. The United States, Germany, France and Austria are rich and developed republics. The same can be said of monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Japan.
In short, it is a useless and foolish accusation that came from a user who asked his grandmother’s opinion on a Brazilian Head of State to prove his point in the history section. --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of racism

Opinoso wrote: It is amazing how you desperately try to delete informations about African slaves or the absolute poverty of the Brazilian people. Perhaps because a country of blacks and poor is far from a prototype designed by some people.

Opinoso wrote: When you try to diminish the African influence in Brazil, it only shows your biased and "strange" point of view.

Another very, very serious accusation made by Opinoso against me is that I want to erase information on the Afro-Brazilians and their role in Brazilian history , because I would have something against them. He is implying that I would be a racist. This is a monstrous and absurd accusation that I do not admit and I find an insanity an editor accuse another one of something so serious for so little. --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso versus Lecen

This is not the first time that I met user Opinoso in Wikipedia. Some time ago I decided to collaborate in the article about the Brazilian people and placed four photos: a white girl, a group of indians, a black young woman with a boy son of immigrants and a brown young woman. All were from the 19th century, as it is very difficult to find photos from nowadays that do not have copyrights, as all know. Opinoso simply reverted what I did alleging that the Brazilian people could not be resumed to white girl only. I calmly informed him that I had placed a photo for each Brazilian ethnic group, and not only one. After that he modified the phrase where it was said that the brown girl was brown, affirming that in reality she was black (only because he considered her as such). I spoke that the book from where I had taken it affirmed that she was brown. What did he do? He accused to me that I was using a book which the other editors did not had access to, and therefore, it could not be used as source!
I received the warning from another user that Opinoso had the custom of becoming “owner” of articles where he contributed. Nobody could modify anything that he simply reverted all. I observed in the Opinoso’s discussion page that he already had entered in serious issues with other users previously, and also into edit wars. As I found that the article was not worth all the trouble, I simply stopped contributing to it.
When, for my unpleasant surprise, he appeared in the article on Brazil complaining of my modifications, to prevent problems, I sent him a private message asking to peacefully discuss the matter and enter in a consensus. What he did? He ignored me and caused an edit war, and also gratuitously attacked and accused me in the discussion page. I received a warning that I would be blocked if I did any other reversion. And more: he reverted the whole text to the original one although there was an warning on the page telling that no one could do anything until the discussion on it be finished. --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between the older and newer text

Colonial era

Origins (OLDER TEXT)
Extended content
Main article: Indigenous peoples in Brazil
 
Two Brazilians of indigenous descent wearing traditional costumes.

Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia (Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes.

A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea.[1]

When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi-nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should "civilize" the Amerindians.[2]

Colonization (OLDER TEXT)
Extended content
Main article: Colonial Brazil
 
Map of Brazil issued by the Portuguese explorers in 1519.

Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies.[3] Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century.[4][5] Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall.

 
Statue of António Raposo Tavares at the Museu Paulista.

During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians.[6] In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland.[7] Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy.[8]

In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony.[9]

What is wrong and right in the older text

What is the wrong:

  • The information about Indians in "Origins" mix historical and nowadays info. (The modern information should be on demographics article or in the Indigenous peoples in Brazil article.)
No, they should. They're important informations and should be there. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Bandeirantes seen as the ones who expanded Brazilian borders (when in reality Portugal conquered territory that belonged to other nations through wars of conquest and later kept by treaties);
Yes, the Bandeirantes were the ones who expanded Brazilian borders. It was not "Portugal". Portugal is not a person. The people who expended the territory were the Bandeirantes, since they did not respect the Treaty of Tordesillas. And most of Brazil was only inhabited by Amerindian populations and Jesuit priests (from whom the Bandeirantes got the lands). Even though there were wars to take lands from the Dutch or the Spanish, most of Brazil was taken by the Bandeirantes, and from the Amerindians, not from "other nations". This information is so true. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of Portuguese colonial administration (untrue, as what kept Brazil united was the victory of the central government over the rebellions in the 1830s and 1840s, more than 100 years after the period mentioned).

It's not untrue. Laurentino Gomes wrote Brazil kept its territorial integrity because of the settlement of the Portuguese Royal family in Brazil in 1808:

"One way to assess the legacy of King John VI is to address the contrary: How would Brazil be today if the Portuguese court had not come to Rio de Janeiro? (..) But the former Portuguese colony would be a fragment of small autonomous countries, much like their Spanish American neighbors, with no other affinity than the language". Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is right:

  • Time of Portugal arrival; Indians behavior (nomadism, cannibalism, etc...); miscegenation. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
  • The creation of hereditary captainships and their failure; the creation of a single governorship to rule Brazil; Sugar as the most important export good in the early years of colonization; crisis of sugar export economy; explorers finding gold mines in the countryside; a rebellion and two conspiracies against high colonial taxes.(Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)

A final commentary about the changes:

  • As anyone can see, I did not erase all text written by other editors. Most of it was kept. The true changes are the fact that I removed the website sources and placed the works of C. R. Boxer and Eduardo Bueno as they are far more reliable.

I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.

Yes, you did erase mahy informations. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers (NEWER TEXT)
Extended content
See also: Indigenous peoples in Brazil and Colonial Brazil
 
The first Christian mass celebrated in what would later be called Brazil marking the beginning of the Portuguese colonization.

When arriving in April 1500 in the coast of what would later be known as Brazil, the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral found the primitive people that inhabited it.[10] They were divided in several distinct tribes, that fought among themselves[11] and that shared the same Tupi-Guarani linguistic family.[10] The “men were hunters, fishers and food collectors and the women were encharged of the reduced agricultural activity that was practiced.”[10] Some of the tribes were nomads and other sedentary; they knew the fire but not metal casting and a few were cannibals.[10]

The settling was effectively initiated in 1534, when King Dom João III divided the Brazilian territory in twelve hereditary captainships that would be governed by members of the lesser nobility or proceeding from educated families.[12] The experience revealed itself to be an utter disaster, and in 1549 the king assigned a governor-general to administrate the entire colony.[13] With the foundation of villages appeared the municipal councils, and consequently, the beginning of the democratic representative system in Brazil.[14] Up to 1549, most of the (few) settlers were exiled men, but from that date and on, the voluntary emigrants (including women and children) from Portugal became predominant.[15]

Around 1530, the Tupiniquim (the same tribe that Cabral met) and their bitter enemies the Tupinambá, the largest and most important tribes in Brazil, allied themselves with the Portuguese and the French, respectively.[11] Between the Portuguese and the Tupiniquim “occurred a certain intermittently pacific inter-racial assimilation.”[16] While the Tupinambás, however, were mostly exterminated in long wars and mainly by European diseases to which they had no immunities.[17] The ones that survived were enslaved by other tribes or by the Portuguese or fled toward the countryside.[17] By the middle of the 16th century, sugar had become the most important item of the Brazilian exportations.[11] Thus, the Portuguese turned to other forms of man power to handle with the increasing international demand.[17] Enslaved Africans were imported and became the “basic pillar of the economy” in the most populous areas of the colony.[18]

Territorial expansion (NEWER VERSION)
Extended content

Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the Southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, São Luís in 1615.[19] They suffered a setback with the Dutch invasions that began in 1630 and that managed to conquer large portions of the Brazilian northeastern coastline. The Dutch domain did not last long and they were expelled definitively in 1649.[20] The Portuguese sent military expeditions to the Amazon rainforest that defeated and conquered British and Dutch strongholds. The Portuguese settlement in the region initiated in 1669, with the foundation of villages and forts.[21] In 1680 they reached the far south and founded Sacramento at the side of the Rio de la Plata, in the Eastern Strip region (current Uruguay).[22]

 
The Portuguese and their Amerindian and African allies expanded the Brazilian territory through endless wars of conquest.

At the end of the 17th century sugar exports entered in decline due to competition with the British and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and also due to high taxes.[23] The discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais (General Mines) between 1693 and 1695 saved the colony from its imminent collapse.[24] From all over Brazil, as well from Portugal, thousands of immigrants, from all ethnicities, departed toward the mines.[25] A 20% tax over the gold extraction created dissatisfaction that resulted in an open rebellion in 1720. The Portuguese government suffocated it with relative easiness, assuring its rule over the region for the next seventy years,[26] until the discovery of two small secessionist conspiracies in Minas Gerais and Bahia.[27] In the following decades other gold mines were found in current Mato Grosso and Goiás, in the Brazilian Central-West.[28] The Spanish tried to prevent the Portuguese expansion on the territory belonged to them according to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 and succeeded on conquering the Eastern Strip in 1777. All in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso signed in the same year confirmed Portuguese domain over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of current Brazilian borders.[29]

In 1808, the Portuguese Royal family, fleeing from the troops of the French Emperor Napoleon I that were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of the entire Portuguese Empire[30] In 1815 King Dom João VI, then regent on behalf of his incapacitated mother, elevated Brazil from colony to sovereign Kingdom united with Portugal.[30] The Portuguese invaded French Guiana in 1809 (that was returned to France in 1817)[31] and the Eastern Strip in 1816 that was subsequently renamed Cisplatine.[32]

Imperial era

Empire (OLDER TEXT)
Extended content
Main article: Empire of Brazil
 
Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil in 1873. Fala do Trono, by Pedro Américo.

In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825.

In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt,[33] the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835.[34] The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000.[35]

 
Banner of the Empire of Brazil

On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead,[36] and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law,[37] Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery.[38][39] When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place.[40][41][42] By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery.[43] Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état.

What is wrong and right in the older text

What is the wrong:

  • Independence war overly simplified (mentioned only as "a series of political incidents and disputes"; wrong perception of the first constitution promulgation; wrong reasons to why Pedro I abdicated.
Why are they wrong? Bring sources.Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A whole paragraph on Malê revolt (a very minor rebellion that is rarely mentioned on history books, shouldn't be in this very small subsection);
It was a very important slave rebellion, taken in Salvador, one of the largest Brazilian cities.[8] Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

casualties on Cabanagem (a smaller rebellion during the regency, the War of Tatter was much more important and is not even mentioned);

Any source to claim the Cabanagem as a "smaller rebellion"? Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

the other rebellions are not mentioned at all;

Add the other rebellions. No need to change an entire section because of this. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

more than 300,000 deads on the War of the Triple Alliance (this is how many Paraguayans died, no reason to be in here);

Why not? It shows how big the war was. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

wrong reasons to why the monarchy fell.

Why wrong? All sources claim that the Monarchy fell because the Emperor got involved in three issues together: end of slavery, military and religious problems. Besides that, there was a growing Republican movement in Brazil. These are the reasons for the fell of Monarchy reported in any source about the subject. You erased the historic reasons and wrote in its place the following bizarre information: Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown". This is such a psychological POV and bizarre theory. The Emperor was forced to leave the government because of the three issues he got involved (slavery, military and religious) along with the growth of Republican ideas in Brazil. He never wanted to leave the government. This is your personal theory. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is right:

  • Dom João VI coming to Brazil and subsequent departure leaving Dom Pedro as regent; Independence war against Portugal. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
  • Mention of the first Brazil constitution which had a great influence on subsequent constitutions (Separation of powers, civil liberties, etc...) and also on the Moderating branch (exclusive only to the Imperial era). (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
  • Regency; rebellions during the regency; mention on War of the Triple Alliance, end of slave traffic and end of slavery; end of monarchy. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)

A final commentary about the changes:

  • As anyone can see, I did not erase all text written by other editors. Most of it was kept. The true changes are the fact that I removed the website sources and placed the works of renowned historians as they are far more reliable.
  • Some of the olders passages did not have sources (such as Dom João coming and departure from Brazil, Brazilian independence, etc...). Added reliable sources to it.
  • I also explained why Brazil continued as a monarchy and did not became a republic as almost all other countries in the Americas (a very, very important info).
  • Mentioned the other rebellions that occurred during the regency and why they happened.
  • Added the other international wars Brazil participated (much more important than internal rebellions).
  • Added information on slavery decline and population data.
  • Added text about the stability and economical development of the country in this period, according to many historians.

I see no reason why the modified version cannot be kept.

You erased lots of true informations, replacing them with biased ones. Not a single information from the old text was wrong. Sorry, but you have not a single reason to erase informations there. Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Independence and Empire (NEWER TEXT)
Extended content
Main articles: Brazilian War of Independence and Empire of Brazil

King Dom João VI returned to Europe in 26 April, 1821, leaving his elder son Dom Pedro as regent to rule Brazil.[44] The Portuguese government attempted to turn Brazil into a colony once again, thus depriving it of its achievements since 1808.[45] The Brazilians refused to yield and Prince Pedro stood by their side declaring the country's independence from Portugal in September 7, 1822.[46] On October 12, 1822, Pedro was acclaimed first Emperor of Brazil as Dom Pedro I and crowned on 1 December 1822.[47] In 1822 almost all Brazilians were in favor of a monarchical form of government. Republicanism was an ideal supported by few individuals at that moment of the Brazilian history.[48] The subsequent Brazilian War of Independence expanded through almost its entire territory, with battles that were fought in the northern[49], northeastern[50] and southern[51] regions of Brazil. The last Portuguese army surrendered in March 8, 1824[52] and Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in November 25, 1825.[53]

 
Declaration of the Brazilian independence by Emperor Dom Pedro I in September 7, 1822.

The first Brazilian constitution was promulgated in 25 March 1824, after its acceptance by the municipal councils across the country.[54][55][56][57] It was “a highly advanced charter for the time where it was elaborated”[58] and had all individual guarantees that would be found in the subsequent Brazilian republican constitutions.[59] The government form was a hereditary, constitutional and representative (and after 1847, parliamentary[60]) monarchy.[61] The State was divided in four branches: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderating (or Royal Prerogative)[57] – the latter, responsible for the “consolidation of the national unit and for the stability of the Empire’s political system”.[62]

The Brazilian defeat in the Argentina-Brazil War resulting in the loss of Cisplatine (nowadays Uruguay),[63] Pedro I incapacity in dealing with a representative system where he would have to take in account the opinion of the parliamentary opposition[64] and the provincial desire for a higher decentralization[65] all contributed for lowering his prestige among the Brazilians. But the main reason for his abdication was due to his continuous interest in the succession crisis in Portugal.[66] The emperor refused the Portuguese crown in favor of his eldest daughter in 1826,[67] but his brother Dom Miguel usurped the throne.[68] For the surprise, and against the will, of the Brazilians,[69][70][71] Pedro I abdicated in 7 April 1831 and departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter’s crown leaving behind his son and heir who became Dom Pedro II.[72]

Emperor Pedro II reign (NEWER TEXT)
Extended content
Main article: Pedro II of Brazil
See also: Slavery in Brazil
 
Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country."[73]

As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created.[74] Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency.[75] The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem[76] the Sabinada[76] and the Balaiada,[76][77] all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor).[78] The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival."[79]

Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”[80] From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government[81] Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War,[82] Uruguayan War[83] and War of the Triple Alliance).[84] The emperor, who never owned slaves,[85] also led the abolitionist campaign[86] that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850[87] up to the complete abolition in 1888.[88] However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles”[89] and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery.[90] Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872;[91] and finally to less than 5% in 1887.[92]

Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country[93] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889.[94] There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government[95] and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.[96][97] Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”[98] After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.”[99] The emperor did not care about its fate[100][101] and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup[102] that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery.[103] The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.[104]

Opinoso conduct and edits on this article

Another matter to be debated are Opinoso conduct and edits done on this article. First, I will put a list of his edits that will be followed by a commentary by me.

  • Opinoso wrote: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"
According to Opinoso, he got the information from here. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.
Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.
What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery.
  • Opinoso wrote: "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed"
According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an online version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:
"So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants), it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society." (Page 6 of the online copy)
Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source.
According to Opinoso, his source (as usual, the sociologist Darcy Ribeiro) says that Brazil had an stagnant economy (with the exception of three provinces only) in the period between 1849 and 1889. However, every historian says otherwise.
That´s not the real problem. The real one is the fact that nowhere in Darcy Ribeiro's book says what Opinoso wrote. Nowhere at all. Anyone who wants to check it, see the [online] copy.
The only place where it makes any mention of the Brazilian economy during the Empire is this one:
"The Civil War in the United States makes São Luís grow, that in the 1872 census appears as bigger and larger than São Paulo." (Page 7 of the online copy)
São Luís is the capital of Maranhão, in the Brazilian northeast, that is, far away from São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais, who according to Opinoso were the only places in Brazil where the economy were growing. Not only that, but Darcy Ribeiro also says that São Luís was richer and bigger than São Paulo, capital of the then province of São Paulo! Not only Opinoso has created information that his sources did not say, he also entered in contradiction with his own source! - --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Opinoso wrote: "The slave manpower was replaced by the labor force of European immigrants attracted to the country. The productive lands remained in the hands of the same aristocracy, forcing the majority of Brazilians to work for those land owners in poor conditions, while thousands of Brazilians were compelled to migrate to urban centers in order to escape from poverty and from the arbitrariness of land owners. This massive rural exodus has formed a huge underemployed population in cities, creating large pockets of poverty (favelas)."
Opinoso used Darcy Ribeiro's book as source for this one. The way it is written by Opinoso, we get the idea that after the end of slavery and of the Monarchy (when Brazil became a Republic), thousands of Brazilians went to live in the "favelas". Not only that, but that the majority of the Brazilians had to work under poor conditions to the "evil" landowners.
Taking a look at the online copy of the book (at page 7) in the chapter "INDUSTRIALIZAÇÃO E URBANIZAÇÃO", Darcy Ribeiro talks about the migration that resulted in the "favelas". Let´s see what he says:
"In Brazil, several processes already mentioned, above all the monopoly of the land and the cultivation, promoted the expulsion of the population from the countryside. In our case, the dimensions of it are amazing, given the magnitude of the population and the immense amount of people that were compelled to move. The urban population jumps from 12,8 million, in 1940, to 80,5 million, in 1980. Now there are 110,9 million." (Page 7 of the online copy)
First of all: Darcy Ribeiro uses the period between 1940 (more than 50 years after the end of the Empire!) up to 1980, and then to nowadays. Also, nowhere it is told that "forcing the majority of Brazilians to work for those land owners in poor conditions", as Opinoso said. Opinoso takes information (when there are any) from a source (as in the case of the slavery population data where he said that during Pedro II reign was the moment when most slaves were brought to Brazil) and expand it from his own head and uses it out of its true context. Darcy Ribeiro was talking about the demographic explosion that occured after Vargas went out of power and he puts it just after the end of the Empire. Why he did that? Why? Only to prove his point against me that between 1848 and 1889 the Brazilians were starving to death and blah blah. - --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: Opinoso has created false information, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. He has ignored Wikipedia rules by reverting texts when it was still being discussed (only to hide the fake infromation he had put). He falsely accused another editor (in that case me) of being racist and having a secret political agenda. He is a troublemaker that is untrusworthy and that has to be stopped at once from causing further damage on Wikipedia. - --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other users of being racist is a common practice of Opinoso. So is giving very peculiar interpretations of his sources (in other article, he quotes Simon Schwartzman as saying the exact opposite of what Schwartzman wrote). All articles owned by that user are collections of personal opinions, based on original (and misguided) research; and anyone who dares question his opinions is quickly driven away by violent diatribes, use of sockpuppets to win edit wars, personal attacks, insults, baseless accusations, and general uncivil behaviour. Ninguém (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems there are users trying to change the focus of this discussion to me, not to the article itself. I won't feed this discussion. Well, since not a single information from the old text was wrong, while the newer text is totally biased and ommits informations, there's not a single reason to change it. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ In Amazonia, Defending the Hidden Tribes. The Washington Post. July 8, 2007.
  2. ^ Megan Mylan, Indians of the Amazon, Jewel of the Amazon, FRONTLINE/World, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), (24 January 2006)
  3. ^ "Casa História website - "Colonial Brazil"". Retrieved 2008-12-12.
  4. ^ JSTOR: Anglo-Portuguese Trade, 1700-1770. JSTOR. Retrieved on 16 August 2007.
  5. ^ Janick, Jules. Lecture 34. Retrieved on 16 August 2007
  6. ^ Bandeira (Brazilian history). Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
  7. ^ Maxwell, Kenneth R. Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil and Portugal 1750-1808. Cambridge University Press: 1973.
  8. ^ Slavery in Brazil retrieved on 19 August 2007.
  9. ^ Kenneth R. Maxwell, Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil and Portugal 1750-1808 (p. 216), JSTOR
  10. ^ a b c d Boxer, p.98
  11. ^ a b c Boxer, p.100
  12. ^ Boxer, pp.100-101
  13. ^ Boxer, p.101
  14. ^ Boxer, p.291, the municipal council of Salvador was created at the same time as the city itself in 1549, for example.
  15. ^ Boxer, p.104
  16. ^ Boxer, p.108
  17. ^ a b c Boxer, p.102
  18. ^ Boxer, p.110
  19. ^ Bueno, pp.80-81
  20. ^ Bueno, p.96
  21. ^ Calmon, p.294
  22. ^ Bueno, p.86
  23. ^ Boxer, p.164
  24. ^ Boxer, p.168
  25. ^ Boxer, p.169
  26. ^ Boxer, p.170
  27. ^ Boxer, pp.212-213
  28. ^ Boxer, p.170 “...continuaram tomando o rumo do ocidente nas décadas seguintes e descobriram os campos auríferos de Cuiabá, Goiás e Mato Grosso.”
  29. ^ Boxer, p.207
  30. ^ a b Boxer, p.213
  31. ^ Bueno, p.145
  32. ^ Calmon (2002), p.191
  33. ^ Rebelions in Bahia, 1798-l838
  34. ^ Reis, João José. Slave Rebellion in Brazil  — The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia. Translated by Arthur Brakel. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  35. ^ Renato Cancian. "Cabanagem (1835-1840): Uma das mais sangrentas rebeliões do período regencial". Universo Online Liçao de Casa (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-11-12.
  36. ^ War of the Triple Alliance. Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
  37. ^ Leslie Bethell, The Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Britain, Brazil, and the Slave Trade Question, 1807-1969, JSTOR
  38. ^ Brazil's Prized Exports Rely on Slaves and Scorched Land Larry Rohter (2002) New York Times, 25 March
  39. ^ Anstey, Roger: The Atlantic Slave Trade and British abolition, 1760-1810. London: Macmillan, 1975.
  40. ^ "Slavery and Abolition". Retrieved 2007-07-19. A Journal of Comparative Studies
  41. ^ "Links between Brazil & Ireland". 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Aspects of an Economic and Political Controversy between Great Britain and Brazil, 1865-1870.
  42. ^ "JSTOR". Retrieved 2007-07-19. The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822-1826
  43. ^ "CIAO Atlas". Retrieved 2007-06-23. The Empire, 1822-89
  44. ^ Lustosa, pp.109-110
  45. ^ Lustosa, pp.117-119
  46. ^ Lustosa, pp.150-153
  47. ^ Vianna, p.418
  48. ^ Holanda (O Brasil Monárquico: o processo de emancipação), p.403 "... o que sabemos é que a idéia republicana no percurso da independência, pelo menos depois de 1821, foi um devaneio de poucos."
  49. ^ Diégues 2004, p. 168
  50. ^ Diégues 2004, p. 164
  51. ^ Diégues 2004, p. 178
  52. ^ Diégues 2004, pp. 179–180
  53. ^ Lustosa, p.209
  54. ^ Vianna, p.140
  55. ^ Carvalho (1993), p.23
  56. ^ Calmon (2002), p.189
  57. ^ a b Vainfas, p.170
  58. ^ Vianna, p.431
  59. ^ Vainfas, p.171
  60. ^ Carvalho (1993), p.33
  61. ^ Armitage, p.88
  62. ^ Bonavides (1978), p.233
  63. ^ Vainfas, p.322
  64. ^ Vainfas, p.197
  65. ^ Dohlnikoff, pp.60-61
  66. ^ Lustosa, p.278
  67. ^ Lustosa, p.221
  68. ^ Lustosa, p.280
  69. ^ Vianna, p.448 “levando a sua renúncia ao Trono, em favor do filho, o Príncipe Imperial D. Pedro de Alcântara. Agiu, portanto, por sua livre vontade, uma vez que o pronunciamento popular e militar não tinha esse objetivo, destinando-se a volta do Gabinete de março.”
  70. ^ Janotti, p. 180 “Caiu o primeiro monarca – e a bem dizer a verdade por que ele abdicou e não por que quisessem que ele abdicasse – mas a Monarquia não caiu”.
  71. ^ Calmon (2002), p.207
  72. ^ Lyra (v.1), p.17
  73. ^ Carvalho (2007), p.9
  74. ^ Carvalho 2007, p.21
  75. ^ Dohlnikoff, p.206
  76. ^ a b c Carvalho (2007), p.43
  77. ^ Souza, p.326
  78. ^ Janotti, p.171 "No Pará, [...] declarou-se que a província não reconheceria o Governo da Regência durante a menoridade do Imperador (1835); começava a Cabanagem, para durar até 1840." and p.172 "explodia em novembro de 1837 a Sabinada que, declarava-se em Estado Republicano Independente [...], limitava o tempo da separação até o advento da maioridade de D. Pedro II."
  79. ^ Barman, p.317
  80. ^ Munro, p.273
  81. ^ Barman (1999), p.307
  82. ^ Lyra (v.1),p.164
  83. ^ Lyra (v.1),p.225
  84. ^ Lyra (v.1),p.272
  85. ^ Barman (1999), p.194
  86. ^ Lyra (v.3), pp.29-30
  87. ^ Lyra (v.1), p.166
  88. ^ Lyra (v.3), p.62
  89. ^ Schwarcz, p.315
  90. ^ Bueno, p.218
  91. ^ Vainfas, p.239
  92. ^ Vainfas, p.18
  93. ^ Lima, p.87
  94. ^ Munro, p.280
  95. ^ Ermakoff, p.189 "Não havia, portanto, clamor pela mudança do regime de governo, exceto alguns gritos de "Viva a República", entoados por pequenos grupos de militantes à espreita da passagem da carruagem imperial."
  96. ^ Schwarcz, p.444
  97. ^ Vainfas, p.201
  98. ^ Barman (1999), p.399
  99. ^ Barman (1999), p.130
  100. ^ Lyra (v.3), p.126
  101. ^ Barman (1999), p.361
  102. ^ Lyra (v.3), p.99
  103. ^ Schwarcz, pp.450 and 457
  104. ^ Salles, p.194
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazil/Archive_8&oldid=1255170413"