Talk:Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured article candidateAbraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleAbraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2025Good article nomineeListed
September 29, 2025Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 18, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Brazil's Ministry of Education threatened legal action against the Portuguese Wikipedia over the article for its minister?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 13:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Neto, Nelson Lima (2019-08-16). "Weintraub ameaça entrar na Justiça contra o... Wikipédia". O Globo (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dune (Kenshi Yonezu song)
    • Created by Skyshifter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 21 past nominations.

    Skyshiftertalk 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Size and date check out. Article is interesting, hook is referenced, references look good; AGF on them because I do not speak Brazilian Portuguese. Suggest the main hook instead of ALT1. I believe that this is good to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GA Review

    [edit]
    Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GA toolbox
    Reviewing
    This review is transcluded from Talk:Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 01:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    • The article included detailed controversies about the minister, – From my reading of the article, Weintraub had just been appointed as minister, so these controversies are all about things he did before he became minister? Is that correct? You could add what his occupation was before becoming minister, for background. At what time did the article include the mentioned information?
      • Both before and after. The article was created on April 8, 2019, and MEC's first contact was on June 27; he had already done multiple controversial actions as a minister by then. From "his claim that ..." onwards, he was already the minister.
    • the budget cuts imposed on universities and federal institutes, – what is the connection between the cuts and Weintraub? Did he impose them?
      • Yes. Rephrased.
    • Rodrigo Padula is a self-link
      • Fixed
    • "This is serious, it is not republican, and it is unworthy of a position such as Minister of Education to have someone so shallow, someone with such petty initiatives" – Is this your translation of a Portuguese quote? If so, the original should be included too, please see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE.
      • Included
    • That's all I could find. Sourcing seems good, all independent Portuguese news articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: thank you! All replied. Skyshiftertalk 00:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. One reply above. Since that is not a showstopper for GA, I am promoting now. Congrats. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Peer review

    [edit]

    Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

    This article is about a controversy that happened in 2019 in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the Minister of Education of Brazil tried to remove controversial information from his article and made legal threats over it. I believe it would be very interesting to see this article getting to FA level, so I've opened this peer review to get opinions on what could be improved before an FAC. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 07:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    OlifanofmrTennant

    [edit]
    • "protected the page against edits from inexperienced users" define inexperienced
      • The source mentions that users needed to have at least 10 edits and their account be at least 4 days old. This is autoconfirmed. However, I don't know if I can say "autoconfirmed" if the source doesn't mention it specifically. That being said, I've explained it in a footnote. I don't know if I could cite the protection itself.
    • Twitter is linked twice under "background"
      • Fixed
    • I don't think "(TJ-SP) is needed as the acronym is only used the one time.
      • Fixed
    • "It also mentioned" what did?
      • Fixed
    • May be worth linking to Weintraub's page similar to how Rodrigo Padula page is
      • If you refer to the {{ill}}-like link, it's because Padula doesn't have a page on enwiki while Weintraub does. {{ill}} wasn't used because Padula's page redirects here.
    • "marked Weintraub's page as needing review" define what this means
      • "Needing review" is a template on the Portuguese Wikipedia which was placed here [1].
    That's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 00:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @OlifanofmrTennant: thank you! Responded. Skyshiftertalk 18:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that needing review should be defined in the page. Otherwise it looks goood Olliefant (she/her) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I understand, but I don't think I can define it further in the article; the template literally means "needing review", and it is what the source says. Skyshiftertalk 18:34, 1 April 2025 (UTCT

    Tarlby

    [edit]

    Heyo, I'll just be skimming the prose right now. Note that I'm not too experienced with FAC, so take this with a grain of salt.

    • You can link Wikipedia administrators in the lead.
    • You can link Wikipedia editors to Wikipedia community.
    • Link Wikipedia administrator in "Background" like the lead.
    • "Before and during the controversy, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." ---> "By then, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." For conciseness.
    • You can probably link "progressive" and "conservative".
    • "Chronus posted the email on the Portuguese Wikipedia forum on July 1..." The Portuguese Wikipedia forum or a Portuguese Wikipedia forum?
    • "...asking other editors for help on how to proceed." ---> "...asking other editors for help on how to proceed."
    • "However, after new vandalism edits, it was..." ---> "However, after further vandalism, it was..."
    • "'This is serious, it is not republican, and it is unworthy of a position..." You can probably link republican.

    Interesting article. Good luck with getting that brown star!

    Consider reviewing my own peer review for FAC! Tarlby (t) (c) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Tarlby and @Skyshifter, I did most of the points here, except for the Portugese forum point. I linked the words "progressive", "conversative", and "republican" to their political ideologies and philosophies. This is optional, but I'd recommend captions for the Chronus video. Ping me for any concerns. Thanks! RFNirmala (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Query from Z1720

    [edit]

    @Skyshifter: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I believe so. I am closing it right now. Skyshiftertalk 01:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 9 October 2025

    [edit]
    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy → Weintraub controversyWeintraub controversy – Suggest simpifying the name; tbere is no need to disambiguate this or clarify this in the name with additional words. Compare: Essjay controversy, Zhemao hoaxes. Template:Wikipedia uses exactly just this short phrasing ("Weintraub controversy"). See also WP:PRECISION Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 12:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose per DannyRogers800. Plus, there are many other Weintraubs. Surely more than one of them has been at the center of a controversy. The proposed title is far too ambiguous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 22:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Essjay and Zhenmao were mononyms - if their usernames were multipart, it'd be their full username for accuracy in those article titles. Similarly, "Weintraub" doesn't specify who was involved clearly enough. Concision is nice but we shouldn't truncate names to achieve it. SnowFire (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.