User talk:Ptah, the El Daoud

oi

listen up mate, stop removing my pics yeh? It was better than the other one. --Rfeester 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my second revert summary, "Collages, while fun, are not encyclopedic; feel free to replace this image with another specific (that is, singular) image. thanks!" --(Ptah, the El Daoud 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

god is not Great

The discussion of this issue has gone decidedly in the other direction, and I have tired of fighting about it. If I am going to get into a fight here on Wikipedia, it is going to be over in the Irish Republican-related articles, wherein I feel more is at stake. As far as this book is concerned, I believe that McGeddon is wrong in bringing up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoS:TM, since this book title is not a trademark. This is mostly a matter of convention, i.e., the Times Literary Supplement is always going to capitalize god, especially at the beginning of a title. The author's intentions---which, granted, we do not know---are not even the issue. At any rate, as I say, I have tired of debating it. It was a minor point, in the larger scheme of things. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave up long ago; indeed, I only entered the debate because of the anon's churlish attitude. Peace. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

I rather thought that you had, given your relative silence. I must be honest and say that I only kept reverting the changes because of various anonymous users' unwillingness to explain why they changed the title, and because discussion on the talk page had ended without a consensus decision. At this point, as I said, it is irrelevant to me. Peace to you as well. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Coup d´état

Hello, I thnk we are working in th same direction and there isn no probelm to say that "the country where ever since there as strugle for democracy...". The phrase is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat On the other hand I don´t agree with yr phrase that it was never proven the comunism argument. You need to cite where you found this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=142165612&oldid=142159111 I also think that liberals, social liberals were never threaten by militars...you also need to cite this. --Ludovicapipa ^yes? 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ludovicapipa,

You have probably already seen my revision. Here's a quick point by point explanation:

The phrase "the country where ever since there was a struggle for republicanism and democracy" is a fairly awkward read for a native English speaker. It could be rewritten, but I think that my revision (which stated that, a decade after the coup, democratic reform was slowly forced on the government by the President) serves as a simple and practical introduction, and I do not see any reason to oppose it. At the same time, I have no problem stating somewhere within the article that: a) there have been numerous movements in favor of republicanism and democracy throughout the history of Brazil; and, b) that a burgeoning republican and democratic movement largely inspired the government to accept gradual political reform.

Second, the military government never presented definitive proof that a communist revolution was inevitable, let alone whether the Goulart administration was going to succumb to it. The Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro was larger than the Communist factions, and the military--while clearly anti-Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro--was staunchly anti-communist. Goulart and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro may have supported defensive anti-communist measures if they were necessary, and if the military acted constitutionally (that is, at Goulart's orders). The military, as we all know, chose to ignore the constitution and follow a different path of action. I do not have the time tonight to find a citation, but I will surely make the time to do so on Friday or Saturday (my weekend). Until then, the citation needed template should suffice.

Third, the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro was suppressed, and many of its social democrat members were forced into exile. Even conservative/moderate social democrats, like the future President Cardoso, fled into exile. I agree that liberals should not be included in such a statement until I can provide a citation. I added a citation after social democrats explaining the Cardoso situation. I will find other citations regarding social democrats on Friday or Saturday.

Lastly, in English we always capitalize Brazilian, and the phrase "data base" is officially accepted in dictionaries as "database." I removed "1964 Brazilian coup d'état" from the categories, as the DEFAULTSORT template sorts the title of the page within categories.

If you have any thoughts, let me know (and if you make any revisions, feel free to elaborate). It may take us a few edits, but I think that we will find common ground. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Hello

Hello Ptah,

Iam sorry abt the undo movements on this article. I didn´t understand: you think the first phrase is "bad english" kind of? Hum, maybe, :I don´t fully agree, though. If you´d like to improve this phrase, feel free to do so. I think it´s quite good to let the reader know abt Br´s history: we always looked for, and struggle for republicanism, democracy, end of colonization....

IAm sure we will find a common ground, No doubt abt the caps Brazilian, sure abt that. Br´s dictatoship,frommy poitn of view, was blodless,not as violent as that from Chile, Argentina, and etc.

I´d like to observe thta Fernando henrique was a communist and considered one, that´s wjy I think persecutin was restricted to those who behave as communists.

Feel free to write on my discussion page.

Best regards,

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense (my Portuguese is far, far worse than your English!), but "the country where ever since there was a struggle for republicanism and democracy" is an awkward sentence, if only for the use of "ever since." Ever since implies specific change ("ever since ____ happened"), and, in English, we normally use "ever since" in one of these ways: "ever since I moved here, I've been..." or end a sentence by saying something like "...and I've been that way ever since." If you cut that phrase, I would be interested to see an alternative version of the broder idea of your sentence in a future edit.

I will certainly have to look into Cardoso(!) and I will revise the citation (to place it behind the Communists, not Social Democrats). I nevertheless am confident that I will be able to provide several substantial citations regarding the social democrats who supported Goulart.

I would also hope that you oppose the suggest merger of the non-NPOV splinter page (which was inserted into the page after my last edit). The page that we are currently working on contains far more pertinent data, has been sourced--and, as our debate proves--is a work in progress.

Anyway, I have to sleep. Goodnight. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Communists and noncommunists

Hello Ptah,

To be honest I don´t really think that by that time there were something between comunists and non comunist. There were these two, but there was no such a thing as social democrat...etc. There were those aspiring for democracy and comunist on the other hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludovicapipa --This is my talkpage, if you´d to talk with me or leave msgs.

Tks

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ludo, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I don't really think that by that time there were something between comunists and non comunist." If you mean that you don't really think that there were divisions within the Brazilian left, I would have to argue that you are mistaken. Communism implies a strict adherence to Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or, in the case of minor factions, Trotskyism, and the primary force in the Brazilian left wing movement was the populist socialist Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro. To suggest that Vargas, Kubitschek, Goulart, and, of course, Leonel Brizola were communists is to completely ignore their own deliberate disassociation with the various communist factions--and, more importantly, the time and effort that each of these figures dedicated to cultivating and promoting their own populist socialist party. Consequently, I have added populist socialist to the sentence we have previously discussed to limit the emphasis placed on social democrats, as the populist socialists were far more numerous (and had successfully elected three candidates as President of the nation). If I have misunderstood you, and/or have any other thoughts, suggestions or issues that you would like to discuss, feel free to leave another message. I plan on spending more time on the article on the weekend. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Well, I was rather talking abt the people, ordinary people, were divided: communists and non communists and those aspiring for democracy. As for politicians, I really can´t talk. As far as I know Fernando Henrique was considered a communist or someone who wanted democracy --but not a social democrat.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ludo, I have removed the term "social democrat," as it does indeed appear that the term was not in common usage at the popular level in Brazilian politics at the time. However, I did find a source which established Cardoso's (and his father's) role in the populist socialist Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro, while, at the same time, explained that both the PTB and the Cardosos themselves worked in union with local communist organizations when there was common cause or common interest. This reference was added to the end of the revised Cardoso citation (it is titled "A dependence on politics: Fernando Henrique Cardoso and sociology in Brazil").

I still need to address the citation needed template, but I will do that later this week. Are there any other concerns you have regarding the current version of the article? --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC))