Talk:Paulo Francis

Untitled

The page practically slams Paulo Francis all the way and seems to be collected from a very selective variety of sources. I can tell the major author of this page is highly critical of Francis' political alignments (so am I, but the page isn't about my opinions). For instance, is it appropriate to state that Paulo Francis never achieved anything? That his journalism was nothing but cheap slandery? This seems to go against the principle of representing all relevant point of views fairly.

Some people think he's a myth, ahead of his time (as in this article in the newspaper he used to colaborate for, Estadao.

I'm adding the Check Neutrality tag. Betina (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Betina: Please read the article carefully, and you will see that it acknowledges Francis' achievments as a critic and novel writer - which in fact is an awful lot, as many Brazilian (and non-Brazilian as well) journalists have tried their hand at such fields without achieving even transitory relevance; but it also must acknowledge the fact that Francis' final demise had much to do with the dubious quality of his late journalism, as shown by the fact that his final polemics had to do with a very serious public charge unsubstantiated by any proof. Francis had a lot of friends and admirers, but the fact is that they haven't so far produced much in the way of a serious, objective analysis of his career and work Cerme (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PS to Betina: I will not challenge the Neutrality tag, but I would advise you to concentrate, for instance, on Francis' commentary reproduced at footnote 29 to the article (about the "dirty presence" - in Portuguese , presença suja - of Afro-Brazilians) and then to think if being highly critical of such a commentary can be considered as biasedCerme (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PS 2: A note on sources: my sources are almost the totality of sources on Francis readily available on the net and elsewhere, with the exception of the short biography by Daniel Piza, a colleague of Francis in Estadão, which, however, says nothing much new and is of doubtful value, given the author's known tendency to commit mistakes about facts, dates and names. The documentary by Hoineff mentioned by you in the link above received a critique in O Globo last Sunday for limiting itself to the usual line of saying how great Francis was and that his "mistakes" (his bigot commentaries) were only "jokes", "playing a character". At least sources more critical of Francis have the merit of taking him seriouslyCerme (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you to concentrate, for instance, on Francis' commentary reproduced at footnote 29 to the article (about the "dirty presence" - in Portuguese , presença suja - of Afro-Brazilians) and then to think if being highly critical of such a commentary can be considered as biased

This article seems to be moved by an active lack of confidence in the reader's own judgment. The sentence you mention is elusively racist and it stands by itself. How was it received overall? Positively? Negatively? Was there, as you said, a character behind it? Was that seen as a sorry excuse by many people? Let the reader know both sides, you won't build his opinion by concealing information - e.g. Francis was indeed slapped by Tonia Carrero's husband, but later apologised. The reader will see this, and decide whether the apology was enough.

The documentary by Hoineff mentioned by you in the link above received a critique in O Globo last Sunday for limiting itself to the usual line of saying how great Francis was and that his "mistakes" (his bigot commentaries) were only "jokes", "playing a character". At least sources more critical of Francis have the merit of taking him seriously" It is on Wikipedia's POV policies that you have to represent the magnitude of each side properly. For instance, you see little merit in not taking him seriously. I too think sarcasm is sometimes an easy scapegoat, but the page isn't about my opinion or yours, it's about him and about the entirety of opinions available on him (e.g. something like "supporters claim he was often misinterpreted through his sarcastic persona, yet critics think said persona is used as an excuse for ignorant statements" could be helpful). People themselves shall judge which position is more valid, no?

Also, the Estadao article serves as an example of a supporter. Yours, of the Globo, remains as the example of a detractor - they both are biased in their own ways, they both represent a significant fraction of popular opinion on him. I am defending that you and others actively "give each side its due weight", and be confident enough in your own position that you let the overall repercussion of his work speak for itself.

Anyhow, thanks for keeping the Neutrality tag. Betina (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So I have just looked up the statement you mentioned, which refers to Afro Brazilians. The statement in the article about "presença suja" is not referring to them, brought up when he mentions Rio, but to the "retirantes" from the North East that he mentions a sentence earlier. Unlike what you cite in the footnotes, it doesn't seem to be elusive enough of a statement to serve as a definite proof that he hated African-Brazilians and Northeasterners (doesn't he defend social development in the column?), but the opinion remains relevant nonetheless - it needs, however, to be characterised as such. While on the subject of the footnotes you left, Wikipedia is not the place for your own original analysis of his work. Costa's opinion on Francis remains, because it is indeed relevant to know why he moved from one newspaper to another. Anyhow, characterising opinions as such, and facts as such is recommendable. "There was something inconspicuous in his writing" is not factual. "He often targeted the Left" can be. Etc. 189.102.233.166 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, many of your critiques are consistent with Wiki policies and therefore I will re-edit a conclusion to the entry accordingly to them. I myself wasn't entirely satisfied, for instance, with the parallel I drew between Francis and C. Hitchens, as similarities between them exist but are to be taken as arising in entirely different environments and having entirely different consequences. What I will do is trying to draw a contrast between the rival views in the appreciation of Francis' legacy between the Brazilian Left and Right, which I think is the most relevant issue. Remember, however, that this will take time and that we are to work - as far as possible - in tandem, until we reach a satisfying middle point.Cerme (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DoneCerme (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

> The "Legacy" section is now significantly better. Thanks. Betina (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Betina. I will try to develop more the article in the section on Francis' novels, which I personally think are perhaps his most important accomplishment. The main difficult around this entry is that there's still too much talk about Francis as an individual and too little about his work yet. As there's no stand alone study on Francis, I shall have to search various works where he is studied en bloc with other writers of his generation. I will begin by downloading the article by M. Silvermann through JSTOR and reading itCerme (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Check Neutrality tag ever removed from this article? Consider this passage:

"Eventually he dropped out from Columbia—or perhaps was simply unable to receive a graduate degree because he had already dropped out from his undergraduate studies in Rio, a subject about which he was always less than candid[3]—showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes,[4][5]imprecision, garbled recollections"[6] - a trait of what was to become his personal "method": "the absence of careful research, established facts, precise information [...] becoming eventually - through excessive generalization and lack of patience [...] - downright bigotry".[7]"

And many others from the text are not only non-neutral: the authors were very angry indeed. Paulo Francis was a polemical intellectual, and as such, much has been written derisively of him - picking up the unkindest words of criticism and referencing them as fact, alongside original-research speculation on the author's motives and private thoughts (that pop up every then and again on the article) is hardly encyclopedic. The political subtext of the article, which associates Paulo Francis Left-Wing inclinations with a sincerity that is abandoned as his moved towards the Right-Wing, is also crude and schoolboyish. I'd suggest an almost complete rewrite.

This was already discussed above between me and Betina. Wikipedia cannot allow its editors to offer brand-new material in the form of previously unpublished research; however, its entrys must reflect the current scholarly consensus on the subject. The quotes offered from published works, all identified, are samples of the said current consensus, to be altered when and if such a consensus changes.Cerme (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see a "scholarly consensus" here - the article basically just reiterates Kucinsky's personal, inflammated opinions dozens of times. Moreover, speculation on personal motives, and crude, politically biased evaluations of value of the kind presented here are not object of serious scholarly inquiry, let alone of consensus. Compare this article with articles about other polemical figures - say, Tom Wolfe, or Jacques Derrida - and you will see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.88.89.233 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An scholarly consensus being the sum of opinions expressed by scholars, based on independent research, said consensus on Francis is more or less expressed by the quotes and references I have amassed. I must say that Francis' late admirers have failed so far to offer an alternative view. I do not think that Kucinski's opinions on Francis are incendiary; on the contrary, they tend to lenience: when Kucinski, for instance, "maintains that the reason for Francis' ideological shift should be sought in the 1978 South Lebanon conflict, as only Francis' shock before the leniency of liberal American media towards oppression of the Palestinians could explain his self destruction as a journalist" (cf. Kucinski, "Paulo Francis", pg. 91), he is offereing an educated guess - based mostly on post hoc ergo prompter hoc - but then he uses "maybe" in the text - as to the motives of Francis' ideological volte face, that is, in my view, possibly very much a projection of his, Kucinski's, own concerns as a Jewish leftist intellectual; the motives attributed to Francis by José Carlos de Assis (see the references), for instance, are far more common and gross and would allow for a much harsher judgement on Francis' ethics. Were it not for the fact that I have, conservatively, put Professor Kucinski's views above the journalist Assis' ones ( irrespective of the fact that Assis worked many times in tandem with various scholars), the text would be far more uncomplimentary. But then what I have tried to do, after Betina's suggestions, was to try to concentrate mostly on discussions about Francis as a writer , where there is a much more solid consensus and where positive and informed opinions about his qualities outweigh speculation about his politics - a field where, in my view, he fares poorer. But then I haven't said anything that was not traceable through the notes to a reliable sourceCerme (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant partiality and POV

I tried to fix, at least partially, some of the more complicated sections of the article, removing for example the unnecessary and non-encyclopedic titles, and bits like "One of his most infamous smears was when he expressed his desire to have the WP MP-cum-unionist, the Afro-Brazilian Vicentinho, "whipped as a slave"; in another of his obiter dicta, he stated that "the discovery [sic] of the clarinet by Mozart was a greater contribution than anything Africa gave us until today" - which is something more appropriate to a magazine or newspaper article or a blog than an encyclopedia. However, my edit was reverted with no justification, and therefore I bring the subject here so other editors may express their opinions. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

POV?

"One of his most infamous smears was when he expressed his desire to have the WP MP-cum-unionist, the Afro-Brazilian Vicentinho, "whipped as a slave"; in another of his obiter dicta, he stated that "the discovery [sic] of the clarinet by Mozart was a greater contribution than anything Africa gave us until today"

Okay: What is said in this quote is that:

1. Paulo Francis wrote in his newspaper column that an Afro-Brazilian MP from the Workers' Party should be "whipped as a slave" 2. The same Francis wrote, again in the same column, that the single (and bogus, BTW) discovery of the clarinet by Mozart outshone all African achievments to human society.

The two quotes were made as examples of his late racism, and they should be deleted if proved false. However, both quotes are plain facts, as shown in the references given (Kucinski's book). Unfortunately, there are many fringe rightists in Brazil who hate to cope with sad facts about their poster-boy. Simple as thatCerme (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem obviously is not in the quotes per se, but in the blatant partial and libelous way you have chosen to present them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, newspaper or blog. If you want to badmouth people whom you disagree politically, I suggest you do it somewhere else. Things like "infamous smears", "MP-cum-unionist", "his obiter dicta", are clear examples of something that should never be in an encyclopedic text. RafaAzevedo ^msg 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Cerme has asked me to offer my 2c on both articles where you have both been edit-warring. I'll post my comments on the MST article there, but I will make some general points on your discussion here. First: I understand both of you are editing three articles that are by the nature of their subjects highly charged, politically. At no point should either of you resort to ad-hominem attacks. You don't need to dispute someone's motivations for editing in order to make your point. Wikipedia is built around policies which try to make one's POV irrelevant. So, let's stick to the edits themselves.

On this article: A long time ago I had a lengthy and arduous argument with a user on the Fernando Collor article. We clearly had different viewpoints. One of the ways we tried to deal with them was to separate on the talk page the points under contention. Instead of wholesale edit-warring, I ask that you both put in a little bit more effort and point out here, on the talk page, which particular passages you have issues with. It's a little bit more work, but it's worth it considering one of you has already been blocked for WP:3RR violations. I think that's a good starting point. Once that's done, I'd be more than willing to put in some work on mediating both sides. Both of you are active, long-standing editors (more than 3 years...) and I don't want you getting bogged down over three articles. Shall we give it a try? Just make a list of different passages under contention and your opinion on them and I'll chime in as well.--Dali-Llama (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just did, in this and on the previous topic. If you look at my edits in the article you can see several parts which were written in a clearly non-encyclopedic tone. Of course Paulo Francis had its detractors and critics, but Wikipedia cannot cite their opinions as its own; the article must always have a neutral tone, and let the reader make up his mind. This article, as it was, bordered dangerously on being more a journalism piece or a blog article, than an encyclopedic entry. RafaAzevedo ^msg 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example of these parts which presented third-party opinions (almost invariably by Kucinsky or other Leftist critics) as being either Wikipedia's own, or somehow 'endorsed' by Wikipedia. RafaAzevedo ^msg 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Striving at reaching a consensus.

Okay, let's begin to do the homework at Dalilama's prompting:

1. I have been charged with selecting sources that "detract" Francis, which is not the case: Kusinski is a great admirer, who calls Francis a "genius" and puts him in the same intellectual level as Glauber Rocha. I must admit myself to be a big fan also, as Francis offered me the opportunity to develop various intellectual interests. Blind approval isn't the only form of admiration.

What is the relevance of Francis in Brazilian intellectual history?That of a superb essayist and critic and an intriguing fiction writer who becomes one of the most admired figures of the 1960s "New Left" (i.e, not formally connected to the various Left parties) intelligentsia and suddenly in his middle life makes a sharp and ill-explained volte face and turns into a poster-boy of the most conventional conservative views, defending them with all the old language resources directed towards opposite goals. To his late rightist admirers, this is usually treated as a kind of revelation, to be accepted without reflexion - therefore the fact that fans of the late Francis have done next to nothing in order to evaluate criticaly his career - in the process, BTW, consigning his early work to oblivion. His Left admirers, howver, cannot afford the luxury of an uncritical acceptance and must examine his work and deeds more closely - hence my abundance of critical (but in no way libellious) sources.

Now, going into particulars:

2.Since the career of Francis is defined in terms of his intellectual history, I do not see why not to describe it in the terms of his intellectual development, instead of simply offering a dry chronological titling (which would be, by the way, inconsistent with his chronological age: Francis "early period" ended in his mid-thirties, his "middle period" extending into his late fifties). If this is an interpretation, so be it, for without it the article would amount to something like: "Francis, Paulo (1930-1996): Brazilian essayist, journalist and novelist".

3. I see that the episode around Francis smearing the MP-cum-tradeunionist (which means simply MP & tradeunionist: in Port. that would go as "o parlamentar-sindicalista") Vicentinho with racist fumes was suppresed. Yes, blind acceptance has this dead end, as one must suppress (Stalin-like, BTW) anything that does not makes the admired one the sum of all human perfections and genius.... Not only is the episode a fact, but it had nothing of an accident: it was only one of a spree of racist and ethnocentric rants directed, in both spoken and written form, toward Amerindians ("not even fit to be slaves" - another suppressed episode), Arabs, people from the Brazilian Northeast - in short, all who were not "Western Whites" such as he wrote in praise of Fernando Collor ("Strong, comely and Western White"). Say what you like, these were an important part of his late intellectual life and of his conservative views as he saw them. Whan I call such views "infamous" (dictionary.com definition: "of ill repute, with a bad reputation") I'm only echoing present-day common sense, something admited implicity by the editor who suppressed these...infamous declarations, who were one of the chief varieties of a Francis speciality: his obiter dicta (i.e. his remarks "by the side").

4.That Francis' fatal heart attack was somehow triggered by his plight as defendant in a libel suit, is Kusinski's view and also quite probable, if only on a post hoc ego prompter hoc basis, but I make no bones about that.

I rest my caseCerme (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I even hint that the article should be only made up of "blind approval", or that the quotes should somehow be hidden or eliminated. What I opposed then, and I continue to oppose, is that these quotes be presented with your (or even Kucinski's) personal point of view about Francis' words. To call a statement 'infamous', 'racist' or any adjectives of the sort based solely on an editor's opinion (one's "present-day common sense" isn't always another's) is not something an encyclopaedia, let alone one governed by WP:NPOV, should do. In the same line, your opinion that the earlier, 'leftist' part of Francis' career somehow is more 'memorable' and praiseworthy than his later, 'rightist' years, is, with all due respect, merely that, your opinion, and the article should not make such assertions of value unless if it is quoting someone relevant discussing the subject. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My reply:

1. To call a racist outburst racist is not an "opinion" it's fact: we have a fact - that Francis expressed, in print, the desire to have an African-Brazilian congressmen flogged (or better, expressed a desire to personally flog him) as a slave. A consequence ensued: the statement raised a scandal at the time - that is, was generally seem as infamous (again, the meaning of "infamous" is clear: something that has a bad reputation)and that is also a fact.

Its also a fact that this particular outburst was not directed solely at a particular individual: it expressed Francis' general convictions at the time about the lack of culture and achievments of the whole entity generally known as "black race" (as expressed in the comparision between Mozart and Africa). Such convictions are generally seem as racist, and that's not my particular "opinion", it was simply the objective commonsense view expressed at the time- as well as today. I could, by the way, quote sources among Francis' late admirers saying this multitude of opinions disparaging and vilfying non-Europeans and non-Whites were simply ironies directed against "politically correct" stereotypes, but in this case I will have to mention the fact that many of Francis targets, including the congressman Vicentinho, didn't take such "antics" lightly and had him sued for racist libel, something that was left undecided by courts at his death. If these are opinions, they are not simply mine or anyone else's: it's a whole climate of opinion. And a generally held opinion is as much of a reality as a rock or a tree.

2.I don't remember expressing the opinion, in the article at least (as opposed to the discussion) that Francis' earlier work was more noteworthy than his later one: that is actually a question of personal taste. What I remarked is that the objective existence of his Far Left phase (to which belong the bulk of his written corpus, the totality of his non-posthumous fiction and of his theater criticism as well as most of his essays) is as much a fact as his conservative phase. In fact, I have abstained from mentioning others' opinions that simply say that the incoherence of Francis political shift made the whole of his work useless and bound to eventually go down the drain of oblivion, an extreme view I find personally most unfair - however, I admit that, all things considered, it's an understanable one Cerme (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To say that Africa never yielded anything more culturally significant than the work of Mozart is not a "racist" statement; that is, as I said, merely your opinion, one that many people (myself included) disagree, and hence cannot be classified as "commonsense [sic] view". I doubt that Francis, a man who notoriously loved the jazz music sung by Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald and many black singers and composers, would say that the "black race" has a "lack of culture" or "achievments" [sic]. RafaAzevedo ^msg 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Francis' racism

My exchange of opinions in the preceding section is currently becoming bogged because I'm facing an ideological commonplace still current amid the Brazilian middle and upper-class: the inability to accept the racist character of much of their ideology, something that puts me in the obligation of proving the obvious. But then, patience, and here we go:

1 Even to "compare" Mozart's achievements to African cultural achievments in general is comparing two non-commensurate qualities, something akin to say that bananas taste "better" than apples - unless one assumes thare exists something as an hierarchy of cultures. Perhaps I should even decline to make a list of African cultural achievments, basing on the fact that drawing such a list would be to consider lack of knowledge in the field legitimate, but, however, I would like to point, e.g., that all of Modern art as we know it wouldn't be possible were it not for the influence exerted by African art on Picasso's painting; that a Nigerian writer like Wole Soyinka is long in the list of Nobel Prize Winners (something no Brazilian writer has so far attained), etc., etc.

2. Paulo Francis loved jazz, so he cannot have been a racist...Wow! C'mon, please, this is like the proverbial line of the antisemite saying that "some of my best friends are Jews". Let's keep it simple: Francis countless times argued for the overall cultural inferiority of Blacks, although he conceded that "Negroes [and I believe he was not above using the infamous term crioulos, which in Port. is similar to nig***] sing and dance a lot, and should confine themselves to it", something like that (that's is in his quarrel with Caio Tulio Costa). But then that's the problem about Brazilian commonsense ideology, who refuses to admit that the writer Monteiro Lobato was a racist - even when he argued for a "final solution" through massive sterilization to the negro problem - because one of his children's books characters was a sympathetic (and entirely submissive) female black cook. Well, perhaps a Black editor could know better, but I'm doing what I can.

That's itCerme (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you like African culture or music does not make anyone who doesn't like it a racist. This is, once again, your personal opinion on the topic, and should not be, in any shape or form, in the article. Your attempt to label me as "middle-upper class" only serves to show very clearly the ideological imprint you are trying to place on the article. If you have some kind of problem or grudge against Brazilian society or some of its members, Wikipedia surely is not the proper place for you to try to 'fix it'. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Practical tasks

The cuts done in the article were so extensive that even info on Francis' pro-American view about Brazilian cultural heritage being that of the USA was deleted. What I propose to do is simply to restore the article to its original form and change its wording a little bit: for instance in the place of "infamous" remark, I will put "controversial", or "scandalous", in order to leave no doubts whatsoever about the objectivity of the editor. With this, plus a few more changes in vocabulary, I think we shall have the relevant info restored. Since I will not have time for that in the next few days, that will allow other editors to make additional comments & suggestionsCerme (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As no additional suggestions were offered, I restored the article to its ancient form, with a more non-controversial wording of the sections' titles, and some additional info in support of some points. I look foward to discussing further editingCerme (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't been in enwiki for quite some time, therefore I couldn't proceed with this discussion. I'll look at the changes made and see if they're appropriate; in any case, the article should 'not' be restored to its ancient form, as it contained several issues. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the version previous to this discussion. Things like "A controversial personality, Francis became a highlight of modern Brazilian journalism through his essays, in which he showed multifarious intellectual references, at the same time developing a variety of literary journalism noted by an intriguing and complex meld between the vernacular and literary language, biting wit and sarcasm - such characteristics being taken for granted by friends and adversaries alike, but which eventually came to be considered by his critiques as a bonus as well as a limitation. The fact that late in middle life he performed a sharp political shift - from the Extreme Left to the Extreme Right - also contributed to fan controversies around his personality, his intellectual consistency and reliability." are merely unsourced opinions, and should not be in an encyclopedia. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This part has the same problem, it is nothing more than the editor's opinion: "showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes," RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As is to be seem at the head of the talk page, the article received peer-review after a request, and it was suggested that the first paragraph, being a lead, should contain a summary of the article as a whole, which of course would have no references, which should be offered in the following paragraphs Cerme (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, wherever they are in the article, opinions should not be presented as if they were "Wikipedia's own"; they should always be attributed. It seems clear to me that in an encyclopedia (especially one that follows WP:NPOV) these kind of personal stances pro or against the author should not be presented in its first paragraph. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Facts and opinion

What the summary contain is the following, IMHO:

1. Paulo Francis was regarded as a journalist with high stilistic skills; 2. He performed a political shift in his middle life; 3. That rendered him a controversial personality, who during and after his lifetime offered opportunity to in various polemics between him and his peers, and/or between hios admirers and adversaries.

I would like to know what is "opinion" in these statements; to me, they are simply public knowledge Cerme (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole bit shown on the previous topic is riddled with POV, albeit disguised in a quasi-encyclopedic text. I see no need to repeat everything here in a new topic. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite the opening bit, removing what I thought was either too opinative or too irrelevant for the introduction. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The "whole bit shown in the previous topic" is simply a summary of an opinion on Francis expressed by an authority - in the case Professor Kucinski, who is BTW followed in his general apreciation of Francis by other authorities, such as Professor Isabel Lustosa and Darcy Ribeiro, whose commentaries (by menas of actual quotes) were removed. The "impartiality" asked for in the case, methinks, is to refuse as "opinative" everything that cannot be used to extol Francis as the poster-boy for the RightCerme (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it is an opinion. Whether by an 'authority' or not, Wikipedia should only quote opinions if it lets the reader know it is exactly that - an opinion - and attribute it to whoever made it. And I am yet to see a serious and impartial encyclopedia that has opinions on the introduction of its articles (maybe a 'Leftpedia'...). The quotes you mentioned, such as Darcy Ribeiro's, were being presented in a clearly biased and non-contextual way, - once again - to serve as a 'prop' for a totally partial text which insisted in transpiring the editor's personal (negative) views of Francis. RafaAzevedo ^msg 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again on bias

It's difficult to discuss with people who don't realize what an encyclopedia is, exacly; every presentation of a life, an historical event,etc. is, by its own nature, biased. What Wikipedia requires is not an absence of opinions (and to portray, viz., the late Paulo Francis as a serious intellectual, and not as someone fond of producing libel in behalf of various interests, is an opinion also), but that the opinions presented are those backed by known authorities in the field and in the public sources available - therefore, new research is banned. If "opinions" were banned as unencyclopaedic , I wonder what would happen with the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica ed. where the article on Freud was written by his friend Ernest Jones, as the biography of Lenin was written by Trotsky. I admit I may have a very poor opinion on the late Francis' politics, but then I have the authorities on "my" side, as apparently no one, even his friends, has seem fit to describe his later pieces of libel as some kind of high Literature or Political Science - at least in the sources available. However, if someone appears with other sources, I would argue for including them in the text alongside the other sources; what I cannot admit as serious is the exclusion of sources whose "flaw" is only that they oppose attempts at whitewashing someone's biographyCerme (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The obviously growing personalization of your 'arguments' ("It's difficult to discuss with people who don't realize what an encyclopedia is") just shows that the user doesn't really have rational reasons to support the maintenance of those problematic issues in the article. Again, I don't understand what was the purpose of opening up a new topic. RafaAzevedo ^msg 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We must apply WP:NPOV, particularly "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." and "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, Active Banana, would it be suitable to please ask you to restore what you deem suitable to Wiki standards amid the sourced information I provided in earlier editions of the article? That would include topics such as: (a) why was the magazine Senhor considered "legendary"; (b)Francis' connections to American diplomats and the poetress Adrienne Rich; (c) Francis role in upholding American cultural influence in 1950s and 1960s Brazil; (d)Darcy Ribeiro's estimate of Francis, etc.Cerme (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Legendary" rarely has any excuse for being in an encyclopedia article. Fame by association is not appropriate. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but could it be said (with the adequate quote to support it) that Senhor was praised for the quality of both its graphic projet by the Brazilian graphic writer Bea Feitler and of its literary pieces (including, as is said, various world-class Brazilian writers as Lispector and Rosa)? That's why Francis' joint editorship (with journalist Nahum Sirotsky) is so important in his biographyCerme (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Francis and so all the content should be directly related to him/his impact/responses to him. So the sourcing would need to directly cite something like "under the editorship of Francis the magazine did/became/was known for/published the first works of ___" or "Francis took the magazine from point A to point B". The focus being on Francis and objective, meaningful descriptions of what he did (or what others did to him or in response to him) Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Lead (1)

The previously lead ran thus:

"Although initially a sympathizer of left-wing ideologies, describing himself as a trotskyist,[Paulo Francis] late in his life, after living for years in the USA, he performed a sharp political shift, advocating and supporting a more right-wing and liberalist stance, pro-capitalist"

I have revised it, for the following reasons:

1. He was not a sympathizer of "Left-wing ideologies": he was a sympathizer of a particular variety of Left politics, and opposed himself to Stalinism as the ideology of the CP-based intelligentisia of his time.

2. That he lived in the US when he performed his political shift is immaterial: many others made a similar shift living elsewhere.

3. The remainder of the phrase would be okay, if we were describing the intellectual trajetory of a scholar and/or political thinker. Francis wasn't any of these: he was simply a jornalist (albeit a well-informed one) and his early leftism was as intellectually patchy as his late conservatism.

That's enough, for a startCerme (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't possibly agree with your 'newer' version of the lead since it's virtually identical to the previous one. Since you insist on removing everything I added, I am keeping the core of the old text but removing the unnecessary and biased adjectivation and unattributed opinions ("such characteristics being taken for granted by friends and adversaries alike, but which eventually came to be considered by his critiques as a bonus as well as a limitation", "also contributed to fan controversies around his personality, his intellectual consistency and reliability"). RafaAzevedo ^msg 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Part I

In revising the part about Francis early life, I have tried to explain, with the help of RS, (1) his early upbringing; (2)his professional choices leading from promising actor/director to paper critic; (3)His role in a process of Americanization of cultural life in Brazil; (4)His anti-academic stance;and his consequent carelessness. I have left particular examples to the footnotes, as what interested me was not to show what he knew or didn't know about Ancient History or the History of the Pacific War (he was no scholar in neither field), but his general modus operandiCerme (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The so-called 'carelessness' and other judgmental statements made in this section (as in the rest of the article) are merely Kucinski's own opinions on the matter, and should be either attributed to him (or to whoever he is quoting) or should be removed. I simply can't understand why you insist on placing these opinions as if they were being made by Wikipedia itself, despite pillars such as WP:NPOV. RafaAzevedo ^msg 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I also removed certain expressions which are definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia, such as "he earned kudos". RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com [1], "kudos" means simply "honor, glory, acclaim" and is dictionarized since the XIXth. Century and common in a journalistic context. To say that "he earned kudos" means simply "he was praised"; only, since Francis was a journalist himself, why not to use a journalistic expression? Stylistic-based choices should be avoided on Wiki?Cerme (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Have you ever read an encyclopedia? It is a media completely different, stylistically speaking, than a newspaper or a magazine. What does it matter that he was a journalist? If he was a comedian would the text of his article have to be funny? RafaAzevedo ^msg 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to grasp what is the point. Specific differences notwithstanding, the fact that an encyclopaedia should be serious and scholarly does not preclude that it should be well-written when possible in order to enagage interest. Well-written, as far as I know, includes a careful choice of words and stressing the riches, the various choices of vocabulary, of the language employed. As "earned kudos" has an unambiguous meaning ("to receive praise") it doesn't suffer from vagueness. The phrase means only that Francis was praised by his fellow-journalists for his theater criticism, and "earned kudos" would stresss that such praise came in the first place from his colleagues, as well as from the general public. And yes, if Francis were a comedian , describing his funniness would require the text to be, to a certain extent, funny itself in order to convey the specific aspects of his comicityCerme (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

~But then I will let the change stay, pending on third-part counselling. It does not change content, only leaves the text somewhat unimaginative as far as vocabulary choices are concernedCerme (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Point-to-point discussion: Part II

In this second part, I intended mostly to describe the intellectual influences that shaped Francis mature career, such as (a) The Trotskyst movement, therefore the mention to members of the Braz. Left Opposition; (b) The Brazilian contemporary cultural movement, therefore the mentions to Senhor magazine and Bea Feitler; (c) The Cold War and Francis' position as a Trotskyist, which stranged him from the pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese Left of the time and attracted him to the US. I mentioned Francis connection to John Mowinckel , the cultural attaché of the US embassy in Brazil between 1967 and 1969, because he was mentioned by Isabel Lustosa as a friend to various Brazilian intellectuals and also because he was obviously engaged in the Cold War cultural front (he was former OSS, and therefore, mostly probably CIA) and must have been, for good or evil,a fascinating personality, well worthy of subsequent research - and a Wiki entry of his ownCerme (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, several opinions are 'thrown' at the reader, without being appropriately attributed. There are also a couple of statements with no reference whatsoever. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must admit, unfortunately, that I don't realize exactly what the editor is talking about: my abridgment at the talk page, or the article itself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the general trend of my editing of the article, which was concerned with offering an intellectual biography of Francis: what he did as an intellectual and the various responses to it. Such responding to his intellectual production couldn't have other form but of opinions about his work. In my abridgement at the opening of this talk page section, what I tried to do was to explain that I tried, in the article, to expose the basic idea, expressed by Isabel Lustosa, about the apparent contradiction contained in the fact that the 1950s/1960s Francis was, at the same time, an extreme leftist as well as being pro-American in cultural matters, and that this is what explains his ultimate choice for moving to the USA in 1971, instead of, say, France, Sweden, Cuba, the USSR... (all places of destination of various other contemporary Brazilian exiles). That's it, and I don't know of any alternative explanation to this fact - Francis decision to move to the USA, that is; but then if I'm offered one from a reliable source, it shall be included in the article, by me or my any other editor. After all, I do not own this article. That's why I nominated it for GA status, in order to have various third-part views that will undoubtely contribute to our common interest of having the best article possible. Personally, I think that the best to do now would be to await the results of the reviewing process from the "outside" in order to work anew on the article around some form of a consensus, and I apologize beforehand for any possible shortcomings in explaining my editorial choices.

Before a final statement, as my reply is already to long, I must open another paragraphy for the sake of clarity and state that, neverthless, there's something we "inside" editors could maybe sort out by ourselves, about how this article should look like: fact is, Francis' public persona was that of a highly controversial personality, that triggered various, heated and bitter exchanges of opinions around his views and statements. Therefore, how could his biography, up to a measure, do not convey some of the controversial character of his actual life? After all, he never was one, AFAIK, to try to avoid such controversies, quite to the contrary! Cerme (talk)

Point-to-point discussion- Part III

In discussing the reasons for Francis' political shift, I have decided to underline the intellectual causes envolved, therefore giving preference to Kucinski's and Lustosa's explanations - although I had, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to acknowledge the existence of explanations that see the whole thing as simply a case of selling-out. Be as it is, all views I could find that had a reliable source behind them are presentedCerme (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I also reduced examples of Francis' racist smears to the barest, most representative minimum-not least because of the necessity not to have such statements given much opportunity to propagate from the WP siteCerme (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Part IV - Last Year.

In describing Francis' last year, I think it would be important to show how resistence to him hardened in his last year of life, as well as the fact that he was eventually lost support from his Establishment connections - one can hardly say that his last episode was unexpectedlyCerme (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please withdraw GA nomination

This article needs images, copy editing and a longer lead that adequately summarizes the content. The refs also don't seem to conform to standard formats. Please withdraw the nomination unless you can make these changes in the coming week. Otherwise it will be failed for now. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis: copy-editing, relevance and politics

The article needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker. Also,there have been heated discussions about its relevance - since it refers to a personality who is virtually unknown outside Brazil - as well as to various issues related to the political bias inevitable in a biography of someone who took various (and mutually contradictory)partisan stances throughout his live. It would be better if the editor who will do the copy-editing were to some extent familiar with Brazilian History and politicsCerme (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This article already has a template box at the top: Template:Copy edit, and that is all that is needed to draw attention of other editors to help with copy editing. An RfC should be used if there is a particular issue with the article's content. Is there some specific problem or question that needs help? If so, what is it? If not, the RfC should probably be removed. --Noleander (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The most pressing question to be solved in the article seems to me its use of the English language - i.e. adapting it to standard Anglophone usage by pointing which sentences and paragraphs do not conform to it and what alternate forms should be usedCerme (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I'm just pointing out that the RfC process is best suited for content/factual problems, not for copy editing. I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to see if anyone else can help out. --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed RfC. Will be added again when the copy-editing issue is solved and we can discuss the substance of the articleCerme (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The prose is strange, is it translated from Portuguese sources? Nearly every sentence needs development. I am happy to make the effort to anglicise this article if someone convinces me it won't then get deleted as non-notable. Can someone do that? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, translation problems are one of the issues. I would add the fact that most contents were so contested (see the various discussions above) that I tried to add as much information as was available and that "overloaded" every sentence with subordinate clauses. As to relevance, let's say that the importance of Francis as an author in Brazil is equivalent to that of Christopher Hitchens in the Anglophone world - with the difference that, in terms of style, Francis was far more unconventional than Hitchens is. One could also say that Francis was also something akin to a Brazilian V.S. Naipaul - as far as their politics are concerned, that is Cerme (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if notability in Brazil means notability for the English Wikipedia, but let's assume it does. I'll start now. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, after all the English Wikipedia is the most international of all wikis. BTW, I have seem your copyediting of the first sections. It's very goodCerme (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep an eye on me. I am not sure about some of the meanings. Rumiton (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article - your copyediting was great! I had only to add a precision about the meaning of a single phrase. Thanks a lot Cerme (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if I can help further. Rumiton (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When did the American Midwest become the Rust Belt?

Francis offered as a reason for his political shift...

..."a (supposed) trip to the American Midwest, "the industrial center of the country" where he allegedly had seen "nothing to equal it, in the way of progress and workers' welfare".

I have added the "supposed" for the fact that I suspect the trip to be bogus, as Francis never mentioned it before his shift. But he could have been to the Midwest innumerable times, given the fact that one of his regular duties as foreign correspondent was to cover American primaries and presidential elections. But then, could a Brazilian journalist who had already toured contemporary Japan & Western Europe see the 1970s American Midwest and be flabbergasted by it? Wasn't the American Midwest of the 1970s already the Rust Belt?Cerme (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

It doesn't seem that there were any major changes since the last [[../GA3|GA nom]] (diff), particularly with regards to the prose. The entire article seems to lack an encyclopedic tone seeming more like a narrative in structure and in style. I feel like there is both unneccesary and possibly undue diversion into his political opinions. I mean, he is notable for his writing, right? I mean, the lead lists him as "a Brazilian journalist, political pundit, novelist and critic." Yet the article overwhelmingly focuses on the intimate details of his political philosophy with only minor mention of his journalism and criticism work and the discussion of his fiction writing was so thick that I could barely read or understand it. As stated in the previous review, selected works are inherently non-neutral and a form of cherry-picking. I think this article is in severe need of a peer review and copy edit, as well as a massive trim to its prose size.

Results

Second Opinion I think this article is a very long way from satisfying criteria 1, 3, and 4, however I'm wary of a quick fail because I don't have particularly concrete suggestions on how to improve it. I'm going to see if another editor would be willing to give the article a look over and what their opinion would be. Wugapodes (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the previous review specifically recommended either peer review or copyedit, and neither has been done, I don't see why this shouldn't be closed immediately. All of the warning templates added to the article after that GAN review were removed by the nominator immediately prior to nominating for this one, even thought the article lede had clearly not been made longer and still did not meet the GA requirements. I have gone to the Guild of Copy Editors requests page to specifically request a review of Paulo Francis, since the "LoCE request" template on the talk page hasn't attracted a copyedit in over three years (I've now removed it, per GOCE instructions). Once that's done I think the nominator should then request a peer review, since the copyedit doesn't deal with all of the criteria you've identified as unsatisfied. This article should not be nominated again before both copyedit and peer review are completed and acted on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not listed I agree with BlueMoonset and so am closing this as not listed. Wugapodes (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paulo Francis/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

I am not impressed with what I'm seeing - this is the fifth time it is nominated, the only action taken by the nominator between GA4 failing on August 27, 2015 and renominating it was pluralizing the word article and before that the main edit prior to nominating it for the fourth time was to remove the tags at the top of the page but not addressing the issues. Now to be fair I will review the entire article but I am putting it on hold right now - it's not a GA article as it stands, there are a ton of issues unresolved from more or less every previous GA article that needs to be addressed.

I am going to Assume Good Faith on this and actually provide my feedback on this and allow 7 days for issues to be addressed. In all honesty, the tags that were removed in March still apply, but I am not just going to slap them back on and fail it - but I will reapply them if the GA fails. Fair warning, I am not going to rewrite the article for you - if it was just a sentence or two I'd probably offer an alternative but for this one I will provide a list of issues that need to be addressed and can help with wording for individual fixes if you ask

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD - it is too short, 71 KB should have three to four paragraphs of lead text. Side note - a one sentence lead is not GA level either so there is some work to be done to update the lead to GA level.
• Is there not an appropriate info box that can be added?
• The tool hits on some weasel words, which I will be looking at closer when I do the actual review, but from what I read I agree there are definitely weasel and Peacock words
• The tool brings up issues that it mixes British English and American English spelling. Pick one and make it consistent please.
• use of contraction in the main text "couldn't" - should be "could not"

Copyright violations Tool

• Nothing shows up. but most sources are not in English so the tool would not catch stuff like that. I will spot check to see if there are cases of straight translations here.

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• The following needs to be resolved

• There are four links marked as dead - they are highlighted in red using the "External Links" tool
• There are three links marked as "most likely dead" - they are highlighted in orange using the "External Links" tool
• There are two links marked as having connection issues - they are highlighted in blue using the "External Links" tool
• There is one link marked as "warn", but it's actually dead - this is highlighted in yellow using the "External Links" tool

Well Written

• No, even without a close review I can see this, but I will be adding details as I go N
• The long chapter sections have to be condensed

• On the Eve of the military dictatorship and after: Radical journalism and fiction-writing (1964–79)
• Post-dictatorship years: ideological shift and media celebrity (1979–97)

• I stumble upon the following quote " phrasing is extremely shocking, [in that] it is grammatically ill-construed, its syntax completely irregular, with oral language deformed under the influence of a foreign language. And with all this he forges a 'badly written' language in academic terms, which at the same time stands as highly elaborate in its context, as it tries to reproduce newspaper lingo" and I am thinking the same actually applies to this article. So perhaps this is a brilliant meta piece honoring the subject by repeating his idiosyncracies?

Lead

• "trademark writing style" is a bit over the top
• To use the word "erudite" seems off - the definition states "smoothed away all raw, untrained incivility", but based on what I read there is all kinds of incivility in his writing, a lack of training and facts. That does not add up to me.
• It states he was exposed to "Americanism" early on, then drops it, then brings it back when he went to the US - so the "early on" part is really pointless, especially when the lead is supposed to summarize the major points of the article. Is that really something that needs to be in the lead?
• Trotskyist needs to be linked.
• " 1970s as an exile and expatriate in" should be " 1970s in exile as an expatriate in"
• "Critical evaluations of his work have been made by Midia scholar Bernardo Kucinski and historian Isabel Lustosa." - Not really about him but that two people wrote about him - really not necessary for the lead of the article on Francis.

Early life and career (1930–64)

• Weird how there is no mention of when, how, where, why etc. he decided to change his name to "Paulo Francis"?
• "at the time a general humanities course" - seems kinda like a weird side note, does it add to the understanding of Paulo Francis? I would say no and it can be deleted.
• " Francis tried to become an actor in Rio de Janeiro during the early 1950s" - if he won an award I would think he was actually was an actor at some point, we don't win awards for what we don't do right?
• "lthough he received an award as a rising star in 1952, he did not pursue the career: according to Kucisnki, because he lacked talent;[4]" first big one of the article.

• First of all you need to put "Kucisnki" in perspective since this is the body of the article it's the first time Kucisnki is mentioned here - who is he? why is his opinion so important that it was mentioned first? Why put the word of someone who studied him later, after the fact with an obvious bias over the director that actually worked with him at the time and on balance has no axe to grid with Kucisnki?
• And putting the "lacked talent" right after stating he won an award kinda rduces Kucisnki's credibility a little too. Just saying.

• The jump to the US seems very sudden and out of left field, just "BAM! he's in the US"?
• "During his time in the United States, Francis joined a host of Brazilian intellectuals who, during the 1940s and the 1950s, forswore any abstract and aristocratic European concept of "civilization", meaning mostly French Belle Époque culture, in favor of an American model, which equated modernization with cutting-edge technological development (Fordism) and mass democracy, understood as the necessary material basis for social change, which Francis expressed through a personal mix of pro-Americanism and Left radicalism.[8]" one massive run-on and on sentence that should be revised into 2-3
• "into a lifelong", well as long as "Lifelong" is only from the 1970s until his death
• "Empiricism" is a philosphy, a practitioner is called an "Empiricist"
• I am not sure how "Militant" can apply to "Empiricism" and the article doesn't really give me a clue as to how that would work.
• If it is indeed in the words of one of his critics then it should be a quote.
• And the criticisms stands alone, did he have no supporters to provide a different point of view?
• "In a late interview", probably "later" interview unless he was running behind schedule?
• "This mode of work, according to critics" again only critics are given a voice in the article.
• I'm sorry the Kucinski which is three seperate pieces of the quote look like they're cherrypicked, picking exactly what the readers should get from the quote instead of making their own determination.
• "After a time as a director between 1954 and 1956 during which he staged five plays, with moderate success,[4] in 1957 Francis started to write as a theater critic for the newspaper Diário Carioca." run-on, please split and rewrite.
• "He was soon praised for his defense of a modern approach to staging." stated but not sourced?
• "characterised" should be "characterized"
• why is "classic" capitalized?
• What is the point of mentioning "such as the theater scholar Sabato Magaldi and the Shakespeare translator and expert Barbara Heliodora"? does it help us understand Francis better? Yes he was not the only one doing this but does that really say much about Francis? I think that can be removed to make the artcle more focused.
• "At the same time, he sponsored, with editor Jorge Zahar, the publication of a collection of translation of foreign plays that would form a canon on which a future Brazilian modernist dramaturgy would develop." - I am seeing like 3-4 "of" in a row, can you plrease revise it.
• "writing so demeaning a piece of libel" I doubt he wrote a "piece of libel", he wrote an article.
• That whole sentence about the slap is poorly written and problematic, really should be rewritten.

On the Eve of the military dictatorship and after

Radical journalism and fiction-writing (1964–79)

• So he worked on a magazine at the same time as Nahum Sirotsky, again makes the article unfocused when it's trying to imply "look he's a big deal he worked with this guy"
• "Senhor,[23] a literary magazine praised for the quality of its contributors as well as for its innovative graphic design,[24] which was created by Bea Feitler." I believe this was brought up before, did Francis contribute to that? this is about Francis, the praise for the magazine - unless he was instrumental in that, which then should be mentioned.
• "maverick" - weasel word
• "In his articles, he advocated for a nationalist Left-reformist agenda (land and franchise reforms and the strengthening of foreign investment controls), advising the Left to support the João Goulart government by means of a strategy of pressure "from below", banking on the grassroots mobilization of the broad masses against what he saw as a mostly reactionary Parliament." - rewrite
• "Banned from formal employment at a major paper" - article just stated he started to work for a paper in 1967 and that paper was closed in 1969, granted the article does not state how long he worked there, which is a flaw. But that does not sound he was not able to get "forma emplyment" in the late 1960s.
• I would like for the newspaper titles etc. to be translated to English - whenever I work on Spanish language articles I try to throw in the translation whenever I can, just to help readers get a full picture.
• "Evading censorship"? how? by not writing about Brazil politics? If so say so.
• "Evading censorship, he wrote mostly about international affairs, and manifestly opposed US intervention in Vietnam, as well as supporting the PLO, flouting the official pro-American and pro-Israel sympathies of the military government in texts considered so uncharacteristically sober that they later produced a remark from Kucinski that "only then he became a real mentsch"." please revise.
• And even with praise Kucinski manages to put him down, the overreliance on his as a source helps tain the tone of the whole article.
• "on the slimmest of pretexts" - It would help if the charges were, allow the reader to learn what they are instead of the writer making the judgement for them.
• "After deciding to live abroad to escape the ever more stringent political repression in 1970s Brazil, Francis moved to the US, a move favoured by his previous upbringing in Columbia, his enduring Trotskyist sympathies[39] (and therefore alienation towards the Stalinist Left of the time), and his actual American connections, such as his acquaintance with diplomat John Mowinckel."

• Run on, please revise.
• He was brought up in Columbia" I thought he went to Columbia University nowhere is it indicated that he "grew up" there too.
• So as a "Trotskyist" he would favor moving to the US? I don't see the connection there. That's like me saying as a great fan of Lucha Libre I moved to Canada... erm what?
• What does "qualified support" mean" How was he "qualified"?
• "Once there, he assumed a position highly critical of the Richard Nixon administration, offering qualified support to the George McGovern candidacy in the 1972 US presidential election, assuming that McGovern's "naive reformism" offered a way out of the frozen consensus around Nixon[43] – a consensus which he saw as a product of a conservative victory in a late 1960s "restrained civil war"." - Revise, break down into multiple sentences please.

• "as a writer on her own right" that should be "in her own right"
• If it's one essay, published once how can it be a "continuous account"?
• "famed editor", drop the "famed"

Fiction-writing and its repercussion

• "what the modernist writer should strive at was historical relevance" ... strive for maybe?
• "In his view, what the modernist writer should strive at was historical relevance, by depicting in personal terms the fragmentary character of the social reality around him, described through the objective sensation felt, shunning any kind of commentary wont at offering a sense of coherence and totality." - please revise this massive run on sentence.
• "Basing himself on these rules, during the late 1970s, Francis would publish the first two parts of an intended trilogy of social novels in which he tried, in a style reminiscent of James Joyce, to shun what he saw as the populist streak of Brazilian modern fiction,[52] that is, the portrayal of the lives of the rural lower and/or higher classes typical of later Brazilian modernist authors such as Érico Veríssimo, Jorge Amado or Graciliano Ramos." - run on, confusing, full of side notes and "look at the names i can drop".
• "a project reminiscent of James Joyce and Scott Fitzgerald" - how?
• "sales success, but" does not need the comma
• "for sloppiness" either - "for its sloppiness" or "for being sloppy"
• Are those José Guilherme Merquior's words? if so put them as a quote or they come off as more like a fact, which they're not.
• "Other critics, however, like the writer Silvano Santiago, maintained that Francis' apparent lack of stylish qualities simply meant that he, like many others, simply felt the imprint of the times: in the absence of open public debate, it was unavoidable that literature would assume a parajournalistic function aimed at a transposition of the real." - I don't even know what this means or where to start. But it' running-on again.
• "Francis was also criticized for an alleged lack of depth in his political and cultural commentaries[9] and confusion arising from his attempt at melding the Joycean stream of consciousness with the plot of a spy thriller: in the words of a paper critic for Folha de S.Paulo, Vinicius Torres Filho, for producing in his novels something like "a watered-down Graham Greene", expressing a Cold War obsession at displaying a supposedly intellectual sophistication by seeing political issues in terms of conspiracies and spies." - rewrite
• Again critics stand alone in this section.
• "Despite the Francis' avowed leftism at the time, the American literary scholar Malcolm Silvermann considered his tone to be already that of a nihilist: in the words this same critic, what every character in Francis' novels displayed – irrespective of political affiliation – was the same "careless erotico-politic debauchery, conspicuous consuming, belligerent use of obscenities and a general disdain for everyone"." confusing, long, run-on.
• "After the joint publication, in 1982, of two novellas under the title Filhas do Segundo Sexo ("Children of the Second Sex") – an attempt at tackling the issue of middle-class female emancipation and at the same time at plain language feuilleton – which was very ill-received by both critics[72] and public, Francis stopped publishing fiction." ...
• "Eleven years after his death, a new novel, left by Francis as a draft, was to be published after being edited by his widow: Carne Viva ("Open Wound"),[73] where the author tried, again, to portray the lives of the wealthy and sophisticated in between a mythical 1960s Rio de Janeiro and an equally mythical French May—something that led critic Vinícius Torres Freire, in Folha de S.Paulo, to state that Francis had left only a memoir about the kitsch character of his usual snobbery.[74]" again, revise please.
• All references to the work of James Joyce are complete non sense. In the original form of the text, onde read:

"Rejecting what he saw as the portrayal "of the ruling Bourgeoisie as an evil caricature", he chose to offer "the people" the opportunity "to know more about its masters",[54] by describing life among the happy few in 1960s–1970s Rio ("the elite of the charming parochialism of Rio de Janeiro [fashionable boroughs], their parties and sensual pleasures"[55])—a project reminiscent of James Joyce and Scott Fitzgerald. By the same token, he associated his embrace of modernist stylish conventions (juxtaposition, non-linear narration) – or, in his own words, the deliberate refusal of earlier formal stylistics[56] – to the necessity of portraying an emerging urban Brazil."

Joyce does not describe the life of the elites, it is quite the contrary, the object of his whole work is the life of the middle-class dubliners, who often deal with lack of money, opportunities and expectations of change in their lifes. Dubliners is all about that. In Portrait of the Artist and Ulysses we find the exact kind of people, Stephen Dedalus is a poor schoolteacher, Leopold Bloom is a middle-class advertising agent, Molly Bloom is a middle-class singer. There are clear passages in which Dedalus and Bloom worries about money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.5.93 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-dictatorship years

ideological shift and media celebrity (1979–97)

• "afterwards" should be "afterward"
• "Shortly afterwards, however, he made a sharp and sudden turn from Trotskyism to conservative views. A gulf developed between him and the Left in the Brazilian intellectual and political scene during the demise of the military dictatorship and after, with Francis hurling insults from New York at various academics and politicians, and especially at the Workers' Party (PT), which in the post-dictatorship democracy quickly became the dominant Brazilian leftist party." - rewrite
• "Francis' shift, rooted in what was a late 1970s general intellectual frustration with the Left,[77] had nevertheless also personal reasons, on which later scholars differed: media scholar Kucinski talks about disenchantment[78] and alienation;[79] some fellow journalists propose plain objective interest, noting that Francis, in the early 1980s, had lobbied covertly in his column for private business interests." I feel like I am repeating mysef but I got to be thorough
• "Others argue for vanity at hobnobbing with Establishment figures." - I am not even sure
• But once again the negative critism stands alone.
• "Around this elitist streak, possibly developed as a result of a superficial reading of Frankfurt School's authors critique of the Culture Industry,[88] Francis developed his notion of leftism as, above all, a means to an end: the social modernization and political democratization of Brazilian society – which ultimately meant embracing mainstream American values and American culture." - Rewrite, take the guessing out if it - "possibly" means that whatever comes after it is one person's oppinon, not fit for an encylopedia, it's not a place for speculations.
• "In the late 1980s, however, he would develop suspicions regarding what he saw as the PT's increasing radicalism,[93] which, associated to his usual misanthropy ("by my aristocratic calling I mean setting strict bounds to sympathies for my neighbors"),[94] led him eventually to express a fear that the emergence of a grassroots, mass, trade-union-based and anti-intellectual Left, such as that which the Workers' Party represented, meant the risk that Brazil and the Brazilians could distance themselves from "our cultural heritage [sic] which is the Illuminist West, the USA, our North American peers in size, which since Franklin Roosevelt want us to be their South American partners"." - dude, really? and the distaste for Francis is palpable here, just really offputting.
• "volteface" - really? no other word could be used? I am not saying dumb it down, but pick a word that's not so pretentious.
• "priori" same comment as above.
• "These and similar views grounded opinions such as the one that was to be expressed, in one of Francis' obituaries, by his late political friend,[101] financial tsar and former Minister of Planning of the Castelo Branco military administration Roberto Campos: in Campos' condescending view, Francis' columns were intellectually worthless, but made nevertheless good propaganda; they were "a weird bouquet of [...] economic guesswork" but nevertheless a good "boxing for ideas"." - run on, totally negative and filled with distain
• "consisting in an" should be "consisting of an"
• "An essay published in 1985, O Brasil no Mundo, identifying Brazilian authoritarianism with an absence of Capitalism, expressed this ideological shift." I assume Francis wrote it? Thats never actually stated.
• The word is "especially" not "specially"
• "Notwithstanding his jagged relationship with the various post-dictatorship Brazilian presidencies (specially those of Fernando Collor and Fernando Henrique Cardoso), the fact is that the later Francis' neoliberal commitment was never directed towards a particular government, but towards an ideal of government.", unclear, confusing and uses the word "fact" in a way that's not actually in the definition.

Start with "Such ideas" in the beginning of a paragraph is confusing - I can only take it that it's a reference to the previous paragraph and his "neoliberal commitment"? If so I am not sure how neoliberal transitions into bigotry and the fact that it's presented as if that's a natural progression?

• So is she "beefy gentleman" or a "hottie"? They seem contradictory unless one's definition of "hottie is a woman that looks like a beefy gentleman.
• So having someone "whipped like a Slave" is considered "pithy"? I don't thin we have the same definition of the word "pithy"

TV celebrity (1979–97)

• "Because of this, Paulo Francis was attacked by many of his former associates, and the number of disputes in which he became involved heightened his fame as a controversial journalist. " - not neutral, stating that poor Francis was attacked.
• "polemics" see previous under pretentious wording
• "Many of these polemics became, in themselves, pop culture events, as with the show of mutual animosity between him and the popular composer Caetano Veloso." I am not sure exactly what the article is trying to tell me, but it's "pop culture" right? It does not bother to explain how basically stating "trust me they are pop culture events"
• "racism[119]", I believe it's missing a full stop?
• "Concentrating afterwards on his activities as a television commentator, Francis quickly became a pop culture phenomenon, playing the persona of the pundit always ready to offer a stinging comment in a basso voice—earning him various impersonators on Brazilian TV." - how? is the article saying he became a phony pundit? A comedian mocking himself? Again trust us it's a pop culture phenomenon.
• So much negativity - consider he kept getting jobs he must have been liked by at least 2-3 people in Brazil, but I guess none were available for comments?

Final disputes and death

• "Concentrating afterwards on his activities as a television commentator, Francis quickly became a pop culture phenomenon, playing the persona of the pundit always ready to offer a stinging comment in a basso voice—earning him various impersonators on Brazilian TV." rewrite, rewrite and then take the bile out.
• "Ribeiro's words" - but it's not quoted so it's not Ribeiro's words??
• "Late this year, an entire book was published listing and describing various cases of his supposed plagiarisms and abuses"... and then years later a Wikipedia article.
• "In early 1997, Francis attacked, on cable TV, on the management of Brazilian state-owned oil corporation Petrobras as dishonest." rewrite, doesnt' matter if it's on Cable TV and "attacked as dishonest" does not seem right
• "The libel suit seems to have added to Francis' poor health condition" - so THIS suit, not the previous ones contributed to his bad health? That's a bit of Origina Research and guesswork.

Legacy

• "Some said that, even in his leftist phase, his elitism was already evident,[139] especially in the way he used his supposed erudition[140] as a commodity, for the sake of exerting an authoritarian influence on the cultural debate.[141] Another scholar even coined the expression that, as an individual, Francis had left empty an informal "chair" for journalistic histrionics, for which various columnists competed, to the exclusion of serious journalism." please revise
• So varaious counts of critisism and one "Well he was very satirical" while still getting a dig it at his is the sum total of his legacy? 95% negativity and 5% positivity? That balance is really what makes this a POV'd article.

Sources/verifiable

• I think it would be helpful to provide an English translation of the titles listed under "references", it would help us understand what the specific source is about without google translate. It's not a requirement but it would help make it more accessible to readers
• Same for Newspaper/Magazine articles, location of publisher please
• All book based sources should have the location added whenever it's known - it's printed in the book so it should be easy enough to find.
• Note 13 is not formatted correctly. while the note is the main part the link and info should be formatted like any other citation on the list. Needs more info on the source.
• Note 14 asserts that "Yamamoto" became slang for silly journalistic mistakes, but offers no citation of this as the source covers Francis' statement.
• Anything that provides a weblink needs to have an accessdate listed - example Note 18 and others.
• Note 18 needs to also list that it's om page 53, not just link to it.
• How does Note 23 source his work on "Senhor"?
• Note 24 links to a 14 page document, please indicate what pages the specific info is pulled from.
• Note 27 is dead - if it was found it needs a page number for the PDF page the info is taken from
• Note 35 - same as #23
• Note 38 is formatted wrong, it's got the link under the date, not the title of the article? that needs to be fixed.
• Note 40 - formatted wrong, giving a link but not the usual information about web based citations.
• Note 42 - needs to indicate the PDF page
• Note 55 is formatted incorrectly, date is linked to article.
• Note 56 - Way too little information to correctly identify ANYTHING
• Note 57 - Same as above, no one could track it down based on the info given.
• Note 62 - Page numbers
• Note 63 - Seems to be the same as Note 57, only with a slightly different name for the author?
• Note 82 - Not specific enough
• Note 84 - Don't just say "see his article", that's what a source is for, if you are adding notes actually explain it.
• Note 90 - Not specific enough
• Note 99 and 100 - Need page numbers
• 102, 103 - Page numbers
• Note 109 - Is there a source for the meaning of the slang term? and seems to not really tie in with the main text.
• Note 128 - Not specific enough.
• Note 132 - formatted wrong with external links not showing title etc.
• Note 137 "Scathing appreciations" does not make sense. And external link is incorrectly formatted.
• Note 141 - Formatted incorrectly, no page reference given.
• Note 142 - "Available online" is not the appropriate format
• Note 143 - Incorrectly formatted for external links.
• Note 144 - Incorrectly formatted, date is linked, not article name.
• Sites - all external links incorrectly formatted.

Broad in coverage

• Eh, it's got a bit of everything, although very little on his personal life

Neutral

• No N authors have a very clear POV, it's not an encylopedic entry right now. see numerous comments under "well written"

Stable

• There is a laundry list of issues on the talk page and a lot of discussion, including a vibe of ownership by the nominator - who does not seem to take in what is actually being said. So with no attempt to find a common ground it's not stable - it seems that some people simply gave up on trying to make improvements.

Illustrated / Images

• None, considering he died in 1997 I am pretty sure a case for "Fair use" can be made.

• @Cerme: - Review compete, I will give you up to seven days to address the issues. I got to say it'll require a major rewrite to produce a well written and neutral article, but never say never.  MPJ-US  22:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well I have not seen any improvements or really changes at all in the last 7 days. So I am going to fail this right now. Note - please address the issues i have raised before nominating a sixth time, do us all a favor and not waste our time by just slapping a few edits on it to nominate again.  MPJ-US  04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• @MPJ-DK: I felt that the article needed a throughly review and that this would be impossible to attain in such a short deadline. I do not want to waste anyone's time and therefore am refraining to engage now in a review of such a thorny article. In due time, I wil tackle it. Thanks a lot! Cerme (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)