Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1

Image POV concern

Images all images are verifiably in the public domain, properly licensed and sourced, but I find File:Brasileiros_do_seculo_XIX.png hugely distasteful Fasach Nua (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the census covers a multitude of demographic issues including age, gender, literacy and I'm sure umpteen other things, for me to use this image is suggestive the most important thing obtained in the census is the colour of one's skin, also in using these 18 people to illustrate this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The image does not demean the subjects, it exemplifies the fact that there were a wide varity of peoples under the rule of the Brazilian Empire. The very definition of an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples under the rule of a monarch or oligarchy. The image reflects that definition nicelyXavierGreen (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As a co-nominator of this article, it hadn't occurred to me that this might be an issue. I'm not sure if that was naive/insensitive of me or not, but I would ask what you think of, for example, the African-American page, which has a similar photo-montage used to provide examples of African-Americans. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I think that saying that "this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race" is excessive.

However, if there is a consensus that this image is inappropriate, could we not juggle the photos in the montage (it's out of copyright due to age and it'll take me ten minutes on photoshop) so that they're in no particular order? Seems a shame to lose some great faces, as they give a very human feel to who the Brazilians of the time were. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the caption states for this image states "two female mulattoes", would it be appropriate to adjust the African American image caption and replace where it says "Barack Obama" with "Half caste male"? I think not! I couldn't imagine a modern state article with a montage of races in the demographic section Fasach Nua (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Under the Empire of Brazil he would be, you cannot make anacronistic comparisons. The Empire of Brazil was a very different place than the United States or (modern Brazil) is today.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Xavier, but since 1872 every national census has divided the Brazilian population into white, black, brown (pardo) and Indian. Today, 2011, this is still how it works. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats why i said what i did, the Brazilian empire recognized the different races under its jurisdiction. pardo which means half caste in english was one of those recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is pretty much clear that in 19th century Brazil there were four ethnic categories: whites, brown, blacks and Indians. The brown were divided into mulattoes, caboclos and cafuzos. Since this is the English-written Wikipedia and not every one knows what is a "caboclo" or a "cafuzo", the pictures have a point. And I sincerely don't understand why you bothered with pictures of Brazilian mulattoes. Pictures of mixed-race people is offensive but of whites isn't? I can't understant this. --Lecen (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick NPOV concern with the image: I find the absence of working class Brazillians presenting as European in the photomontage disturbing, and, the exclusive focus on rural proletarians fairly disturbing. Compare images 1-7 which present petits bourgeois and bourgeois sensibilities with images 9-12, 17-18. There's also a bias towards rural manual trades (though I will accept the argument that images 3 and 7 may represent well off white collar workers or highly strategically successful skilled workers). If you're representing a demographic spread, you need to consider class. Gender seems balanced. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but nowhere in the books I got those pictures from there was anything telling which job they had. Unless you have information saying that they were "rural proletarians", "rural manual trades" and "white collar workers" I can not add something like that. In fact, the objective of the picture is to represent the ethnic groups found in the country, not occupations. I hope people won't appear in here saying that I should add more left handed people, or more pictures of people with beard, or someone with blue eyes, or someone with a tie, etc... it will be impossible to please all tastes. --Lecen (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for you to label the individuals, but you've chosen European presenting Brazillians who are dressed in bourgeois style for sitting room presentation. None are wearing work clothes. The fact that you're completely unaware of class in demography indicates a strongly disturbing NPOV bias. You're already stretching the bow of OR by presenting ethno-racial demographic diversity from a montage you've created. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not liking the accusations and insinuations of bad faith around here. I'd suggest a little more politeness from all of you to start with. The photos are simply there to illustrate the ethninc groups in Brazil. I did not pick them considering what kind of dress each one was wearing. And I consider quite rude of you to say that those are "European" dresses. What would be a "Brazilian" dress, then? The mulattoes women, for example, are from Bahia province (northeast), while the white men and women from Rio de Janeiro province (southeast). The caboclos are from Pará province (north). --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for convincing me that this is OR and breaks NPOV. You've shown class and provincial bias in selection. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you be kind and explain to me where is the "original research" and bias? What should I have done, then? --Lecen (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Having lived a good portion of my life in Latin America, I'll try to answer :) First, you should know that I had a similar issue with a montage of photos at Tourette syndrome, and I had to take it down, so this is not a situation unique to this article. The montage was intended to show a variety of people with TS, and it was rejected. Second, having lived there, I don't think we can realistically say that most of Latin America was not dominated by race issues at the time of this article, and probably is still racist today. How can you overcome that, if the montage is to stay (which it may not, considering my experience on the TS article)? You can't pretend that there were black, pardo, o mestizo aristrocrats in Brazil at the time. There weren't. What you could have done is show some lower or middle-class whites, or black, pardos and mestizos in their Sunday finest. That might help resolve this-- I don't know-- but the problem is showing whites of one type, and people of color of another. You might consider whether you want the entire FAC to be dominated by the issue of this one image; I'd rather see reviews of the content other than the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's suggestions are excellent ways to resolve the issue (though I did note in looking closely at the montage that a number of non "white" women were presented in Sunday finest, and was glad of that). You may like to consider examples available displaying fuller diversity of "white" Brazillian dress habits by class Italians more Italians. The article itself contains examples of industrial workers' dress, religious dress, and military dress with whites wearing these non-"sitting room" costumes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way, as was drummed in to me when I had the same issue on the TS article, the very act of choosing which images to include in a montage borders on original research or introduction of POV. Of course, I can see now that I had chosen all delightfully beautiful children with tics :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll give you an example: on "Lago, Bia Corrêa do. Os fotógrafos do Império: a fotografia brasileira no Século XIX (The photographers of the Empire: the Brazilian photograph in the 19th-century). Rio de Janeiro: Capivara, 2005. ISBN 858906316X" on page 150 there are four photos by Alberto Henschel (1827-1882). The left one to the top says in its caption "Crioula com colar, c.1869" (Crioula with neckless). Crioulo was the name given to slaves born in Brazil. The right photo on the top says "Escrava com turbante, c.1867" (slave with turban). Then there are tho photos at the bottom. The one to the left says "Cafuza de Pernambuco, c.1870" (Cafuzo woman from Pernambuco province) while the other to the right says "mulata de Pernambuco, c.1870" (mulattoe woman from Pernambuco). I scanned them both.

Why? Because the caption cleary says "cafuza" and "mulata" which is what I needed to put in the article so that readers could understand what both mean. When I chose them, I did not consider what kind of outfit they wear or job they had, because the book does not says and that's not why I needed them.

Nice to know that you came to Latin America but that means little. If someone told me that he/she had come from Africa, that wouldn't help at all. Northern Africa is composed of a mainly Arab population while while the center and south of Blacks. The same occurs in "Latin America". Mexico has around 90% of its population composed of Indians and Mestizos. Argentina, on the other hand, has more than 80% of whites. And we're talking about Hispanic America, which is completely different from Brazil.

In Brazil, if you go to the state of Rio Grande do Sul in the sourthern Brazil, you'll see a population that has around 70% of whites. The state of Rio de Janeiro (in the sourtheast) has a mostly white population with a considerable Black and Mulatto population but with almost no caboclos. Ceará, where I live and which is located in the Northeast has almost no blacks or mulattoes, but around 90% of its population is cabloco and around 10% is white. Blacks and mulattoes are extremely rare in here, mostly Brazilians who came from other regions in Brazil.

As you can see, in my country, the ethnic population is very, very diversified. The image compilation has only the goal of allowing readers to understand what were the ethnic groups in Brazil, not Brazilians' professions or geographical distribution. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the nature of the text you've created (the montage) exceeds your authorial intentions: the montage makes a class argument by selective omission of costumes worn (in very large numbers) by ethnic groupings comprising the Brazillian racial category of "white" in the 19th century. As SandyGeorgia noted, montages are hard inside Wikipedia's rules. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can not use the photos of Italians, because: 1) they are Italians, not Brazilians; 2) The photo was taken in 1890, the Empire ended in 1889. So, you have problem with the whites, right? If I find pictures of whites with more simple clothes that will be fine? What about the Indians, should I look after pictures of some of them in suits too? --Lecen (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Whites in working / industrial / rural costumes, and/or whites in other formal socially "highly" placed costumes (church, army), and, if significant or noteworthy (see next sentence) an Indian in European or Brazillian European-inspired costumes. I'm guessing by the mid to late 19th century there was a minority of Indians who dressed in European costumes or Brazillian costumes inspired by European cultures for reasons of social advantage in political bargaining or cultural assimilation; you would know this better than myself of course. With the other ethno-racial classifications, the spread of costume is good. Gender is already good. Ethno-racial spread is (as you designed it to be) good. (I was only pointing to the Italian migration to Brazil to indicate the diversity of white costume in Brazil, not to suggest those particular images as they're limited to Italian migration post period). I agree with the manifest advantage of representing the ethnic diversity of Brazil, and representing the racial categories in use in Brazil in the period. You may need to cite original captions regarding the ethno-racial classifications if you use them in the caption, and use them as opinion "A woman considered "white" by contemporary Brazilian racial categories" for example. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"A woman considered "white" by contemporary Brazilian racial categories" This is where your thinking is entirely wrong. We are not talking about modern brazil. We are talking about the Empire of Brazil in the 1800's. To equate modern brazil to the empire is anacronistic and a falacy.XavierGreen (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

By contemporary, I meant contemporaneous with the woman pictured. I apologise for being unclear. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problems with the picture, I believe the issue is in the eye of the beholder. It is actually a good representation of the different ethnicities in Brazil. If you are Brazilian you can instantly recognize people in their traditional and regional clothes. To find pictures of natives or African-brazilians in "European" clothes is actually the racist action in my opinion. African-brazilians are actually very proud of their traditional clothes and they still use it during special events in Bahia. People should look at this with innocent eyes and not with malice. ,Paulista01 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be racist and anacronistic to show indians in european cloths. Most indians in the empire did not live a european lifestyle at the start of the empire. A typical indian from the Amazon in this period would have never worn such cloths. A typical representative of each group of people should be portrayed, which the current selection of images does. To portray outliers does not give a good representation of what the makup of the empire was at the time of its existance.XavierGreen (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Except pictures Paulista01 was also discussing African-Brazillians, and images 17 and 18 clearly depict African-Brazillians in heavily European inspired dress, respectively: the sitting-room costume identical with images 1-7, and working costume. =Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I will not look after Indians dressed in what you so-call "European" dress (I wonder what you regard as Brazilian clothes). The illustrations have as sole purpose to show what is a white, brown, black and Indian from Brazil in the 19th-century. What you call "up-class" cloth I could call a typical daily outfit and someone else could name it differently. I know where this is heading and I'm certainly that you'll give an "oppose" to the article simply based on the picture. Looking at your user page I'd know why. If you believe that simply looking at the photo of a Brazilian black or a mulatto is racism, well... that's not my problem.

When we open a FAC nomination there is a huge sign warning us to take criticism in a positive way and treat kindly the reviewers. Well, they should say the same to the reviewers. I had to see Fsach Nua insinuating that I'm a racist and calling the images of black and mulattoes as "hugely distasteful" (yes, in bold). You called it "strongly disturbing" (also in bold). Well, I don't regard black people nor mulattoes's photographs as "hugely distasteful" and I'm not going to discuss with you what is a European outfit and what is a "working class" outfit. I chose the pictures based on the information regarding them (if the picture represented a caboclo, white, black, etc...). You're a looking at them analysing what could be the kind of job they had. Now that's original research.

Brazil is not the United States. If in the US you have somekind of "possible-racism-everywhere-paranoia" that's something you all have to deal with. In Brazil, a picture of a black person is simply that: a picture. It has no hidden context nor purpose. Thus, the compilation of photos has the sole purpose of showing readers what is a caboclo, or what is white and etc. in Brazil. That's all. It has no further purpose as to show what kind of occupation each one had or to what social category each belonged. And I saw that you said that "gender" distribution is OK. Well, if I had put only pictures of males or only pictures of females that would be the same. The compilation has the only objective of showing what were the ethnic groups that existed in Imperial Brazil. That's why there are 6 whites, 6 pardos, 3 blacks and 3 Indians. Whites and pardos had almost the same share (both were around 40% each of the total population) as well as black and Indians, the two minorities. That's all. And lastly, but certainly not least important: next time you review an article, be more polite. Trust me, it won't hurt and it'll make everything far easier. --Lecen (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's nice. Please ping my talk page when you resolve both the image POV issues with class and the massive citation issues so I can change my position on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the compilation. I added more information in its page. Also, added photos of a white worker and an eldery man member of a street band. I also added a photo of an assimilated Indian. That's the best I can do. --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work. It is now great. I'm doing a detailed commentary to explain why it is great work. Top row shows a great age spread, and class spread. Mid row displays good age spread and a wide cultural variety of dress. Bottom row demonstrate excellent cultural, geographic, social class and age spread. I can't see an argument being made here: there isn't a "secondary message" readable from the text. The primary message that these categories of human ethnic/racial classification existed in Brazil in the 19th century, were significant at the time (census, self-identity), and they are illustrated from 19th century sources with people identified as such in the 19th century sources. I think those arguments are fully sourced at the first paragraph of "Ethnic groups". There's no hint of celebration, condemnation or judgement in the arrangement of the photos. And the selection of photographs has really well chosen individuals, nobody seems to be caught unnaturally posed: all the photographic subjects have a clear relationship with the camera. This was hard work, but I cannot find any POV introduced by wikipedia editors and the montage illustrates and only illustrates the well sourced points brought up in "Ethnic groups." Very well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Always glad to do my best. --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Citation issues raised by Fifelfoo

Opposeable POV/OR concern being discussed elsewhere, waiting to see if that resolves Montage image issues resolved to my satisfaction, Image now displays a wide spread of gender, age, class, 19th century Brazillian racial conceptions (a key point to illustrate for the article's reader) and also a wide spread of modern conceptions of ethnicity, well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 1c/2c check: 2c currently fails, major 1c concerns (textbooks, lack of journal articles) Short cites fail adequate completeness and reference to works (Barsa, works (entries) contained in another work). No DOI/PMIDs, so no DOI/PMID issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortcites are mostly consistent, but have significant problems:

• Explain "Barsa 1987, p. 270 (v.4)." ; "Barsa 1987, p. 230 (v.4)." ; "Barsa 1987, pp. 254—255, 258, 265 (v.4)." ; "Barsa 1987, p. 355 (v.10)." when other volumes are listed as "Lyra v.1 1977, p. 200."?
• I simply do not believe that listing encyclopaedia articles under a collective author is acceptable. If articles were solely authored by specialists then it meets HQRS (though Barsa isn't over used for a mere RS). Please supply article authors, article titles, article page spans. The works cited are the articles, not the encyclopaedia. You could be citing "Coffee cups in Japan" for all we know at the moment. The issue isn't with the quality of the Tertiary sources here (I think they're probably fine), but with the citation of the encyclopaedia as a whole, rather than the entry. A student foolish enough to cite this page, ought to cite "Wikipedia:FAC/Empire of Brazil/archive1" in Wikipedia [revision code], and not simply Wikipedia [revision code]. Many thanks, the research is now clearer here.
• Why does "Graça_Filho 2004, p. 21." have both names listed when you're using "Last Date, p. ##." Why does it have an underscore? May have missed the first names in the bibliography; but it is great.
• "Munro 1942, p. 279." ; "Carvalho 1987, p. 84–85." ; "Vasquez 2007, p. 38." ; "Ermakoff 2006, p. 189." link is broken; "Calmon 1975, p. 1611." ; "Parkinson 2008, p. 128." ; "Sodré 2004, p. 201." ; "Levine 1999, pp. 63–64." are short cites that doesn't reference a full citation.

Bibliography is good except for the missing references noted in the immediate last point

• With "# Nabuco, Joaquim (1975). Um Estadista do Império. único (4 ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Nova Aguilar. (Portuguese)" why is único bolded?
• Why is "# Topik, Steven C. (2000). Trade and Gunboats: The United States and Brazil in the Age of Empire. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804740186. (English)" identified as English language when no other English language citation is?
• I am broadly concerned with the use of textbooks (Vianna, Hélio (1994). História do Brasil: período colonial, monarquia e república (15 ed.).)
  • The textbook concern is precisely about their non-expert summarisation and drawing of conclusions which would be better sourced to scholarly works. Only real trivium is likely to be contained in textbooks. In addition, FAC has a requirement to meet High Quality Reliable Sources (HQRS): secondary and undergraduate textbooks are not HQRS. I'm happy to accept that dense citation of general textbooks can render them equivalent to the post-gradaute textbook standard generally used elsewhere for reliability.
• I am broadly concerned at the lack of scholarly journal articles.
  • This concern is with the completeness of research. A significant research stream in the academic humanities, especially in history, is published in scholarly journals. Normally a history encyclopaedia article would be making use of at least one such article. The absence of articles indicates that a search was not carried out, which indicates that the research is incomplete. In particularly, the US history journal system regularly publishes "Review Articles" which summarise the current state of historical research in fields. Journals everywhere in history publish recent research findings of shorter than book length. Two quick ones which may be of note, as an example of the existence of this medium of scholarly publication:
    1. http://hahr.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/3/399
    2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5923.2009.00268.x/abstract

• Tertiary sources have a number of deficiencies, in particular, they fail to meet the FAC specific standard of 1c) for "high-quality reliable sources". With this particular article there isn't an over reliance on tertiaries because scholarly monographs (clear HQRS) supply the bulk of citation.
• Journal articles are covered by the fairly clearly worded FAC criteria 1c) which reads, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." I am not convinced this is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature: scholarly journal articles, a major publishing outlet, appear to have been deliberately ignored.

Hélio Vianna's "História do Brasil" is neither a textbook used in schools nor it's a tertiary source. The book is over 700 pages. And it's so good that it has 15 editions. Vianna himself is regarded by historian Heitor Lyra (Pedro II's biographer and author of the 3-volume "História de Dom Pedro II" published in the 1970s) as the historian "who can be considered, with no excuse, the one with the greatest knowledge of the history of the Empire of his time, after the death of Tobias Monteiro" [a historian who died in 1952]. Source: Lyra, Heitor (1977a). História de Dom Pedro II (1825–1891): Ascenção (1825–1870). 1. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia, p.94. Historian José Murilo de Carvalho (a 21th Century biographer of Pedro II who wrote "D. Pedro II: Ser ou não ser") said that the "best biography [of Pedro II], for the reach and richeness of sources, still is the one written by Heitor Lyra". Source: Carvalho, José Murilo de (2007). D. Pedro II: ser ou não ser. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, p.260 ISBN 9788535909692 All three books are used as sources in this article and all three historians mentioned are widely regarded as the greatest brazilian historians regarding Imperial Brazil in their own time (1950s, 1970s and 2000s). Beside Brazilian historians, I also used the books written by the British historian Roderick J. Barman, who is regarded by historian Jeffrey D. Needell (author of Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804753695 - also used in this article) as Pedro II's "best biographer" (Needel, p.32). So, yes, we used the best sources available. It makes no sense to uses journals written by unknown historians who had no impact in their field of study in place of historians widely regarded as the best in Brazil and abroad. --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing up the magisterial nature of that work. You'll have to give me a few days to consider your argument from authority (a legitimate one in this case) regarding the sourcing bias towards monographs. (In my experience, this indicates that I'm digesting an idea I find difficult to swallow; but will be well pleased with once it is in my belly). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reply:

1. In the case of Lyra, the volumes have individual titles. This is not the case with Enciclopédia Barsa, so it seemed a waste to insert nearly identical entries for both volumes. I have now done so, however.
2. Tertiary sources (including encyclopedias and textbooks) are explicitly allowed to be "used to give overviews or summaries". I see no policy that says information summarized from such sources is not allowable.
3. The missing bibliographic information has been corrected.
4. The underscore in "Graça_Filho" was a typing error which has been corrected.
5. In the reference information for Nabuco, "único" is the volume name (for the 4th edition, there are a multi-volume version, and a single-volume "único" version).
6. The entries for Barman, Bethell, Graham, Levine, Munro, Needell and Parkinson, as well as Topik, all are identified as English using the same template as used for the Topic (and Portuguese) sources.
7. Again, tertiary sources allowed as citations for summaries.
8. As far as I know, there is no requirement to use journals. Was there a particularly useful article you had in mind?

Thank you for taking the time to go through the sources. • Astynax ^talk 08:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up:

1. The article titles have been included, and the page numbers for the material being cited are given in the footnotes. Barsa, like many Britannica encyclopedias, does not specify authors for individual articles. "Barsa" is given as the corporate author, which is perfectly fine and makes it much easier to locate the reference when jumping between the fn and the list in the Reference section. Page spans for the entire article are an optional element, and can be confusing in cases (such as this) where the entire article is NOT being cited.
2. "Graça Filho" is the author's last name.
3. The "Ermakoff 2006, p. 189." links all seem to be functioning.
4. Vianna's História do Brasil is widely cited elsewhere. Your concern is misplaced.
5. Again, there is no requirement to use articles from journals. We are all familiar with the definition of the term "journal" and their usefulness (as well as pitfalls such as some becoming venues for drawn-out debates, no different than any other RS). If you wish to make citing journals a requirement for FAC, then I respectfully submit that this is not the place to introduce such a proposal. • Astynax ^talk 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)