Talk:Brazil/Archive 13

Need CENSUS update
New population of Brazil is 190.732.694.IBGE.GOV.BR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriquebh2006 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Helderdac, 31 December 2010
Helderdac (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to explain which is the change you want to make in the article MBelgrano (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for a new section on Brazilian music
Could someone add a section under "Culture" on Brazilian music, both classical (Villa-Lobos comes to mind) and especially bossa nova (A.C Jobim, Joao Gilberto), which genre enjoyed world-wide popularity in the 60's that continues today. Thanks, Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.255.144 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on Brasilian culture
Since most indogenious tribes of brasil are minoan in origin, or asiatic would like to reference the mayan cities with atlantis. As well the brasilian land mass which rio de janiero and sao paulo are in are part of the so called 'tail' of the sunken continent. The tectonic hedges in the atlantic steppe are proof of this, google earth it to see what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by murriemir (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Atlantis is just a myth. A Greek myth. There's nothing to say about it at this article. MBelgrano (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph in Religion section
The second paragraph in the Religion section is poorly written and has no citation.

"However, in the last ten years the number of Protestantism is gaining more followers, while the number of Catholics has dropped sharply."

Protestantism has gained more followers, not "the number". And the verb tense seems wrong. It should be something like this:

"However, in the last ten years, Protestantism has gained more followers, while the number of Catholics has dropped sharply."

"It is estimated that in 2025, exceeds the number of Protestants to Catholics, over 55% of the population (making Brazil, therefore, a Protestant country)."

Exceeds? What exceeds? What is the subject? Should be something like this:

"It is estimated that in 2025, the number of Protestants will exceed the number of Catholics. 55% of the population would be Protestant by then."

Once again, no citation. And Brazil is and will remain a secular country, even if most of it's population become Protestant.

Italo Tasso (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have corrected the sentence about Protestantism (and noted that the rise is in the number of Pentecostals, not of all Protestants); changed the sentence about the drop in Catholicism (as far as I know, their proportion is dropping (and I doubt "sharply"), but their numbers are still increasing; and removed the unsourced (and, frankly, quite dubious) speculation about a Protestant majority in 2025. Hope this isn't the start of a holy (edit) war... Ninguém (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate
Please correct:

Under Climate, it's written that: Brazil hosts five major climatic subtypes: equatorial, tropical, semiarid, highland tropical, temperate, and subtropical.

There are six and not five subtypes in the phrase.

189.100.33.233 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Shigueo


 * Another thing: Is the picture of snow truly representative in a section about Brazilian climate? 187.107.32.159 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wgcra-97jb130, 8 February 2011
i have found out many mistakes and i am a brazillian professional so please listen to me!

Wgcra-97jb130 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please specify what it is exactly that needs to be changed. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 17:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading information about the military government, 1964-1985
It seems that whoever has edited or conformed the article in regard to recent history intended to show the false impression that the recent military government received general praise and wasn't rejected by the people in general, in its late years. Certainly they were well received by the people of Brazil initially, supposedly because of the "menacing shadow" of USSR's influence over the former president, João Goulart.

The subsection ignored completely the movements towards redemocratization of the country, the so called "Diretas Já", or how the late years of the dictatorship — yes, a dictatorship, even if one not as severe as in other Latin American countries — were marked by the popular rejection of the said government; it ignored completely, as well, that the investments made by military government on the occasion of the "Brazilian Miracle" was one of, if not the one, major cause for the rampaging monetary inflation.

I'm not a left-wing person, I'm not completely sympathetic to Brazilian left-wing movements of that time, and I'm not one to completely deny what was made well by the military government. However, this article, on that subsection, is MISLEADING, verily so.

Intus Legere. 187.113.95.161 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is clear that the regime was a dictatorship and that there was a severe repression. However, it also says that, believe it or not, the dictatorship acchieved its peak of popularity exactly during the same time when it became harsher. The goal is to reveal the paradoxical behavior of Brazilians. --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the supposed "goal" is — and I don't see a reason for this "goal" to be encyclopedically relevant —, the reality is, the military government was extremely unpopular in its late years. Your (or whoever it belongs to) supposed "goal" is misleading, especially considering the current opinion of most people about those years.

Lastly, please enlighten me: what exactly was "awful writing" in that edition, oh, Mr. "acchieved"?

Intus Legere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.95.161 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up. I'm tired of this newcomers who lack manners. --Lecen (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who edited the text with an "awful writing" message? Kinda pretty, if you ask me.

Then, please, Mr. Politeness — or anybody who isn't "tired of this newcomers", who may be even older to this than you —, pray tell me:

Why exactly is the partial popularity of the dictatorship in its early years more relevant than its overwhelming unpopularity in its late years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.95.161 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Intus Legere 187.113.95.161 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, it seems that the article is your property, be as arbitrary as you want, silence all "this newcomers" messing with your dear article. I'm not up for an edit war, which would be meaningless, anyway. But, if anyone out there actually cares for the factibility of this article, please do note that the military government isn't popular today, and wasn't popular back then, except in the beginning years.

Intus Legere 187.113.95.161 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Justince, 9 April 2011
Justince (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Baseball   Watcher  20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone block Jasperdiablo?
Could someone block this editor called Jasperdiablo? It's getting ridiculous by now. For days he have been commiting vandalism. --Lecen (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This probably isn't the best place to request a block. Head over to WP:AIV to request one. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Brazil

"However, in the last ten years Protestantism, particularly Pentecostal Protestantism, is stop your growing, while the proportion of Catholics has dropped sharply." nickin / conversation / contribution 23:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 24 April 2011
Can someone please get rid of  at the top of the page's source? The page is fully protected, and having a semi-protection template is causing the page to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for editing privileges
I'm unsure of how these things are normally done, but I'm requesting ability to edit to make the following changes, in the hope of guiding the article to GA status:
 * fix dead links
 * provide accessed dates for links lacking them
 * delete "Judiciary authorities exercise jurisdictional duties almost exclusively."
 * find citations for Administrative Divisions
 * find citations for Science and Technology
 * delete/replace references to MSN Encarta --Matthew Proctor (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Editing privileges can not be given to specific users. Users are divided in categories (admins, autoconfirmed, unregistered, etc) and their privileges come from the categories they currently belong to. However, even if you were an admin you shouldn't substancially change a fully-protected article.
 * What you should do now is to point specifically the things you want an admin to improve. You have notices dead links? Very well, point which is the dead link and whenever we should remove it or fix it to a new location of the page or an alternative one. As for the basic expansion, you can copy portions of the undisputed sections of the article to your user space, and work with them. Then you come here and tell us, the page with the work you did, which section should it replace, and which were the changes (not simply copy&paste the new desired text, as someone did some weeks ago).
 * Or, if possible, you may try to mediate between the users in the issue that led to the protection of the article, and see if you can reach a solution that everyone may accept, so the article gets unprotected and can be further improved without this indirect ways. I tried to mediate in the past, but failed, but perhaps you may be a better diplomat than me. Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry1694 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Edit Request for Painting Caption "The first Christian mass in Brazil, 1500."
(within Portuguese colonization section)

I believe the “M” in the word “Mass” needs to be capitalized. As a common noun (uncapitaloized), the word mass means 1. Lump 2. Collection 3. Great unspecified quantity. As a proper noun, (capitalized), the word Mass means: 1. Christian ceremony  2. Musical setting of Mass.Terry1694 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Missionary (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request in History section
I request that we mention, in captions, the authors and names of the three paintings in the History section, as I've done in the past. These are very important artists and paintings in Brazilian culture, present in every history textbook, and they helped shape the collective national spirit in the country. Missionary (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)}}

Edit request from Gbmaizol, 29 April 2011
I would like to include a link to the Brazillian national anthem audio file, which is already available in Wikimedia Commons. This way the article would become more consistent with most articles about countries, were an audio sample of the anthem is included. Follows the concerning part on the original code:


 * national_motto = "Ordem e Progresso"

"Order and Progress"
 * national_anthem = Hino Nacional Brasileiro

"Brazilian National Anthem"
 * royal_anthem =


 * national_motto = "Ordem e Progresso"

"Order and Progress"
 * national_anthem = Hino Nacional Brasileiro

"Brazilian National Anthem"
 * royal_anthem =

Gbmaizol (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no opposition so I am happy to implement the request. However, this approach seems to add a lot of space to the infobox with the huge play button and then the information button underneath. Is there a more compact way that it can be achieved? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have disabled the request for now as there has been no response. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sense; could it be reviewed please?
In the religion section, it states at the end;

"However, in the last ten years Protestantism, particularly Pentecostal Protestantism, while the proportion of Catholics has dropped sharply."

The first part of this doesn't make any sense it seems. The later part is un-sourced so a citation needed tag should precede it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.235.113 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Música Popular Brasileira
The wikilink MPB goes to a disambiguation page. It needs to be changed to MPB

Marek. 69  talk  02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Section about Wonders of Brazil or a link for... ?

 * == Wonder = Iguassu Falls http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataratas_do_Igua%C3%A7u
 * == Wonder = Itaipu Dam http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usina_Hidrel%C3%A9trica_de_Itaipu
 * == Wonder = Christ the Redeemer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_the_Redeemer_(statue) 201.47.63.85 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gini coefficent infobox
The UN has Brazil with a Gini coefficient of 57 and not the lower number that is labeled in the infobox. The reference provided that shows the lower number is sourced from a blog and should be removed. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Republic
The purpose of the addition (''2nd paragraph, 1st line, expansion with book reference in the 1st paragraph) is, briefly talk about the first two decades of the Brazilian History of twentieth century, while providing links (in relation to the 1910s, including the economic and political consequences that the first World War had in Brazil) to the specific article about that time of the 1st Brazilian republican period. Cybershore (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the History section in countries' articles is no more than to provide a summary. That's all. Brazilian participation in World War I was non-important and it had no impact at all in the country's history. Other far more important moments were left aside in this article. The only reason to why you want a link to Brazil during World War I so badly is because you wrote the article. Do NOT say that months were 20 years in a country's history. Do NOT try to make other editors of fools. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is Your particular Inferences and interpretations my friend. An old adage says that "anyone who points a finger at others, has 3 others pointing back". To me, it seems that your aggressive behavior, closed to dialogue, wanting to decide what is or is not important historically, trying to impose at any cost your own point of view, without putting anything in place, says it all. Have a nice day Cybershore (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life, including the small role during World War I,"
 * So, is this the phrase that has become the subject of the dispute? If that's the case, I'll have to agree with Lecen. It doesn't exactly shine for the quality of the prose, it's too generic (it could refer to any time in the history of any country) and overall unhelpful to the reader, other than by providing a link to an article which isn't particularly well written, either.--LK (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore, you should watch your tone. I'm simply following WikiProject Countries guideline. It says that the history section should be an "An outline of the major events in the country's history". Brazil did not participate in any battle of World War I and only declared war against Germany in the closing months and this moment of the country's history could be barely cited as important in an article about the República Velha (Old Republic), even less here. P.S.: For over 2 months you have been inserting this piece of text in here even though me and another editors opposed it. You didn't bother to discuss it even though there was a very long discussion in this very talk page about the article's size (here). --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear LK & Lecen,
 * The discussed edit refers to the history of Brazil and not the World War I. In this context it should be taken into account, furthermore the main link there is related to the events of the 1910's and not only to the Brazilian involvement in World War I.
 * One more time, although the Brazilian poor military involvement in that conflict along 1918 (not just 2 months) had been negligible to the war outcome, the point is - it had implications related to the Brazilian history of that period, inseparable from the many reasons that avoided Brazil has becoming embroiled in that war, as you can see going to the related article.
 * For all those familiar with Brazilian history ok. But my aim is to all those unfamiliar with this history, and who occasionally having access the page "Brazil", can find short links for the wider articles of that period and not think "Wow, there is nothing about brazilian history in the 1910's".Cybershore (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read further back into the history section, you will notice gaps of centuries in the narrative. This is necessary to keep the section's length in check. The article already provides a link to the República Velha article. Avoid reverting the article to go against consensus, as this is against wiki policy.--LK (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore, it is written: "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life, including the small role during World War I". What events? A mere link is not enough. It's like writing U.S. history and saying "After some stuff that happened in the 1870s...". You should take a look at Manual of Style (words to watch). Lastly, Brazilian participation in World War I was not important enough to be in this kind of history summary. --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Lecen,
 * These are your Personal opinions about this matter man. Opinions, everyone has the right to stick to them... or not
 * What events? Well, my friend I mention, for example, the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917 ("South America and the First World War"; Bill Albert & Paul Henderson; Cambridge Latin American Studies 2002 ISBN052152685X ; Chapter 6 pages 268-275), not mention the political turmoil and street clashes, along 1917-18, between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page.
 * Related to the gaps in the historic narratives of some articles of this FREE encyclopedia; if they are necessary to keep an appropriate section's length OR are merely due to the fact that we not having yet found ways to fill them briefly, we can only to bide that the time, and the pratice of the constant collaboration of many people, tell us.Cybershore (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what happened during the early 20th Century in Brazil. What I meant was that writing "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life" is regarded as weasel words. It doesn't explain and doesn't help further understanding of the subject. Again: this is not my personal opinion, but WikiProject Countries guideline. --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ow, God. Now there is a reference section... in the talk page. Please do not bite the newcomers is all I can remember now. But there should be a page called "Please, newcomer, try to read more about Wikipedia guidelines and listen to more experienced editors." --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha
 * Fine good humour Lecen ;)Cybershore (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you respond or nor to mine and Underlying lk's remarks about the issue with weasel words and the lack of importance in Brazilian participation in World War I to be included in this summary? --Lecen (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My dear friend who suffer from selective reading, if you have not selectively perceived, I've already answered, repeatedly in fact. You are who have not yet exhibited any single substantial counter-argument, maintaining yourself limited to generalities, in an old and formulaic behavior.Cybershore (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore you first tried to add a very similar line to this article almost 2 years ago. Is this edit really that important to you?--LK (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I return the question to you: Why is it so important for you, hide everything related with the Brazil's involvement (and all its shortages) in the two world wars?Cybershore (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last ime: history section in artciles about countries are supposed to be no more a summary of very, very important historical facts. Brazil never actually fought int he World War I and its participation lasted for a few months only. This should not be in here. --Lecen (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your personal opinion about what is or is not important Cybershore (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Countries. Not my personal opinion. --Lecen (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Although Lecen is correct in that this article should have just a brief summary, the role of Brazil or any other great country at both World Wars should be mentioned in some way, even if to say that the role was small or that the country stayed neutral. May I suggest adding that information to History of Brazil instead of here? Although it may also work as a summary of information that should be developed at detailed specific articles, it can have more detailed information than this article about the country, and may have more room for this. MBelgrano (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate;
 * 2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not matter how many times I told you about WikiProject Countries and Manual of Style (words to watch) you insist on ignoring them and on mocking three Wikipedians. Since you have reinsrted the sentence even though no one else supports you, I've asked an administrator to deal with the matter. --Lecen (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mocking??? Oh, look who is talking... How is have a dose of your own medicine, Lecen? I hope that going forward, you go to treat others as you would like to be treated Or at least don't complain weeping when people give back.Cybershore (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cybershore, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith when it comes to your edits to this article. As I pointed out before, you've been trying to add a variant of this phrase to the article for 2 years now, a determination to go against the opinion of others that verges on obsessive. To justify this, you misrepresent a personal essay of some user on the non-existence of community consensus as a Wikipedia policy, when there's a large banner in this essay (WP:BRD) that warns exactly against that. You claim that MBelgrano supports your edit, when he wrote "May I suggest adding that information to History of Brazil instead of here?", as can be read just above. When you're unblocked, why don't you try to contribute to the project in a way that doesn't unnerve any other editor watching this article?--LK (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnerve??? Well my friend, if someone becomes obsessed (not me far as I see, a question of interpretation...) with a single sentence, unable to counter argue without hiding behind subjectivities or appeal to consensus by number and not by reason... Well, that's a psychological issue that is outside the scope of this place.Cybershore (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LK is correct. I said that the topic was important and should be mentioned somewhere, but perhaps here wasn't the best idea (and, if you rush me to gave a specific opinion, I would support leaving this information out, for summary reasons). History of Brazil may be a better place, it's a summary of Brazilian history, but a bigger summary than the one here, which should be limited to key events and periods. Besides, I thought it could be a reasonable middle point that both Cybershore and Lecen may accept. It's a pity that Cybershore didn't saw it that way and was blocked. MBelgrano (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I can see (beyond to keep providing No objective arguments against my ones, is that) the section suffers of the same faults pointed in my edits, "weasel words" (and also I would add biased interpretation) for example: "In the 1920s the country was plagued by SEVERAL rebellions". In deed were TWO, I repeat 2 rebellions, If I would be an obsessed person against these historical fact, I could 'argue' that 'just' 2 rebellions among many others since the 1890's should not be specially mentioned in this brief summary, being one of them limited to 'just' 2 days in one fort lead by 18... people <-and from this point, I do not believe is necessary to draw, to demonstrate the fallacy that is appealing to the small numbers And/Or to the short time that has occupied a historic event, as an "proof" of its "UNimportance" locally or internationally.

So, in this hypothetical case, an obesessed person against these facts would not mention that these 2 rebellions has great political importance in that decade (as the rebellion of Whip, Contestado war and the Word War I had in the prior decade...), "why mention these 2 rebellion as 'SEVERAL', when they were 2 of a sequence (initiated in 1891) of military and (also) civilian rebellions of that period?" Would question this hypothetical, 'obesessed' person/people.

Thus, Let's see how this Double standard question will be solved in the next days... For while, All the best to you Cybershore (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Several rebellions: 1923 Revolution, 1924 Paulista Revolt, 18 of the Copacabana Fort revolt, Prestes column, Manaus Commune, etc... You don't even know Brazilian history... --Lecen (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Lecen, thank you to make my case, giving the opportunity (1 more time) to show how you use double standard and abuse of bad faith:
 * 1st the Prestes Column was derived from 1924 Paulista Revolt (since it consisted of troops that managed to scape from the siege did by federal troops then, mainly in Sao Paulo) And in Wikipedia in english they are both mentioned as 1, the Long March of the Prestes Column for example are in the section of the mentioned several rebellion link;
 * 2nd Citing in Portuguese (and I can easily imagine how you would predictably react if I had done this) 2 more 'minor' movements, you just justifies me above, just to refresh yr selective memory: "What events? Well, my friend I mention, for example, the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917 ("South America and the First World War"; Bill Albert & Paul Henderson; Cambridge Latin American Studies 2002 ISBN052152685X ; Chapter 6 pages 268-275), not mention the political turmoil and street clashes, along 1917-18, between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page."
 * Now, I don't feel necessary to remember one more time, again (but I will if necessary, no matter how many times) who indeed seems don't know (I would say, when convenient, forget certain passages of the) Brazilian History. Have a nice day fellow Cybershore (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that you consensually  agree with me Lecen... Cybershore (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So that's it; the practice of double standard, among other, is unacceptable!!! As well as attempts at improvement should not be conveniently viewed as edit warring, vandalism and reverted immediately (Lets AGF ), nor have the users discouraged by the bureaucratic procedures or simply mocked, calling them uninformed, unintelligent, uneducated, suggesting that their contributions are to be kept hidden in sub sub sub links, while (double standard again) other ones, with the same concept but incomplete, must be maintained untouchable in mother links.

So, I hope that from now on, not only my contributions but also others (obvious the non vandalics) may once again be viewed as attempts to improve to be revised, improved, and when not, contain counter-arguments, objectives, adults, polited and not agressive teenagers scoffing or subjective denials. Cybershore (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere I said that I agree with you. I don't know from where do you take all those ideas that people somehow agree with you. I just don't want to waste my time with you anymore. --Lecen (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What bad humour... for someone who seemed so comfortable making mockery of the others' contributions... Why am I not surprised?
 * Any Objective arguments? I see... well, 'wasting time' is an old poor lame excuse for who haven't arguments escape the debate, since for who is always willing to grow, not to judge themselves as the owners of the truth, a debate with objective reasoning is never a waste of time. Cybershore (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with you Cybershore, but not in this case. This is a silly dispute, ad we've discussed it long enough. Can we please move on to more important matters?--LK (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything depends on how one sees Lk, for you may seem a silly dispute, however for me it's just a discussion, a debate, nothing more, nothing less than it.
 * Or when we have arguments is one thing, when we do not have them, it becomes another? First there was the claim that there was no discussion about the subject. Now when my reasonings find no counter-argument, it would be too much?
 * I don't face it as a game that "I must to 'win'", so I have no fear, shame or hesitation in change my mind if/when the facts presented convince me.
 * Now, following, I have noticed a strong bias in this article concerning the monarchy. The 1st paragraph of the section in question, for example states 1st: "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence." and after:"By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre) and secured the Brazilian boundaries."
 * "Oh but there are book references" may you argue. Well, as we know, nowadays we all can find book references that support any point of view, include the false or the tendencious ones, from the Holocaust denial to Ethnic cleansing.
 * My points are: in the 1st citation, it is seems that there is a intention to put the concept of republican and civillian government as anything beyond incompetent, in general below in relation to the military and monarchical alternatives, but what make the intention clear is in the sequence "By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre)" 1st there are "weasel words" "policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad". Why weasel? 'Cause they are generic and false, just look the history of empire: slavery, rebellions, external pressure for the end of slavery and 4 wars in 6 decades. And about the Acre, no mention about the conflict there before an agreement was settled. Even the boundaries were not secured as the Contestado War showed. Ie beyond have no brief and precision, why extend it at the point of cite rebellions just of the last decade of this period if it what plentiful of them? Especially, if the entire set of rebellions (not just military) could be cited in a single sentence (if the problem is brevity)?
 * So, next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world. For while, that's what I had to say Cybershore (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to ignore Cybershore for good but I felt the urge to tell him some things about Brazilian history:
 * 1) Read the article. Nowhere it says that monarchy is better than republic. It says that the period between 1894 and 1902 was a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence." Eight years. Its a period of a country's history, just as it says that between 1831 and 1840 the regency during the monarchy "led to rebellions and an unstable, almost anarchical" government.
 * 2) "a strong bias in this article concerning the monarchy". The article says that the monarchy fell... because the Emperor himself wanted. He is not placed as victim, but as the main reason to why the monarchy fell.
 * 3) "By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre)". Policies during the Empire does not mean that monarchy was better than republic, but that politicans during the republican era attempted to emulate the policies of the politicians of the imperial era, which mean stability and progress.
 * Lastly, but not least important. Try to begin with an easier and simpler article. Try to listen to more experienced editors (listen is not regarded as an humiliating act, in case you don't know). When you face a discussion where other editors are clearly against your point of view and no one is on your side, try to be reasonable and think about it a little bit. If no one supports you, and everyone is against what you propose, that is something wrong about what you want. Try not to be rude or to accuse other editors. Try to look (or at least, pretend) that you are not desperate to add a piece of text about something you look. It's weird. Read what I just wrote at least 3 times back and forth. Good luck. --Lecen (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Lecen,
 * 1) I read the article very well, indeed if you're not overplayed your hand I probably would not have noticed all these biased stuff;
 * 2) "the monarchy fell... because the Emperor himself wanted" No comments, and I dare not even think about touching this true gem of humor. Sure, others editors may have other ideas about where of an piece of humor should be placed, anyway LOL
 * 3) a} "politicans during the republican era attempted to emulate the policies of the politicians of the imperial era, which mean stability and progress." It's a opinion... I diverge but respect
 * b} I've also written about your behavior here. So, 1 more time, again, all the Same for you Cybershore (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I'm sick of your behavior. --Lecen (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't say that the reverse is also true, dear impolite fellow, because the only thing that your agressive behavior has given me is an free and endless entertainment ;) Have a nice day! Cybershore (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on since 24 February without any end or resolution in sight. I don't even know what we're supposed to talk about any more.--LK (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I propose above "next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world"


 * Let me try make the my points clearer:
 * In this historical period, 2 events stand out in Brazilian foreign policy (the issue of Acre, which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s, resolved with an agreement but as we know was not entirely a peaceful process of annexation, And the 1st world war that, although the country has had an insignificant role (we all agree about it) in it, had however, as I showed above, and no one could refute, their repercussions and importance in domestic politics).
 * Internally, the entire set of rebellions, civillian and military (ie, not just military ones) between the 1890s and 1920s (and not just those that occurred in the 1920s), figured prominently in the political (as all them were subjugated) weakening of the regime.
 * I still have not found a way to put it briefly, but again, when I think that have found it (in the case of someone else does not do so before), "Let the ball run"; reverting, when will be the case, enhancing or fitting when appropriate. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic ones. Cybershore (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You called the Paraguayan War (or War of the Triple Alliance) "Great War of La Plata" (See here: ). From where did you take this name? In Brazil it is called "Guerra do Paraguai" (Paraguayan War). Not only you do not know a single sentence about Brazilian history, but you also create names out of nowhere? --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No my dear agressive felow,
 * if you were so superior and scholar as as you want to show, or at least took the time to practice what youself recommend above "Try not to be rude or to accuse other editors. Try to look (or at least, pretend) that you are not desperate to add a piece of text about something you look. It's weird. Read what I just wrote at least 3 times back and forth" (And why I am not surprise that you don't follow what yourself preach?); you remember that, 1st the name by which this conflict is called is an open question until today;
 * 2nd (To highlight this fact, not cause controversy) I used an the term that was used in some English speaking countries (after all we are in the english version of wikipedia) as you can see reading, for example, the classic book "Statistics of Deadly Quarrels" of 1950 by Lewis F. Richardson as
 * Last but not least, also in | this link (citing the mentioned book), middle of the page, section "Random Violence", 2nd paragraph, 4th line, anyone can clearly read.
 * Now, what is your goal with this? Because, again, counter-arguments in relation to what we're debating here ...No single one.
 * Or your intention was to try disqualify me as debater? If it, my dear, this sort of attitude is nothing more than "backfire", since even though I was mistakenly hallucinated about this other question, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. So, Why address this issue here and not in its proper place? And why insist on putting it aggressively?
 * Come on, calm down, go give a walk and when you back, stop be obsessive about the messengers and focus on the messages Cybershore (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. The discussion was settled with editors opposing further non-vital information into the article and suggested its addition into History of Brazil. You can not simply ignore that and re-word it and believe that no one will notice it. Perhaps you enjiy being blocked but I'm not in the mood for behaviors such as yours. --Lecen (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said all along this discussion, I'm not by any means ignoring it. If you took the time to read me, you have seen. But instead, you again is only interested in jump to revert to yr ego. With you behavior you are saying “Who are these idiots trying to change my sacred and unchanging version of history?” “Why to discuss?” “I'm the master of Wikipedia” “I can even lie about book reference(see below)”'.
 * Well, it's seems that are who to ignore all the discussion and like a spoiled child having refuse to
 * a) counter-argument and
 * b) pratice the double standard
 * c) without arguments, having appeal to ofenses and ah
 * d) worst: You purposely distorts book quotes, such as that contained in the Baarman's book, that you use in the 1st paragraph of this article: where is wrote the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence..., you just rewrote to your convenience In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence.
 * What a shame Lecen, do you really thought that soon or later, nobody would never check it???
 * Really?
 * Beyond it, I sugest that you read the above topics of the discussion to remember (1 more time) that You still not have show any single argument against, much by the contrary:
 * what curious, how (for you) a "UNimportant" fact (from just 2) of the Brazilian foreign police of the 1st republican period (after all, this is are we talking about), like its participation in WWI are so "unimportant" that even Baarman, the author, from who you distort the words to suits in yr version of history, mention it and in the same book reference that you use, even being a book that addresses the Empire time, a period much earlier than the WWI...
 * Try to counter argument that ...also (also, since you hadn't still made any against anything).


 * Oh yeah, beyond having omit it, don't forget to answer about the quote that you've distorted!

Sad that a encyclopedia (even a informal one), an editor behave like you: no arguments, hypocritical double standards, omition and distorting quotes... personal offenses, etc So, what's about to stop here with yr show of emotional unbalance and began to behave like a adult true editor? 'Cause if not, we won't get to nowhere, going in and out... Cybershore (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Continue - I strongly recommend to anyone interested in participating and / or observe this discussion and its development, follow the talk pages, mine and the other participants. Cybershore (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

a little research about lecen shows he is a supporter of monarchy, it explains a lot of things... 189.72.137.173 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Renewed discussion
I have downgraded the protection from full to semi in hopes of continuing discussion. Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What was this discussion about? The role of Brazil in WWII? Cambalachero (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it refers to don't make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, among other behaviours (stifling the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia), when people try to fix some glaring flaws of an article. In this case more specifically about the Early Republic section.


 * And what are Now these flawns to be fixed? (Summarized in three points - A B C) Here we go again:


 * A)
 * Purge spurious quotations;
 * The reference nr. (currently, june 11) 83 in the Early Republic section in the Current edition of the Brazil article -
 * While the edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article says "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence",
 * The original found in the book used as reference says: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence."


 * The citations and consequentely their meanings are different.


 * To Check it, Go | Here in the Google Books website, in the search box type any word used in the citation, eg. "Incompetence", or go rightly to page 403 of the book, in the last paragraph can be seen the original phrase.


 * Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:


 * One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability,
 * while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.


 * Thus, spurious quotation aside, is also a spurious correlation.


 * Others may argue that even the original statement of the book that blames the naval revolt of 1893 (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country and is known in Brazil as "Segunda Revolta da Armada", as there had been another minor one in 1891) for having alone triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market.
 * But at this point (be the author of the book used as reference, right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here), it must be remembered that an error on another error can not make a right.


 * Anyway, added to this the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.


 * Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government for 1894, much before 1893's events. In addition, when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, ''both financial and political, causes and the majors consequences of the 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.


 * So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference did not wrote it.


 * B)
 * My 2nd point about to edit the current "Early Republic" section is:
 * Since in this historical period only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, the issue of anexation of the state of Acre (which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s) And the 1st world war (despite the country has had an insignificant role on it, had however repercussions and importance in domestic politics), there is no technical reason (although a political one could be another story) for don't mention it using book references (by the way, Not spurious and in English) in 1-2 lines, if that much, specially when...


 * C)
 * (which lead us to the last, but not least, mentioned flawn), the section have another spurious correlation - in the 2nd paragraph is write "In the 1920s the country was plagued by several rebellions caused by young military officers. By 1930 the regime was weakened and demoralized, which allowed the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas to lead a coup d'état and assume the presidency."
 * Well, skipping those parts related to the differences between what the references (in Portuguese) states and what appears edited and going rightly to the correlation established about that (citting) only the mutinies of the 1920s (which moreover were defeated in the same decade years before the regime change) would have led to the downfall of the Early Republic; it must be remembered that not only the military rebellions of 1920's but since the 1890s, numerous revolts, both civilian (as Canudos and Contestado, among others) as military (such as the aforementioned 1893's naval revolt and Lash Revolt, also among others) have occurred, and that added to other factors (such as the 1930's election and the economic effects of the 1929 Crisis ), weakened the regime over time, weighing in events that led to change.


 * So, one more time: Why not fix these 3 points without enlarge the size of the article, without taking the fixes as an attack over one's personal honor nor making storm in a teacup about it all?
 * Let's the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia keep rolling Cybershore (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike Cybershore, I'll go straight to the point: the history section in the country article is supposed to be no more than a summary. That's why highly important Brazilian historical characters such as Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, who freed the slaves is not mentioned, nor José Bonifácio de Andrada, so important in Brazilian Independence, not Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, the greatest Brazilian soldier. Is the participation of Brazil in World War I worth of being mentioned in here? No, it isn't. However, Cybershore is eager to have articles in which he had an active contribution wikilinked here. About this, I don't care. What I do care is that the history section is a summary. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's your personal opinion dear monarchist, I respect but diverge having already exposed my arguments historically, but even so you did not counterargument (beyond your personal opinion) the question around my 2nd point, nor about the another two...
 * No wonder you do not show counter-arguments, since you do not even have the patience to read the arguments, to try to counter-argue them one by one and sadly, that you still keep taking the things personally as well as trying to diverge the focus of debate from ideas, accusing others of your own practice "eager to have articles in which he had an active contribution wikilinked here" ...You are indeed an interesting psychological case.
 * By the way, with the fixes the summary will continue to be a summary of the same or smaller size, but without the historical flawns mentioned Cybershore (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, with the fixes the summary will continue to be a summary of the same or smaller size, but without the historical flawns mentioned Cybershore (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about just a mention in a short sentence? Cambalachero (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Cambalachero, this is exactly what I have been proposing. Thank you Cybershore (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And why is that more important than Princess Isabel, the Duke of Caxias, the Vaccine Revolt, the Constitutionalist Revolution, Governor Carlos Lacerda, Communist leader Carlos Marighella, etc? --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * well, since this question came unsigned, without specifying to whom it is intended, and in relation of which of the 3 points mentioned above are, I'll wait the sender sign it, specify to whom it is intended and about which of the 3 points above is related, before answer. Cybershore (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, now that you signed I can answer you,
 * First, I never said that any of the various facts I mentioned in the points above are more or less important than any of the historical figures or events you mentioned. Even because doesn't make sense compare people with events of different historical periods, it would be something without rhyme or reason.
 * Among what you mentioned, only the Vaccine Revolt and the Revolution Constitutionalist belong to the historical period of the section (Early Republic) in question, being the Vaccine Revolt one of another rebellions before 1930 that I talked about above in point C.


 * Having been both respectively cited and mentioned in my edit of March. Cybershore (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't know why user Lecen was not blocked yet. This person worships the Monarchy, believing he is some kind of king or prince. This is so ridiculous. He may live in a world of fantasy. And more: he controls this Brazil article as if he was the owner of it. Nobody can post here without being attacked by Lecen, who usually removes any contribution of other users from it. From a person who worships Monarchy, he probably cannot live along with Democracy, that's why he owns this article as if he was the only right person out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.37.64.100 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please fellows, we must always be mindful that sometimes in the midst of a heated discussion, things tend to lose focus, so I ask everyone be stick to the points of discussion.

So, if not challenged in a specific basis, let's discuss ideas/memes/arguments (call it whatever you want), not people. Or we all will end up doing exactly what we criticize.

I also ask, given the point that discussion are standing, that all participants, especially those registered, don't forget to sign your opinions/comments. Thanks Cybershore (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you detail which is the sentence or sentences you would want to add? I checked the page history, but I want to avoid misunderstandings. Besides, that way we can avoid keeping the discussion in broad terms, and discuss instead how to add that info while staying both brief and accurate Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear that this is a debate about flagrant flawns listed in a particular section of the article - Early Republic (not that also other sections or articles are flawless), which are exposed above, one to one.
 * And not a requirement for prior approval by a committee of censorship, composed by a group of self-proclaimed "notable".


 * Thus, again what I propose is:
 * 1) Purge the spuriousness of the section contained in the quotation and correlations exposed above in my points A and C;
 * 2) Since in this historical period before 1930 only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, add a mention about them within 1 sentence and
 * Although the style now be little different (no concessions to who are intransigent), at least to get an good glance of how would its size, look at my latest editions.
 * And, in case of disagreement regarding the form,
 * 3) Use the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia; improve it, change it - keeping the content meaning, but don't make Or let anyone make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, insulting the newcomers, depart, discouraging potential new users, under any excuses, keeping so long partial, spurious, incomplete versions, locking the development and improvement of an article. Cybershore (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition to economy section
Could the economy sub-section point out how gap between rich and poor is great in Brazil? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

World Youth Day 2013th in Brazil
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. announced in Madrid, Spain, that the next World Youth Day will be 2013th in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world.93.137.52.87 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011
Bmoq (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.196.192.249, 27 September 2011
190.196.192.249 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No request made-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Middle Class
According to FGV and the Financial Times, the middle class in Brazil is composed by about 105 million brazilians. I believe that this kind of information should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.247 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I partially second this, for it is necessary to clarify that the economic conditions of average Brazilian families have been improving over the past decades, but I find it hard to think of a way to put this into one of the existent article sections without sounding redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.181.131 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that would be a good idea, if we do tell what the IBGE consider to be middle class. ( http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/935502-classe-c-e-a-unica-que-continua-a-crescer-aponta-fgv.shtml ) Following to this site it is a family who earns between R$ 1200 and R$ 5174. Making a comparison between what is considered poor in the US ( http://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2011/09/eua-tem-maior-numero-de-pobres-em-52-anos-mostra-governo.html ) who makes U$ 1850, wich gives something like R$ 3300. So you must say that what is considered a middle class in Brazil is actually very likely to be considered poor in the US. I think that leting it clear you should add the info you want... Podestabr (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brunoresende29, January 16 2011
There is a lot of numbers that can be updated using the Brazilian 2010 Census. http://www.ibge.gov.br/censo2010/primeiros_dados_divulgados/ Also, there could be added values to the demography section, such as percentage of rural(15,65%) and urban(84,35%) population, the percentage of men(48,96%) and women(51,04%), and the population increase rate(1,17). Also, could be updated the population of the cities on the list of the most populous cities, some positions may have changed.
 * Unfortunately, the protection status makes it very unlikely that will happen soon :( Magafuzula (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Add National Geographic September 2011 page 104-119 "Machisma" Girl Power in Brazil
Add National Geographic September 2011 page 104-119 "Machisma" Girl Power in Brazil ... add http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Some topics ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Demographics of Brazil
 * Category:Brazilian telenovelas
 * pt:Ribeirão do Tempo
 * Ti Ti Ti (2010)
 * pt:Passione


 * I'm not sure what you're requesting here. Do you want the whole article to be added? Do you want a "Girl Power in Brazil" section added? Ella Plantagenet (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.45.26.27, 2 October 2011
Please change the following paragraph for better punctuation and grammar: At the beginning of the republican government it was little more than a military dictatorship,[73] and the new constitution restricted political rights, such as the right to vote,[84][85] yet provided for direct elections to be held in 1894.[86] However, already in 1891, from the unfoldings of the encilhamento bubble[87][88] and of the 1st naval revolt, the country entered in a prolonged cycle of financial, social and political instability, that would extend until the 1920s keeping the country plagued by several rebellions, both civilian[89][90][91] as military,[92][93][94] which little by little undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 it was possible to the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by the majority of military,[95] lead a coup d'état and assume the presidency.[9 Change to: At the beginning, the republican government was little more than a military dictatorship,[73] and the new constitution restricted political rights, such as the right to vote,[84][85] though it did provide for direct elections to be held in 1894.[86] By 1891, from the unfoldings of the encilhamento bubble[87][88] and the 1st naval revolt, the country had entered into a prolonged cycle of financial, social and political instability. These continued until the 1920s, keeping the country plagued by several rebellions, both civilian[89][90][91] and military,[92][93][94] which little by little undermined the regime to such an extent, that by 1930 it was possible for the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military,[95] to stage a coup d'état and assume the presidency.[9

198.45.26.27 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A) it is hard to understand your request, because you did not say "change THIS to THAT", b) you suggest it is better grammar, however, However, already in 1891, from the unfoldings of the encilhamento bubble[87][88] and of the 1st naval revolt, the country entered in a prolonged cycle is very poor grammar.
 * Note that the template specifies, This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"..
 * Please re-request. Thanks.  Chzz  ► 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New York Times resource

 * In Brazil, Energy Finds Put Country at a Whole New Power Level by Simon Romero, published October 10, 2011 99.190.85.250 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

HDI 2011
Actually, Brazil is in the 84rd position of the HDI world ranking, with 0.718 points, not 0.699.

Schieese (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
The Name of Brazil page has some pretty good arguments to be made in favor of the standard etymology and reasons to depreciate any connection with legendary islands off the coast of Ireland, which not only aren't mentioned here but are depreciated by the wording of the article.

On the other hand, the Name of Brazil page doesn't have cites for all of its paragraphs. Anyone got an OED or a Portuguese friend handy so we can fix this up? A lot more people are going to see this page than that one. — LlywelynII  14:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The etymology is more than clear. But for kicks, I just inserted a bunch of references from 16th C. Portuguese chroniclers explaining exactly why it began being called Brazil (i.e. its brazilwood).  That should be enough to delete that "island" stuff from this main page.  It is just a curious coincidence, being given too much undue space here. Walrasiad (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brazil Economy
The economy is now the 6th largest: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/brazil-overtakes-britain-as-sixth-largest-economy-dpgonc-20111226-kh_16612198  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.239.10 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In which terms? The group that did the reranking needs to clarify their methods. Hcobb (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They need not do anything for Wikipedia. We report what is in our reliable sources, no more, no less. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Brazilian economy, is certainly now the 6th largest and this needs to be updated - as it has been on the 'Brazil Economy' wiki page - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16332115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.200 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The size of this article
It is strange that an article on Galicia has 17 sections, while this one is so much shorter... Is there so little to say about Brazil? --Betty VH (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there isn't an education section like other's countries articles have... 201.29.246.88 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe pt:Brasil (pt:Brasil) and Education in Brazil (pt:Educação no Brasil) would be useful? 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

potential Forbes.com resource
Lots Of Reasons To Love Brazil Again by Sy Harding. 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Brazil Gini
Brazil Gini is 49.3 actually. It's decreasing. Correct. Downfall. http://www.rumosustentavel.com.br/desigualdade-e-pobreza-continuaram-caindo-no-brasil-mesmo-com-crise-revela-ipea/

Schieese (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Schieese, that`s the gini for 6 metropolitan areas, as clearly stated in the article. If needed, i can explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012
Edisoncm (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, unless you have a better source than the World Bank and the CIA-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Current nominal per capita is wrong, link is broken
Correct nominal per capita for 2011 from IMF is 12,916.904. Check here http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=45&pr.y=14&sy=2011&ey=2011&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=223&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a= Present data is currently wrong and with a broken source link. Soulflytribe (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2012
There is apparent vandalism under the 'Largest Cities of Brazil' table in the Urbanization section.

161.165.196.84 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Largest_cities_of_Brazil&diff=483609334&oldid=483174315 fixed it]. Turns out it was actually in the template, but the effect was the same.  — Isarra (talk)  00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2012
The english translation of the Brazilian seal (where it says "National Seal of Brazil") is incorrect. Republica Federal do Brasil translates to "Federal Republic of Brasil"

Marina Ricciarelli (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ It is referring to the english translation of: "Selo Nacional do Brasil". Not to the the translation of the words within the seal (which is already covered at the top of the infobox). Pol430  talk to me 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012
Most of EN Wikipedia's main articles of countries have a list of their largest metro areas in "demographics" section. I think the list of largest cities of this article should be replaced by a list of the largest Brazilian metropolitan areas, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_cities_in_Brazil#Largest_metropolitan_areas

Nilton (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The most visible article about a country, United States, lists cities. I don't think there's a standard within wikipedia to list metropolitan areas, but rather a case by case custom. It may be better to discuss why would that be better than the current use for the specific case of Brazil. Cambalachero (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2012
In the main Brazil article, the subsection "Biodiversity" contains a simple error. The words "mammals" and "and" are joined together. Please separate them, and remove the link from "and." Thank you.

24.7.159.154 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That section and a few others have been fixed. Thanks, that's very much appreciated, CMD (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Italian/ German immigrants
Anonymous,

Frankly, as an outsider (neither Brazilian nor Portuguese), I find it absurd to deny the fact that the "core" of Brazil`s culture derives from Portugal. Indeed, in the seminal "Raízes do Brazil" by Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, one finds the following assertion: "...É de lá [Portugal] que veio a forma atual de nossa cultura; o resto foi se adequando bem ou mal às nossas características..." According to your logic, then places such as Canada or the USA should likewise deny their British cultural origins because of the existence other ethnic communities there (e.g. Germans, Italians, Chinese, etc.)! That makes no sense to me. Dpecego (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I juust reverted some edits from Hanike, since they were more POV then primary source, which usage is risky at best, subjecive at worst. However, the point that there is almost nothing on Italian and German influence in Brazilian culture is certainly valid. Include Japanese as well; walking through liberdade in Sao Paulo one certainly has no feeling of "Portuguese culture" whatsoever, though the article states "The core culture of Brazil is derived from Portuguese culture" (This probably was written by a Portuguese). Bahia (african culture), Sao Paulo (Japanese/ Italian) and apparently the south (where youngsters learn German only????) and probably many more regions have very little connection with Portuguese culture, if at all mostly thru the cuisine (fried doughballs stuffed with codfish- anything else??). Indians in Matto Grosso and the Amazon (40% of national territory) probably wouldnt even recognize Portuguese culture. But little facts here, only impressions- mostly that Brazil is independent and not Portugal`s (cultural) lacky. Anybody agree that this can/ should be improved, and how???

I agree. I think that an article that talks about the Brazilian diversity should consider all the brazilian groups, including indians, africans, mixed, asians, middle east etc etc... There is always this tendency of putting a picture of blonde girls from the south, just because they are beautiful, but they don´t represent the entire brazilian population.

I agree 100% with Dpecego. And i`m brazilian. And a sociologist. Not that it qualifies me for having the last word, I`m here to contribute and learn, too. But there is no doubt, in my mind or in the mind of any brazilian sociologist that i`ve ever read or heard, that our "core" culture is portuguese. That is, of course, open to some misunderstandings, as "portuguese" does not mean "Portugal`s culture as it exists now", and "core culture" does not mean "100% hegemonic". And, of course, "cultures" are not things like footballs or oranges, they are symbolic systems/networks that we can indirectly "see" through language and arts, among other things. Now, we are a land of contrasts and diversity. I would certainly be happier with a text that gave more substance to the huge influence of africans, talking about the yorubas, the kongos, the kabindas, the "moors" etc. The indigenous influence is big, but it tends to be a complicated topic for quick references as the term indigenous is, in itself, too ample in its meaning. I would say 16-20th century german and portuguese cultures were much, much closer to each other than, say, the guaranis and the tukanos. It would be nice to refer to the tupi-guarani group at least, as their language was once the basis for the "lingua franca" of this land.

Now, the other european cultures are overestimated. São Paulo, Curitiba, Porto Alegre, all cities founded by the portuguese. São Paulo is very influenced by the italians and, to a lesser extent, the japanese, but the simple fact that these groups have ethnic neighbourhoods (liberdade, mooca) shows how they were not, and are not, in any extent, the "core" of the city life. The "south" (where i lived for 9 years) is very influenced by the italians and germans, but only a very small minority speaks german only, and these folks are getting old. Kids are bilingual in many small cities. Lovely places, sure, i have fond memories of a few italian and germanic cultural regions, but they are not the cultural "core" of the southern region as a whole: I would say, actually, that the spanish/portuguese frontier "gaucho" culture is way older and more widespread in terms of language, population and architecture that all other immigrants combined.

The "north" is, indeed, very, very influenced by indigenous groups (I would say less so than bahia and sergipe are by africans), but, apart from very small isolated groups, they all "know" portuguese culture. Then, of course, a larger group (1 million, aprox.) are mainly influenced by indigenous cultures, but, as much as I think it is fascinating and makes me somewhat proud of my country, it does not allow me to call them what they are not, that is, the core of brazilian culture. Let`s call things what they are. I would be somewhat more open to discuss the fact that brazilian culture is, today, more influenced by "western", "anglo-saxon" culture, but then we would get on a debate about "authenticity" that, i fear, would get us nowhere.

Sorry for writing so much here and with so little specific suggestions. I hope I can contribute in the future, but by now I don`t see the need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Marco, there is a systematical bias for exaggerating Brazilian ethnic and cultural diversity. Numbers for descendents of immigrants are exaggerated (28 million "Italian Brazilians", 12 million "Arab Brazilians"), and their link to the culture of their ancestors is overrated. It was a fight to remove from the articles on Rio Grande do Sul and Gaucho the false information that the Portuguese conquest spread over a pre-existing array of "Spanish settlements"; the typical costume of gaúchos was mischaracterised as a Spanish costume, and it was even maintained that Brazilians in Rio Grande do Sul speak "Portuguese with a Spanish accent". In the article on German Brazilian, a whole list of cities and towns was given as being of "German majority" with no source; tags calling for sourcing the "information" were systematically removed as "vandalism" for quite a time.


 * On White Brazilian, there was a systematical effort to deny them importance of Portuguese colonisation; to that end, the part of the Brazilian White elite that is descended from Portuguese colonists was deemed "not actually White". Miscegenation between Portuguese colonists and local Amerindians was mischaracterised into a continual mating of pure Amerindian women with the colonists, and the utter genocide of the aboriginal population was downplayed. To support such weird POV, even the French and Dutch invasions were mischaracterised as "immigration", so that the fact that Portuguese colonists were able to militarily expell them could be circumvented. Ninguém (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, nobody. I`ll try to get into that discussion and see if I can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Republic
The purpose of the addition (''2nd paragraph, 1st line, expansion with book reference in the 1st paragraph) is, briefly talk about the first two decades of the Brazilian History of twentieth century, while providing links (in relation to the 1910s, including the economic and political consequences that the first World War had in Brazil) to the specific article about that time of the 1st Brazilian republican period. Cybershore (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the History section in countries' articles is no more than to provide a summary. That's all. Brazilian participation in World War I was non-important and it had no impact at all in the country's history. Other far more important moments were left aside in this article. The only reason to why you want a link to Brazil during World War I so badly is because you wrote the article. Do NOT say that months were 20 years in a country's history. Do NOT try to make other editors of fools. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is Your particular Inferences and interpretations my friend. An old adage says that "anyone who points a finger at others, has 3 others pointing back". To me, it seems that your aggressive behavior, closed to dialogue, wanting to decide what is or is not important historically, trying to impose at any cost your own point of view, without putting anything in place, says it all. Have a nice day Cybershore (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life, including the small role during World War I,"
 * So, is this the phrase that has become the subject of the dispute? If that's the case, I'll have to agree with Lecen. It doesn't exactly shine for the quality of the prose, it's too generic (it could refer to any time in the history of any country) and overall unhelpful to the reader, other than by providing a link to an article which isn't particularly well written, either.--LK (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore, you should watch your tone. I'm simply following WikiProject Countries guideline. It says that the history section should be an "An outline of the major events in the country's history". Brazil did not participate in any battle of World War I and only declared war against Germany in the closing months and this moment of the country's history could be barely cited as important in an article about the República Velha (Old Republic), even less here. P.S.: For over 2 months you have been inserting this piece of text in here even though me and another editors opposed it. You didn't bother to discuss it even though there was a very long discussion in this very talk page about the article's size (here). --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear LK & Lecen,
 * The discussed edit refers to the history of Brazil and not the World War I. In this context it should be taken into account, furthermore the main link there is related to the events of the 1910's and not only to the Brazilian involvement in World War I.
 * One more time, although the Brazilian poor military involvement in that conflict along 1918 (not just 2 months) had been negligible to the war outcome, the point is - it had implications related to the Brazilian history of that period, inseparable from the many reasons that avoided Brazil has becoming embroiled in that war, as you can see going to the related article.
 * For all those familiar with Brazilian history ok. But my aim is to all those unfamiliar with this history, and who occasionally having access the page "Brazil", can find short links for the wider articles of that period and not think "Wow, there is nothing about brazilian history in the 1910's".Cybershore (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read further back into the history section, you will notice gaps of centuries in the narrative. This is necessary to keep the section's length in check. The article already provides a link to the República Velha article. Avoid reverting the article to go against consensus, as this is against wiki policy.--LK (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore, it is written: "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life, including the small role during World War I". What events? A mere link is not enough. It's like writing U.S. history and saying "After some stuff that happened in the 1870s...". You should take a look at Manual of Style (words to watch). Lastly, Brazilian participation in World War I was not important enough to be in this kind of history summary. --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Lecen,
 * These are your Personal opinions about this matter man. Opinions, everyone has the right to stick to them... or not
 * What events? Well, my friend I mention, for example, the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917 ("South America and the First World War"; Bill Albert & Paul Henderson; Cambridge Latin American Studies 2002 ISBN052152685X ; Chapter 6 pages 268-275), not mention the political turmoil and street clashes, along 1917-18, between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page.
 * Related to the gaps in the historic narratives of some articles of this FREE encyclopedia; if they are necessary to keep an appropriate section's length OR are merely due to the fact that we not having yet found ways to fill them briefly, we can only to bide that the time, and the pratice of the constant collaboration of many people, tell us.Cybershore (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what happened during the early 20th Century in Brazil. What I meant was that writing "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life" is regarded as weasel words. It doesn't explain and doesn't help further understanding of the subject. Again: this is not my personal opinion, but WikiProject Countries guideline. --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ow, God. Now there is a reference section... in the talk page. Please do not bite the newcomers is all I can remember now. But there should be a page called "Please, newcomer, try to read more about Wikipedia guidelines and listen to more experienced editors." --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha
 * Fine good humour Lecen ;)Cybershore (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you respond or nor to mine and Underlying lk's remarks about the issue with weasel words and the lack of importance in Brazilian participation in World War I to be included in this summary? --Lecen (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My dear friend who suffer from selective reading, if you have not selectively perceived, I've already answered, repeatedly in fact. You are who have not yet exhibited any single substantial counter-argument, maintaining yourself limited to generalities, in an old and formulaic behavior.Cybershore (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cybershore you first tried to add a very similar line to this article almost 2 years ago. Is this edit really that important to you?--LK (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I return the question to you: Why is it so important for you, hide everything related with the Brazil's involvement (and all its shortages) in the two world wars?Cybershore (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last ime: history section in artciles about countries are supposed to be no more a summary of very, very important historical facts. Brazil never actually fought int he World War I and its participation lasted for a few months only. This should not be in here. --Lecen (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your personal opinion about what is or is not important Cybershore (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Countries. Not my personal opinion. --Lecen (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Although Lecen is correct in that this article should have just a brief summary, the role of Brazil or any other great country at both World Wars should be mentioned in some way, even if to say that the role was small or that the country stayed neutral. May I suggest adding that information to History of Brazil instead of here? Although it may also work as a summary of information that should be developed at detailed specific articles, it can have more detailed information than this article about the country, and may have more room for this. MBelgrano (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate;
 * 2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not matter how many times I told you about WikiProject Countries and Manual of Style (words to watch) you insist on ignoring them and on mocking three Wikipedians. Since you have reinsrted the sentence even though no one else supports you, I've asked an administrator to deal with the matter. --Lecen (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mocking??? Oh, look who is talking... How is have a dose of your own medicine, Lecen? I hope that going forward, you go to treat others as you would like to be treated Or at least don't complain weeping when people give back.Cybershore (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cybershore, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith when it comes to your edits to this article. As I pointed out before, you've been trying to add a variant of this phrase to the article for 2 years now, a determination to go against the opinion of others that verges on obsessive. To justify this, you misrepresent a personal essay of some user on the non-existence of community consensus as a Wikipedia policy, when there's a large banner in this essay (WP:BRD) that warns exactly against that. You claim that MBelgrano supports your edit, when he wrote "May I suggest adding that information to History of Brazil instead of here?", as can be read just above. When you're unblocked, why don't you try to contribute to the project in a way that doesn't unnerve any other editor watching this article?--LK (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnerve??? Well my friend, if someone becomes obsessed (not me far as I see, a question of interpretation...) with a single sentence, unable to counter argue without hiding behind subjectivities or appeal to consensus by number and not by reason... Well, that's a psychological issue that is outside the scope of this place.Cybershore (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LK is correct. I said that the topic was important and should be mentioned somewhere, but perhaps here wasn't the best idea (and, if you rush me to gave a specific opinion, I would support leaving this information out, for summary reasons). History of Brazil may be a better place, it's a summary of Brazilian history, but a bigger summary than the one here, which should be limited to key events and periods. Besides, I thought it could be a reasonable middle point that both Cybershore and Lecen may accept. It's a pity that Cybershore didn't saw it that way and was blocked. MBelgrano (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I can see (beyond to keep providing No objective arguments against my ones, is that) the section suffers of the same faults pointed in my edits, "weasel words" (and also I would add biased interpretation) for example: "In the 1920s the country was plagued by SEVERAL rebellions". In deed were TWO, I repeat 2 rebellions, If I would be an obsessed person against these historical fact, I could 'argue' that 'just' 2 rebellions among many others since the 1890's should not be specially mentioned in this brief summary, being one of them limited to 'just' 2 days in one fort lead by 18... people <-and from this point, I do not believe is necessary to draw, to demonstrate the fallacy that is appealing to the small numbers And/Or to the short time that has occupied a historic event, as an "proof" of its "UNimportance" locally or internationally.

So, in this hypothetical case, an obesessed person against these facts would not mention that these 2 rebellions has great political importance in that decade (as the rebellion of Whip, Contestado war and the Word War I had in the prior decade...), "why mention these 2 rebellion as 'SEVERAL', when they were 2 of a sequence (initiated in 1891) of military and (also) civilian rebellions of that period?" Would question this hypothetical, 'obesessed' person/people.

Thus, Let's see how this Double standard question will be solved in the next days... For while, All the best to you Cybershore (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Several rebellions: 1923 Revolution, 1924 Paulista Revolt, 18 of the Copacabana Fort revolt, Prestes column, Manaus Commune, etc... You don't even know Brazilian history... --Lecen (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Lecen, thank you to make my case, giving the opportunity (1 more time) to show how you use double standard and abuse of bad faith:
 * 1st the Prestes Column was derived from 1924 Paulista Revolt (since it consisted of troops that managed to scape from the siege did by federal troops then, mainly in Sao Paulo) And in Wikipedia in english they are both mentioned as 1, the Long March of the Prestes Column for example are in the section of the mentioned several rebellion link;
 * 2nd Citing in Portuguese (and I can easily imagine how you would predictably react if I had done this) 2 more 'minor' movements, you just justifies me above, just to refresh yr selective memory: "What events? Well, my friend I mention, for example, the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917 ("South America and the First World War"; Bill Albert & Paul Henderson; Cambridge Latin American Studies 2002 ISBN052152685X ; Chapter 6 pages 268-275), not mention the political turmoil and street clashes, along 1917-18, between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page."
 * Now, I don't feel necessary to remember one more time, again (but I will if necessary, no matter how many times) who indeed seems don't know (I would say, when convenient, forget certain passages of the) Brazilian History. Have a nice day fellow Cybershore (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that you consensually  agree with me Lecen... Cybershore (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So that's it; the practice of double standard, among other, is unacceptable!!! As well as attempts at improvement should not be conveniently viewed as edit warring, vandalism and reverted immediately (Lets AGF ), nor have the users discouraged by the bureaucratic procedures or simply mocked, calling them uninformed, unintelligent, uneducated, suggesting that their contributions are to be kept hidden in sub sub sub links, while (double standard again) other ones, with the same concept but incomplete, must be maintained untouchable in mother links.

So, I hope that from now on, not only my contributions but also others (obvious the non vandalics) may once again be viewed as attempts to improve to be revised, improved, and when not, contain counter-arguments, objectives, adults, polited and not agressive teenagers scoffing or subjective denials. Cybershore (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere I said that I agree with you. I don't know from where do you take all those ideas that people somehow agree with you. I just don't want to waste my time with you anymore. --Lecen (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What bad humour... for someone who seemed so comfortable making mockery of the others' contributions... Why am I not surprised?
 * Any Objective arguments? I see... well, 'wasting time' is an old poor lame excuse for who haven't arguments escape the debate, since for who is always willing to grow, not to judge themselves as the owners of the truth, a debate with objective reasoning is never a waste of time. Cybershore (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with you Cybershore, but not in this case. This is a silly dispute, ad we've discussed it long enough. Can we please move on to more important matters?--LK (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything depends on how one sees Lk, for you may seem a silly dispute, however for me it's just a discussion, a debate, nothing more, nothing less than it.
 * Or when we have arguments is one thing, when we do not have them, it becomes another? First there was the claim that there was no discussion about the subject. Now when my reasonings find no counter-argument, it would be too much?
 * I don't face it as a game that "I must to 'win'", so I have no fear, shame or hesitation in change my mind if/when the facts presented convince me.
 * Now, following, I have noticed a strong bias in this article concerning the monarchy. The 1st paragraph of the section in question, for example states 1st: "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence." and after:"By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre) and secured the Brazilian boundaries."
 * "Oh but there are book references" may you argue. Well, as we know, nowadays we all can find book references that support any point of view, include the false or the tendencious ones, from the Holocaust denial to Ethnic cleansing.
 * My points are: in the 1st citation, it is seems that there is a intention to put the concept of republican and civillian government as anything beyond incompetent, in general below in relation to the military and monarchical alternatives, but what make the intention clear is in the sequence "By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre)" 1st there are "weasel words" "policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad". Why weasel? 'Cause they are generic and false, just look the history of empire: slavery, rebellions, external pressure for the end of slavery and 4 wars in 6 decades. And about the Acre, no mention about the conflict there before an agreement was settled. Even the boundaries were not secured as the Contestado War showed. Ie beyond have no brief and precision, why extend it at the point of cite rebellions just of the last decade of this period if it what plentiful of them? Especially, if the entire set of rebellions (not just military) could be cited in a single sentence (if the problem is brevity)?
 * So, next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world. For while, that's what I had to say Cybershore (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to ignore Cybershore for good but I felt the urge to tell him some things about Brazilian history:
 * 1) Read the article. Nowhere it says that monarchy is better than republic. It says that the period between 1894 and 1902 was a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence." Eight years. Its a period of a country's history, just as it says that between 1831 and 1840 the regency during the monarchy "led to rebellions and an unstable, almost anarchical" government.
 * 2) "a strong bias in this article concerning the monarchy". The article says that the monarchy fell... because the Emperor himself wanted. He is not placed as victim, but as the main reason to why the monarchy fell.
 * 3) "By 1902, the government began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. and was successful in negotiating several treaties that expanded (with the purchase of Acre)". Policies during the Empire does not mean that monarchy was better than republic, but that politicans during the republican era attempted to emulate the policies of the politicians of the imperial era, which mean stability and progress.
 * Lastly, but not least important. Try to begin with an easier and simpler article. Try to listen to more experienced editors (listen is not regarded as an humiliating act, in case you don't know). When you face a discussion where other editors are clearly against your point of view and no one is on your side, try to be reasonable and think about it a little bit. If no one supports you, and everyone is against what you propose, that is something wrong about what you want. Try not to be rude or to accuse other editors. Try to look (or at least, pretend) that you are not desperate to add a piece of text about something you look. It's weird. Read what I just wrote at least 3 times back and forth. Good luck. --Lecen (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Lecen,
 * 1) I read the article very well, indeed if you're not overplayed your hand I probably would not have noticed all these biased stuff;
 * 2) "the monarchy fell... because the Emperor himself wanted" No comments, and I dare not even think about touching this true gem of humor. Sure, others editors may have other ideas about where of an piece of humor should be placed, anyway LOL
 * 3) a} "politicans during the republican era attempted to emulate the policies of the politicians of the imperial era, which mean stability and progress." It's a opinion... I diverge but respect
 * b} I've also written about your behavior here. So, 1 more time, again, all the Same for you Cybershore (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I'm sick of your behavior. --Lecen (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't say that the reverse is also true, dear impolite fellow, because the only thing that your agressive behavior has given me is an free and endless entertainment ;) Have a nice day! Cybershore (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on since 24 February without any end or resolution in sight. I don't even know what we're supposed to talk about any more.--LK (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I propose above "next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world"


 * Let me try make the my points clearer:
 * In this historical period, 2 events stand out in Brazilian foreign policy (the issue of Acre, which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s, resolved with an agreement but as we know was not entirely a peaceful process of annexation, And the 1st world war that, although the country has had an insignificant role (we all agree about it) in it, had however, as I showed above, and no one could refute, their repercussions and importance in domestic politics).
 * Internally, the entire set of rebellions, civillian and military (ie, not just military ones) between the 1890s and 1920s (and not just those that occurred in the 1920s), figured prominently in the political (as all them were subjugated) weakening of the regime.
 * I still have not found a way to put it briefly, but again, when I think that have found it (in the case of someone else does not do so before), "Let the ball run"; reverting, when will be the case, enhancing or fitting when appropriate. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic ones. Cybershore (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You called the Paraguayan War (or War of the Triple Alliance) "Great War of La Plata" (See here: ). From where did you take this name? In Brazil it is called "Guerra do Paraguai" (Paraguayan War). Not only you do not know a single sentence about Brazilian history, but you also create names out of nowhere? --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No my dear agressive felow,
 * if you were so superior and scholar as as you want to show, or at least took the time to practice what youself recommend above "Try not to be rude or to accuse other editors. Try to look (or at least, pretend) that you are not desperate to add a piece of text about something you look. It's weird. Read what I just wrote at least 3 times back and forth" (And why I am not surprise that you don't follow what yourself preach?); you remember that, 1st the name by which this conflict is called is an open question until today;
 * 2nd (To highlight this fact, not cause controversy) I used an the term that was used in some English speaking countries (after all we are in the english version of wikipedia) as you can see reading, for example, the classic book "Statistics of Deadly Quarrels" of 1950 by Lewis F. Richardson as
 * Last but not least, also in | this link (citing the mentioned book), middle of the page, section "Random Violence", 2nd paragraph, 4th line, anyone can clearly read.
 * Now, what is your goal with this? Because, again, counter-arguments in relation to what we're debating here ...No single one.
 * Or your intention was to try disqualify me as debater? If it, my dear, this sort of attitude is nothing more than "backfire", since even though I was mistakenly hallucinated about this other question, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. So, Why address this issue here and not in its proper place? And why insist on putting it aggressively?
 * Come on, calm down, go give a walk and when you back, stop be obsessive about the messengers and focus on the messages Cybershore (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. The discussion was settled with editors opposing further non-vital information into the article and suggested its addition into History of Brazil. You can not simply ignore that and re-word it and believe that no one will notice it. Perhaps you enjiy being blocked but I'm not in the mood for behaviors such as yours. --Lecen (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said all along this discussion, I'm not by any means ignoring it. If you took the time to read me, you have seen. But instead, you again is only interested in jump to revert to yr ego. With you behavior you are saying “Who are these idiots trying to change my sacred and unchanging version of history?” “Why to discuss?” “I'm the master of Wikipedia” “I can even lie about book reference(see below)”'.
 * Well, it's seems that are who to ignore all the discussion and like a spoiled child having refuse to
 * a) counter-argument and
 * b) pratice the double standard
 * c) without arguments, having appeal to ofenses and ah
 * d) worst: You purposely distorts book quotes, such as that contained in the Baarman's book, that you use in the 1st paragraph of this article: where is wrote the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence..., you just rewrote to your convenience In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence.
 * What a shame Lecen, do you really thought that soon or later, nobody would never check it???
 * Really?
 * Beyond it, I sugest that you read the above topics of the discussion to remember (1 more time) that You still not have show any single argument against, much by the contrary:
 * what curious, how (for you) a "UNimportant" fact (from just 2) of the Brazilian foreign police of the 1st republican period (after all, this is are we talking about), like its participation in WWI are so "unimportant" that even Baarman, the author, from who you distort the words to suits in yr version of history, mention it and in the same book reference that you use, even being a book that addresses the Empire time, a period much earlier than the WWI...
 * Try to counter argument that ...also (also, since you hadn't still made any against anything).


 * Oh yeah, beyond having omit it, don't forget to answer about the quote that you've distorted!

Sad that a encyclopedia (even a informal one), an editor behave like you: no arguments, hypocritical double standards, omition and distorting quotes... personal offenses, etc So, what's about to stop here with yr show of emotional unbalance and began to behave like a adult true editor? 'Cause if not, we won't get to nowhere, going in and out... Cybershore (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Continue - I strongly recommend to anyone interested in participating and / or observe this discussion and its development, follow the talk pages, mine and the other participants. Cybershore (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)