Talk:Brazil/Archive 15

Does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?
This is an open invitation for participating in the RFC about "does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?" Comment on the page WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Independence
The infobox has the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves listed as who it got independence from, but considering that Brazil was an integral part of the UKPBA, how could it have gotten independence from itself? Shouldn't we list Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves? It was Portugal's name before Brazil's accension to royal union and the name after Brazil's independence. It makes sense to me, but I ask what you all think. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The state Brazil separated from was the UKPBA, which is the official name of the political entity. By way of comparison, Croatia was a constituent part of Yugoslavia, and became independent of Yugoslavia, not of Serbia-Montenegro-Macedonia. Walrasiad (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Size
A discussion that was already in the past regarding this article is about the weight of this page and the brief character that a encyclopedic article must have.

So, it never hurts to ask again to all colaborators (especially Thiagoreis Leon) to try keep this article as lean as possible, leaving to the subthemes mentioned, all related details.

Since a single photo/image per section is more than enough to serve as an illustration of a subject, I also suggest that if the intention is renovation of images, that they may be replaced every quarter, and not that new ones be added, which just let the page heavier. Cybershore (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the name Brazil
It is often said and widely believed that the name Brazil derives from the dyewood 'Brasil wood' which was the country´s main export product in the period immediately following discovery by the Portuguese. However, this does not explain why the dyewood was called 'Brasil wood'. A more plausible explanation is that Brazil was identified by early Portuguese settlers as the mythical island of Brazil believed by mariners to be located far out in the western Atlantic. An expedition of merchants from the English port of Bristol sailed in search of the island of Brazil in the late fifteenth century, well before Cabral´s landfall so the name clearly predates the discovery of both Brazil and the dyewood found there. 201.29.234.103 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Gervase Shorter gshorter@kinetics.com.br
 * Apparently brasilwood derives from the Portuguese "brasa" (ember) in reference to the wood's natural red hue. -- Daniel (talk)  18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading
There is a part of this article that, in my point of view is considered to be misleading.

The indigenous did not buy the "pau-brasil", or traded it, the "pau-brasil" was thoroughly explored and extinct by the europeans. There wasn't any type of harvest, as it is implied by the text. On the contrary, actually, "pau-brasil" was a native plant existant in the forests and spreaded, there weren't any kinds of plantation or planned culture.

12:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Manuela Pirotelli

Edit request on 12 January 2013 Brazil
Hello Editors for Brazil page,

My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on Brazil’s page. This additional text I have provides important overlooked historical facts regarding Brazil. Thank you.

Zns Smith (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can edit semiprotected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed. This will usualy happen when your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits.  It looks like you have met the edit count number, and in another day or two your account will be old enough.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gave birth to her own grandchildren!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Brazilian Maria da Gloria has agreed to be the surrogate mother of her daughter, and at 52 year gave birth her grandchildren! Daughter Fernanda can not have children because the uterus has the disorder, and Maria hormones had to restart the menstrual cycle. She got pregnant after artificial insemination and gave birth to two healthy girls, writing, world media transmits Croatian daily Glas Slavonia. So far a unique case in the world.78.2.84.75 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian page and others countries Page!
why brazilian page is so little???hey the page of France i saw 62 pictures of cities,museums,graphics,history,population,hospital etc... and the page of Brazil just 32 pictures and not museums,são paulo city ,Rio de janeiro city,subways,universities etc... wha do you want to do???can you do more than this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.98.145 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to include the ranking next to the GDP in the "Infobox country".

GDP_nominal_rank = 7th (or 8th depending on the source)


 * Hi there, please input here a reliable source for this information before we can edit the page itself. Cheers,Zalunardo8 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Year of Germany
Beginning May 2013 Brazil celebrates the "Year of Germany in Brazil". Just in time for German Unity Day on 3 October 2012 the world-famous Christ the Redeemer monument in Rio de Janeiro was illuminated in Germany’s national colors of black, red and gold to point towards this awaited event. The motto of the year is “Germany and Brazil – when ideas come together”. REF: Christ the Redeemer Monument in Rio de Janeiro illuminated in black-red-gold The Unidos da Tijuca school, the third-oldest samba school, reigning carnival champions, chose to go for a German theme at this year's Carnival with an unusual title for their 80-minute performance in February 2013: "Alemanha Encantada" or "Enchanted Germany," which is about "Brazil and Germany coming together: colours, cultures, and capabilities," the Tagesspiegel newspaper. It was a mammoth show, involving eight floats, built on buses, with various Germanic features - including outsized Playmobil figures, the moon (to represent Germany pioneering rocket scientists, e.g. Wernher von Braun), and figures from ancient Germanic mythology, including thunder god Thor. Artistic director Paulo Barros, who has already choreographed two winning Sambadrome performances, packed Germany into five acts, beginning with Germanic gods and assorted mythic creatures. There follows Goethe's Faust, Bertolt Brecht's outcast characters, Fritz Lang robots, and a depiction of Marlene Dietrich as the Blue Angel. Meanwhile, the "Universe of Children" section is dedicated to German fairytales and toys. The whole spectacle was broadcasted in its entirety on Brazilian TV station Globo-TV, with an audience of more than 190 million viewers. REF: Rio gives Carnival a Teutonic touch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.21.252 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Brazil
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brazil's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wood": From Middle power: Bernard Wood, 'Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions', in Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension, edited by Cranford Pratt (Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990). From Cocoa bean:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, it's fixed. The choice is not that hard for a human; thanks to AnomieBOT for making the task easier by offering viable options. Piperh (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

not Rate anymore!
why we cannot rate this page?because it´s a low rated page and nobody improve?? wikipedia is not a democracy page anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.68.148.236 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Unemployment
Unemployment figures are wrong. Following the reference already provided on the page, Brazil has 6.2 unemployment rate, which is not "extremely high" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgrubio0929 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * just checked it, you are right. When compared to other BRIC countries it is nothing too high. Will change formulation.Magafuzula (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New Presidents of The National Congress - Edit request
I would like that you change the Presidents of Senate and Chamber of Deputies's names. The new President of The Chamber of Deputies is Henrique Eduardo Alves (PMDB) and the new President of Senate is Renan Calheiros (PMDB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos A. R. de Ávila (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * doneMagafuzula (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013
The new president os the Chamber of Deputies is "Henrique Eduardo Alves (PMDB)" and the new president of the Federal Senate is "Renan Calheiros (PMDB)".

177.180.143.246 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC) -done Magafuzula (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos!
Hello all, I'd like to change the photos for the article, and was hoping for input here. As it is, the photos aren't really helping in making the article more attractive (eg compared to the PTBR version). Changing all the photos every once in a while is a good thing in any case.

My suggestions, you're courteously invited to write yours behind each bullet as well :

- history: leave the painting of the landing of cabral, change the slave picture to one of Pelourinho/ Salvador since that was the center of the slave trade. The pictures of the enormous cavalry charges can go, since they look stupid. What else is absolutely essential in the history of Brazil? Not Vargas, that one can go too. Unique is the construction of Brasilia, anyone got a better photo of that?

- geography: topography map is good, but perhaps there is a suggestion for a new/ better one? This part also mentions Iguaçu. It has been said by, well, the whole world, that pictures of Iguaçu are extremely impressive. And the article has none????

- climate: photos are nice, but wrong for 2 reasons. Firstly, if you want to show the extremes, you show pictures of the drought in the northeast and snow/ floods in the south. But mostly these photos are wrong because the article describes the climate according to the Köppen system- the photos should reflect that. I'm not sure that if one succeeds in taking a photo of snow in Brazil it should be posted here. In all I would vote for some tropical microsystem like Ferando de Noronha or something dryer, and another picture of a wet system like the Pantanal?

- biodiversity. 1 vague photo of a river that could be anywhere...really? this part should bigger, and with photos to reflect that there is quite some biodiversity, actually. I suggest some colorful birds (looks nice), a leopard to show that there are larger animals as well, some monkies that walk on the streets of a maior city perhaps? Better photo of the Amazon, Fernando de Noronha...problem here is choosing some 3 photos that are most typical.

- environment. hooks sort of into above, maior issues so perhaps a photo of a seaturtle, rescued by Tamar?

-government and policies. and yet another photo of Brasilia. Visitors who don't know Brazil will believe that the city is the country's main attraction, considering that it has the most photos on wikipedia. Here we should definitely have a photo of the president, weird this article has none.

- law. Picture of Supreme court has to go. I vote for something sensational, and unique as well; an overflowing jail cell, BOPE or ROTA and their special operations in the slums, that is what Brazil is famous for regarding upholding the law. Not the supreme court. Or any court for that matter.

- foreign policy. a picture of the peace keeping force in Haïti would be my suggestion

- military. who cares. but if at all, brazil is big in amphibious vehicles so one of these

- administrative divisions. current is good?

- economy. I vote for (a different) photo of São Paulo, embraer and 1 of soy fields being harvested, always impressive.

- tourism. 1 stupid photo of a german house and another boring photo. ok, we do not have to draw tourists to brazil but we don't want to scare them neither. How about a picture of Rio de Janeiro for international and another of Porto Seguro for domestic. These are the most popular destinations.

- components and energy. Picture of Itaipu, of course. But not at night!! Putting up a picture of Itaipu by night shows that you have brain damage, it surely does not show the dam.

- science. photo of the synchrotron has to go. everybody has a synchrotron. there should be something that Brazil developed, like the airplane ;) that would be good for an eternal edit war

- transport. a mineral train of vale and perhaps some large barges on the Amazon? Photo of the recife airport has to go in any case, how can that possibly showcase the state of transport in brazil?

- health. a photo of the aids program

- education. cidade universitária in São paulo, from above. It shows the influence of the Junta on architecture and education.

- communication. is there any significant photo in the public domain, from the press? like the new york times with that famous headline "WE WON" right after world war II. what would be a defining moment in history where the media were present?

- demographics. picture of density is good and interesting

- race and etnicity. 1 picture of oktoberfest in Santa Catharina and 1 of capoeira would do to show the extremes. something with indians would be nice as well, festival in Manaus.

- religion. Catholicism is the largest by far, so a picture of the most famous catholic church. Also, I have a picture of a tomb on Consolação, catholic graveyard, but the buried person was of arabic descent, so the writings are in arabic, complete with a half moon on top of the grave. Shows the enormous religious tolerance Brazil has. I think. Or would that be too deep?

- urbanization. wouldn't change a thing!

- language: ??

- culture: since anything goes here, I'd suggest a photo of the 1 cultural event the whole world sees every year. Carnaval in Rio. A picture of this year winner, changing every year.

- music: I'm all for bossa nova, but we should show a picture of the most famous music nowadays. So that would be pagode? Nice

- literature: I have a nice pícture of Vinicius de Moraes, the statue of him in Itapua (um tarde...)

- cuisine: leave as is.

- sports: something of the world cup, for the love of god, it is next year. The government has spent 70 bn already with this pitfall, and here not even an image is shown? Absurd. Once the World Cup is over, the main theme for the sports section should shift to the '16 Olympics, simple!

Well, let's go point by point, shall we? Looking forward to your suggestions!Magafuzula (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid article. I doesn't show latitude and longitude lines for Brazil. Dumb. Deficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.2.45 (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of may 7th 2013
I would like to request an edit. Change the information of the end of 4.1 Law item: '''As of december 2012, there were 548,003 people incarcerated in Brazilian prisons or jails (513,713 in prison system and 34,290 in police facilities). That constitutes 274 inmates per 100,000 of national population.''' After all, add this reference: --Igor Dalmy (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit but with a much simpler reference direct to the Brazil page on the ICPS webpage, and a couple of grammatical tweaks. --Michael Greiner 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: In the climate section, it s...
86.3.149.134 posted this comment on 22 May 2013 (view all feedback).

"In the climate section, it says Brazil has five main types of climate, and then lists six types"

Any thoughts?

Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Climate
86.3.149.134 posted this comment on 22 May 2013 (view all feedback).

"In the climate section, it says Brazil has five main types of climate, and then lists six types"

Any thoughts? Both "tropical" and "highlands tropical" link to the same tropical climate article. Is there a reason these can't be combined? Is there a source for this sentence? Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch...if you read the Köppen system, which the article uses for typology, it is actually quite difficult to catch it in a few words. I vote for combining, the subarticle for climate is quite extense for those who want to know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased information about crime
The article should be more balanced and not try to reproduce sensationalized news about crime in Brazil. The first topic about the country is "crime", when it should be in last place or even don´t appear in a single topic, because there is crime in every country of the world, and this issue doesn´t appear in any other article about other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.233 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

History Sections; Size
Praise: The Creation of the "Kingdom with Portugal" section was a good idea. Short and precise.

Critique: However, the sections about the colonial period and monarchy still need a better work. The former is too big, containing unnecessary details for a general summary. While the latter have a strong royalist bias, which undermines the neutrality of the section. Not to mention glaring historical errors, like saying Tiradentes was peasant, when in fact he was an officer of the colonial army, and confusion of dates between the defeat of Napoleonic forces in the Iberian peninsula, and the return of D. Joao VI, the first occurred in 1814, and only the second occurred in 1821.

187.37.174.195 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Images
Have had alot of images added - As per our MOS on the matter its best we dont sandwich text between images. Will let the new editor finish then weed through the images keeping the best ones in the next few days.Moxy (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, what criteria would you use? If by "new editor" you mean me, I'm done already. In a week or so I'll take it of my watchlist and everybody can start posting pictures again of Brazilian Naval fleets, Siberian winters and whatnot.Magafuzula (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oeps, now I see what you mean. The picture of the world famous Brazilian Navy is back, as well as the Siberian winters in the south of Brazil (seriously, there is a resource that claims that winters in Brazil ought to be compared to Siberia, I kid you not), and numerous other interesting pictures, I now see that Brazil has a hospital, and the National Synchrotron is back, almost every country in the world has one. What is missing is a picture of a supermarket, and a shoeshop. I thought we had talkpages to discuss these changes, like you do, but apparently not. "Since 2006 the country balances its balance of oil." Eloquent. "the second largest commercial television network in the planet." If you want to bullshit, at least spell right. I will correct that mistake. The new editor appears to be from Recife; contrary to info from the Brazilian tourism board that claims that Porto Seguro is the most popular, Recife is now the hotspot for domestic tourism.Magafuzula (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * all done ..the page was all messed up with sandwiched text all over - this is an encyclopedia - not a picture gallery   - cant have section that do things like File:World war 1 sandwich text.jpg or File:Wiki page snap shoot.jpg.Moxy (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not going to edit war with the new editor (User:Vinícius18) that seems not to understand English. Will just come back in a week or two and fix it all again - I am in no rush - just to bad no normal phone  viewing for a little bit. Wish the editor would come to the talk page...now we are on a path to  hundreds of images in galleries were the images are not mentioned in the article. Will let next editor do more cleanup after the image spamMoxy (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About the mascot removal, I simply would opt for a decorated athlete over a character mascot for a future event. Other national articles don't have mascots on their pages; or advertisement symbols. Even if they are iconic. So its why I removed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, seems to be the consensus. But I still argue that something from the Cup should make it to this page. What's with that old picture of retired players? Magafuzula (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We will have to go over the article again...as I am sure all noticed. Not reverting right away - just watching to make sure no content is removed or coding errors. On a side note anyone know why User:Vinícius18 would make the images all different sizes - as in some 400px some 200px and others 140px and so on? Wondering what type of PC they are viewing this from. Competence is required... Moxy (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Smaller paragraph, smaller picture? Not sure, but if you are a bit religious you put on a tiny little picture of a church and soforth... Magafuzula (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * btw Moxy, I dialogue with Vinicius18, no problem, really not a case for a ban. But indirect since he doesn't use the talkpages yet, but I'm sure we're almost there. How about this idea: we re-open my old topic at the top, about the pictures, and send all the most active editors for this page an invite to contribute? Now it's just me, and you of late, holding the line- against what exactly, and why? Honestly, I had given up on this page: if Brazilians want to make this a large colourbook with thousands of photos, hundreds of pov's, exaggerations, superlatives etc, well then so be it. Any visitor that stops by will have no problem in interpreting this info. PS volleyball in Brazil is the 2nd most popular sport, so a picture can be put up. If we had a working talk page, I'd say 1 pic related to the cup and 1 of the Indy or Formula 1, or volleyball, depending on which sport is active at that moment. Rotate them a bit. - Magafuzula (talk)
 * Sounds all good to me - invite as many as possible. As for dialogue with Vinicius18 I see its not here on Wikipedia. Have you explained some of the basics image dos and don'ts to him/her? ... Like don't  sandwich text between two images or boxes - Don't overload articles with images - Don't use a fixed image size larger than 220px, in fact when possible don't set size at all (upright) - Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text not in gallery sections when possible... (relates back to Don't overload articles with images). All at Image use policy.Moxy (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots got done
Will have to say the image problem got a bunch of us working on the article be it copy editing images, adding content, source fixing and copy editing. Copy from June 2 vs current copy ... Great job all! I will work on more references were needed and try to replace the broken ones with real publication. Again great job all. Any images that anyone feels is missing in the shuffle?Moxy (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am formally asking that Vinícius18 be blocked for disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would propose a final warning, insisting on using the talk page. I thought I had sort of a communication going (outside wiki? where would you get that), making it clear that some minor changes can be done, other then that the talk page should be used- but I haven't. That is the ideal situation, discussing changes on talk pages, not blocking. Magafuzula (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point its clear they simply dont get it be it because of language or what ever and should move on. Would be fine if they could talk with us - thus we could explain some basic formatting - and discus the merits of certain images over others to be included - but we cant - they cant to be specific. They may have very valid reasons to add certain images but they cant communicate this to us - nor understand the notes about certain images.Moxy (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHERE - Little or no interest in working collaboratively (they cant can they because they cant understand nor communicate with us even at a basic level)
 * Competence is required - If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

Geography help
I am sure all have noticed I am fixing all the refs were need be... To that end I am looking for a book on the Geography of Brazil to replace all the Encarta. MSN links that are contested. I am having trouble finding a book on this topic any suggestions? The only book I can find is from 1982.Moxy (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

History
I have to agree with the need of changes in some sections of the history of Brazil, aimed at fixing the following sections:
 * Colonial period: Despite some minor modifications related to spelling, duplicate links etc., or as pointed above by user 187.37.174.195, the current version contain absurd erros as for example describe Tiradentes as "peasant leader". Also, the section besides the excessive text referring to events of minor significance in the Brazilian colonial history, and lack of text referring to the explicit citation of other most relevant historical occurrences of the period (such as the Dutch invasion), also contains questionable use of bibliographic citations (citations that doesn't fit with the meaning of the texts of the books used);
 * Agreed!
 * Ok, just please, don't forget to sign between observations/arguments Magafuzula, so it is always clear who is talking, without the need to access the talk history to see who wrote what. Thanks Unbaratocha (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Related to the section of monarchic period, the main problem is the monarchist bias, which compromises neutrality of the article, not only in this aspect, but also in the aspect concerning the history of slavery in the Brazilian monarchy period (apart the sweetener character, as are described the abolitionist process in Brazil, related to the percentage of the slave population in Imperial Brazil, there are also a glaring statistical error that contrasts with the only reliable statistical source of that time, ie the demographic censuses of 1819 and 1872). So, there is a need to, work to not only eliminate these biases, but also support the text with book references in English, from various authors, if possible some of them with views in "Google Books", but trying not to overload the page with too many links of google books visualizations;
 * Difficult one. I put up a picture once of Debret/ Pelourinho, but general consensus appeared to be that slavery does not merit more attention then it is getting right now. But if you can rewrite it to take out the bias?
 * As you noticed, it was already edited. And thanks for continuing to contribute Unbaratocha (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary era
Unbaratocha (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And in contemporary era, some modifications concerning the period of Transition to Democracy in the decades of 1970-80, are recommended, due the text isn't really a neutral one, since attributed the whole process of transition to the good will of the military, while ignoring other external factors such as economic crises and other agents of change as the pressure exerted over the years by Brazilian civil society. And again, the general meaning that are in the reference cited by previous editor(s) doesn't correspond to the meaning contained in the excerpt of this section. Anyway, to not extend or complicate the debate, regarding the changes, it is a good option to have more focus on neutrality, use more authors, as well as works in English that are easily verifiable by Google Books.
 * If one would be curious why the current Brazilian president was considered a terrorist by the US, one would not find any answers here. Why did she, and others, take up arms against these friendly and benevolent soldiers?? (Magafuzula)
 * Really? Where are, in some serious organ of Anglo-American press, stated that the current president of Brazil is considered a terrorist by the U.S. government, or any other government? (aside, the relativity and double standard of such claim, if it were true) In fact, I don't see anywhere the U.S. government stating such thing or, acting in accordingly with it. Unbaratocha (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right here: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/31/brazil.winner.profile/index.html . Though it mentions nothing of this: http://www.awomansbridge.org/3/category/dilma%20rousseff/1.html Point is that after a cnn report people could turn to wikipedia to find answers, in vain. CNN calls the junta "brutal", while wikipedia calls the junta "not as brutal, but rather harsh". Particularly I do not really care, but the difference in interpretations is awkward.Magafuzula (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not understanding your point regarding the current Brazilian president, anyway I didn't find any mention in the articles, with US government calling her a terrorist. Although, again, within the current policy framework, this wouldn't mean anything derogatory per se...
 * Regarding the 2nd point, the practically a oxymoron "(dictatorship) not brutal, just harsh," you're absolutely right!:
 * 1st because a dictatorship "just harsh" is something as meaningless as a "light and fair torturer" ;
 * 2nd and mainly because, in terms of brutality, of a dictatorship that used and tortured babies*, nothing more need be said.
 * * (for those who read Portuguese or don't have paralyzing prejudice against automatic translators, as the one of Google Chrome: here, or for those who understand Portuguese here <Unfortunately, this video doesn't have subtitles in English, yet)
 * Thus, is really better to delete that incongruous "(a dictartoship) not as brutal, but rather harsh". Since, the acceptance of such absurdities in a open encyclopedia, can open dangerous doors... Unbaratocha (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah, I can't find the article anymore. It was something about the US and their war on terror, which could in theory give them cause to detain Rousseff, if it were not for diplomatic immunity. I think it was something hypothetical before her election. I did read it, it is not relevant as such, and not derogatory. As I saw in your video, "Presidente" had Nixon at this side- literally . Makes you feel cold watching and hearing these stories...leaves me with an impression that Brazil skated on the edge of the abyss...and it would have been a Chili, Argentina or worse. Very nicely done, the rephrasing about the tyranny- can't think of a word to change. A Brazilian has to write that, this stuff is way too sensitive and relevant for me to say anything about it. Common people I know assume a position that they want the military back, that maintains peace and order, only when you talk to academics you realize how deeply they are traumatized. And the torturerers from back then are in control of the police and army now, most likely. Very sensitive situation, the Truth Commission seems to be very aware of how volatile the situation can become. Magafuzula (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this desire for "order" at any price when added to the idealization of a past that never existed, appears to be more than one feature, a old human's illusory 'addiction', which make easy to fall into sophistries like "Nazism had some value in order and economy,(sic) if not were by the persecution of Jews ....of gypsies ...of Slavs and... and...", or into the dark literal meaning, of the double meaning phrases like "Ah, Stalin. Yeah, with him we had order" Apart its sarcastic sense, in this last sentence, it is not hard, if one replace 'Stalin' by the name of any other dictator dead, to find in any part of the world, nostalgic people about " 'order', at any price."
 * Anyway, if this kind of totalitarian nostalgia can be observed even within the current Chinese dictatorship, as this article shows:
 * "...So many people are dissatisfied with the reforms. Then they become nostalgic and think the Mao era was much better. Because they never experienced the Mao era!


 * One of the leaders of that revival, incidentally, was Bo Xilai, the powerful former Chongqing party chief, brought down in a murder scandal last year. (Why this is no surprise? :P )
 * ...In China, human rights means the right to survive, and I argue with these people. This is not human rights, it's animal rights. People have all sorts of needs. Spiritual needs, the need to be free.
 * ...If a people cannot face their history, these people won't have a future."


 * As an old sentence, attributed to one of US founders, warn us:


 * "Those who give up freedom in the name of security, will not have, nor deserve neither of two." Unbaratocha (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery & Dutch Brazil
In conclusion, I would vote for more on slavery, Tupi- Guarani civilization and less Portugal. Magafuzula (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Related to it, there is a proper section of pre-colonial history... Anyway, it would be interesting, first of all to read your arguments for such and debate about it. Unbaratocha (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just put it there, there was no paragraph on pre-colonial history. Strange since there is an endless story about the Portuguese colonization, kingdom and empire. In my opinion the history part is too long, as in it does not really invite to read. I rephrased the part on the French and the Dutch since it was gibberish. Fact that staid like this for so long is an indication of how few people/ editors read this part. The part of the empire starts really well, but soon gets lost in awkward phrases, details and so forth. I see you've put some parts back: "In this era other European powers tried to colonize parts of Brazil, in incursions that the Portuguese had to fought, notably the French in Rio during 1560s, in Maranhão during 1610s, and the Dutch in Bahia and Pernambuco, during the Dutch–Portuguese War, after the end of Iberian Union". I'm not following, what has the Iberian union to do with this? As it is written apparently it provoked invasions? Excellent that we try to be concise, but perhaps this is overdoing it. Magafuzula (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears in numerous historical analyzes (including the reference used): Dutch feeling Portugal weakened due to Iberian Union, decided to attack many Portuguese colonies around the world. In the Brazilian case, the reaction of the Portuguese and their allied Indians and free blacks, occurred only after the end of the Iberian Union, when Portugal regained its independence in relation to Spain.
 * Regarding the end of slavery in Brazil, Congratulations! You could summarize well. I'm just going to replace (in a more concise) the part referring to the effort that was required for abolition occur.Unbaratocha (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, as is that is not clear. But that Union had nothing to do with the French, right? (can you see which primary sources Bethell uses? I read a lot of primary sources (yes I know I can't use that here) but none mentions anything about the moment being opportune because Portugal was weak, but rather the WIC lost northamerican properties around that same time and shifted its attention south) I'm not sure if we need to explain all that here. The only contemporary argument I can think of is that it explains all the people with blond hair and blue eyes in the North and northeast, they always claim to be dutch descendants. Other then that, the expedition appears to have been more important for the Dutch company responsible for the colonization of the Americas (the WIC, went broke after losing what nowadays is New York and Bahia/ Pernambuco) then for the Portuguese or Brazil's integrity as a nationstate, who (as I understand it from you) were too busy at home to really mount a resistance in the crown colony of Brazil, but when they devoted enough resources it was a matter of (little) time. Slavery: is this: "the main matter of internal political debate referred to the issue of slavery" your interpretation? Could it be that the monarch just had little interest? In that age power already had shifted to the southeast, and there were less slaves there then in the Northeast... Also, I now read that Uruguay seceded from Spain and came then into conflict with Brazil to maintain its independence, so thanks for the correctionMagafuzula (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About the Dutch presence in the Brazilian Northeast:
 * No, the Iberian Union had nothing to do with France. It was a matter of succession between Portuguese and Spanish royalties lineage;
 * About the links between Union Iberian, the Dutch-Portuguese war, and Dutch capture of Brazilian northeastern, due to the then economic importance worldwide of sugar (see detail in, 4th reference below on "gold cycle"), there are so many references for you to know better the topic, that I suggest you take a good time to calmly read and compare, both those works available for online consultation (via google books and amazon look inside), with those old ones, in libraries, such as "Portuguese Seaborn" and "Dutchseaborn", of the known C.R. Boxer;
 * In order to you take note of the importance that is attributed in Brazil, to the Dutch period in the Brazilian northeastern, in the Brazilian colonial historiography of the 17th century (and I can assure you that it is high), if you read Portuguese (and for this it is mandatory), I suggest that you begin by author Evaldo Cabral de Melo, and his "Olinda restored : War and Sugar in Northeast Brazil, 1630-1654 "of 1975, as well as the Brazilian military literature about the Brazilian colonial era.Unbaratocha (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Related to slavery, no. It is not a personal interpretation of mine. Again, there are numerous references, especially (but not only) for readers in the Portuguese language, on this issue that (obviously with fluctuations of importance) was present throughout the whole monarchic period, since that Jose Bonifacio and Pedro I proposed without success, in 1823, the progressive abolition of slavery in Brazil.
 * Also, regarding the percentage of both slave population, as the black population (including the freed ones), compared to the whole, in the south: It only decreased after the mass European immigration, already from the end of the 19th century, estimulated by the elites in an attempt to "whiten" the country.
 * I still remember that the greatest resistance to the abolition came from the large landowners located in the Southeast, of the countryside (then provinces of the empire, today states of the republic) of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.Unbaratocha (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the debate Unbaratocha (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Gold Cycle
Regarding the gold cycle; the fact of the article about Emboabas War in the English Wikipedia, still is a stub, doesn't justify the deletion of the entire paragraph referring to the gold cycle, due to the historical importance of this cycle in the Brazil colonial history, since precisely due to during this cycle have surfaced the first major tensions between Brazilians and Portuguese, due to disagreements regarding the exploration of gold.

Moreover, no mention of that war due to this article still is a stub, are equivalent to not mention in the section "Early Republic", the communist revolt of 1935 due to this fact doesn't have, as far now, any article in the English Wikipedia, even a stub.

I still remind that during the gold cycle, Brazil became at the time, the largest producer of gold, and according to several historians (some of them already used as reference in this article), strongly helped to fund indirectly (via the extensive Portuguese consumption of British products), the 1st industrial revolution. Thus, I justify reintegration the paragraph about gold cycle in the section, that of course, can and should be edited to contain the maximum information in the minimum space possible, but as explained, it must be present. Unbaratocha (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, nice how you've solved it. And if you found somewhere proof that Brazilian gold production was of importance for England's capital position prior to industrial take-off, we definitely should find a way to mention this. As it is written it appears just another commodity.Magafuzula (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Among others places, you can see it here, here, here (whole page, including last paragraph), here (with a remaining citation about Brazilian sugar world record), and (one online, out of books, example) here. I could not think of anything concise to write about it, so one or more helping hands, would be welcome :) Unbaratocha (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination
This article has been nominated for GA recently, but it is not ready yet. First, it's still in the hidden categories "All accuracy disputes", "All articles containing potentially dated statements", "All articles with dead external links", generated by maintenance templates. Those issues should be detected and fixed (or had the templates removed, if incorrectly placed) before nominations. Besides, there are very recent discussions in this talk page about the images and the history section; those discussions should be settled before nominations as well. For instance, Unbaratocha has pointed some concerns and rewritten the history sections; Suri 100 should have asked him if he has ended his work, and wait some days to see if nobody else opposes his changes. Cambalachero (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of out-of-date material here, particularly in the 'Economy' section. However, much of the weakness of the entire article appears to be that much is lifted verbatim from the Portuguese version and, hence, the English is awkward, contains numerous misspellings or incorrect words and, in general, it does not reflect fluency. I am going to try to clean up the language without disturbing the content. However, before my Brazilian friends get insulted let me mention that my wife and daughter are Brazilian, I have lived in Brasilia for 12 years and I teach English to Brazilians. This project will take a little time, but I hope it will lead to a more cohesive and readable product. Suggestions are welcome. American In Brazil (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) American In Brazil (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Protests
Talking about editions related to recent protests, as well as any present days events, if is difficult to reach a consensus on historical facts, long taken place, with its causes, motivations and consequences, already analyzed in a relatively exhaustive way, let alone in for events that are still unfolding, and on which, still there are doubts about the same causes, motivations and consequences...

A suggestion of a good exercise to control the impulse of overloading historical articles with everyday events, about which, inevitably for its unpredictability feature, still there are doubts about the extent of its historical relevance in the future, one may imagine for example, "what if" the Internet and Wikipedia existed at the time of the World Wars of the last century, or of the Russian or Cuban revolutions (among others), the Vietnam War, or military regimes that ruled Latin America between the1960s and 1980, using the power we have in retrospect regarding such events in the past, and try to see how (in places where there was no deadly censorship on the network, such as the current North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia) could have happen continuous editing, in these imaginary wikis of the past.

While we compare how in relatively similar events ("Arab Spring", "Occupy Wall Street" and "Indignant - Spain"), has been taking this adjustment in relation to the history of their respective countries where such contemporary movements occur. Not to forget, of course, to keep aware about attempts of manipulation by members of different groups, which can always occur in the process.

Unbaratocha (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Particularly, I'm of the opinion that there is a certain precipitation of you fellow editors, about put an so recent event in a summary of 500 years history. I disagree in the sense that I believe that until turns relatively clear the causes, and mainly consequences of such event, the best would be move it to a specific and broader section - "Brazilian contemporary history". Just my opinion, and suggestion.Cybershore (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * as always, there are 2 lines of thought here. I put it there originally since the protests became the largest since the military stepped down. I believed that that fact merits a place in Brazil's history. The next editor, however, believed that fact of little importance and took it out. So now it says that there are protests. As I read it now I agree with you, there are always protests,sometimes more, sometimes less, but in the current description there is nothing that could not be moved to another section, nothing that appears to be of any significance. Magafuzula (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is very tendentious. This looks brazilian government propaganda.
For example, in "Economy", the major exports products has nothing to do with the cited source. The items should be: Transport Equipment (Mostly for land vehicles), Metallurgical Products, Oil and Fuel, Mineral Ores, Soybeans & derivs., Chemicals, Meats, Sugar & Ethanol, etc.

Now on the article there's a picture of an airplane and the phrase: "Brazilian exports are booming, creating a new generation of tycoons.", not to tell that the first cited item is "aircraft", what shouldn't even be cited.

Wikipedia disappoints me constantly. The content is becoming more and more partial, maybe an "open" encyclopedia just doesn't work, It's becoming a huge advertising space.

For example the section "6.4 - Health" is extremely misleading, it's notorious that public health in Brazil is almost non-existent, and not only because the country doesn't spend enough money, but mostly because of corruption.

Also, about corruption, Brazil is a very corrupt country, and every news program on TV or newspaper publishes almost daily corruption scandals, and on the article there's not even a single word on that. Corruption is part of brazilian culture.

No offense, but how much the brazilian government is paying for this article? This article is suspiciously similar to the brazilian government propaganda.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not going to donate for this advertising space any longer. If this article about Brazil - a country that I know like the back of my hand - is completely tendentious and wrong, how can I be sure that the articles about other countries aren't like this one? I can't. And if I can't rely on Wikipedia it's not valuable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.10.15.108 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree as well, though I like to point out that corruption might be somewhat of a media spectacle as well. Anyhow, back to your point: if you start reading the article, I quote from the first lines ("in the world"): "largest, fifth largest, largest, only one, numerous, elevated, fastest, potential superpower". All these words have to be reformulated or left out, as is it reads as an infant shouting the national anthem. The article is indeed an example of what's wrong with wikipedia: 1 or a few senior editors do not allow for any changes, no matter consensus, and will have you banned if you try and change it. I will try to do so with your comments in mind Magafuzula (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the heath and defense sections. Let's see if it sticks. Perhaps this article's protection should be lifted and moved for deletion. If the editors of this article state that Brazil "has a large labor pool" rather then saying that Brazil has a rampant and endemic unemployment issues...well, whatever I say would be repeating myself and others and not solve anything.Magafuzula (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. This article doesn't reflect the reality and indeed it is very similar with the government 'propaganda'. Just because Wikipedia is free it doesnt have to be bad like this.--200.148.19.85 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the more I read the more I think this page is a joke. This one and the page in portuguese. A lot of the information doesn't reflect the sources, nor the reality. Just make a quick search on the web for every section (like education in brazil), the information on sites like bbc,reuters,etc. is very different. Maybe this page is mostly translated from portuguese, so it really isn't fault of the editors, but something is not working, not even a little, because this encyclopaedia is a place for information, not patriotism and stuff. Somethings smells really bad.--200.148.19.85 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have sources, the changes can be made to the article. -Dawn Bard (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that for-profit organizations are more and more catching on to wikipedia and purposefully trying to co-opt information on it, but this isn't yet a failure of the model: professional encyclopedias suffer many of the same problems and are incapable of democratic discussion like this to correct them.
 * Wikipedia definitely needs to be more alert about people paid by government or corporations to create a false public image. The blocking of all corporate ip addresses would assist this without at all hindering the edit of wikipedia by individuals. Boleroinferno (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, private encyclopedias suffer none of the problems, and what you call democracy on wikipedia depends on some 1500 senior editors worldwide, the millions of users will see their edits reverted. Enc.Brit. had some 3000 scientists working for them.Magafuzula (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't "Corruption is part of brazilian culture" a bit exessive? We can point that a certain corruption scandal had this or that influence over this or that issue, but to say that all Brazilians are corrupt is simply derogatory. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm brazilian also and I have the exactly same complaints about Wikipedia. It seems that this page is translated from the portuguese counterpart, and anything 'negative' about brazil one try to add there is reverted almost immediately, even if it's not only true but completely relevant. Cambalachero: To some extent, I believe we are. Unless one is living in a cave, everyday 'transgressions' are very commom here, for example, not issuing the commercial invoice (nota fiscal), evading income tax, bribering the police and not returning the correct exchange are extremely common. This is surely part of the brazilian culture, the 'jeitinho' and 'Lei de Gérson'. I'm 100% sure you won't find a brazilian that haven't commited one of these 'transgressions'. Anyway, the fact is this article surely doesn't reflect the 'brazilian reality'. I can say that what's described there has nothing to do with the actual country. It's more like germany or something :). You don't have to search a lot to see that the reality is very different: http://g1.globo.com/educacao/noticia/2012/03/maioria-nao-sabe-matematica-ao-final-do-ensino-medio-segundo-saresp.html, http://g1.globo.com/educacao/noticia/2011/08/428-dos-alunos-do-3-ano-sabem-o-esperado-em-matematica-diz-prova.html, http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,so-10-dos-jovens-sabem-matematica,1005555,0.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.38.82 (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've already included a part on corruption in the economy section. And rewritten other sections with references. True, the Portuguese version is outrageous, blatant propaganda- or wishful thinking at best, but your suggestion would be...what exactly? It's not that easy to paint a complete picture. Let's go with your links on education. Feel free to write your vision on education, (here if you want to and I'll have it published), I haven't done that yet for lack of time, and frankly because it is quite difficult. Saying that only 10% of students knows math isn't enough. Literacy programs have to be included, privatization, but also that the federal universities are accessible too all who pass, which is quite unique in the world, making social mobility in Brazil one of the highest on the planet (will give the reference in the article later). Etc. Just complaining doesn't help. At all. Or perhaps that is the 'jeitinho' you were talking about?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello guys. I'm brazilian also and I don't think there's a solution for this problem, because the government has statistics, but they are very different from the numbers used by the serious press, which are 'collected' by trustful institutions. In fact, all the TV channels are very tendentious as they have enormous debts with the government, and the only well-known source of information that is still somewhat 'realistical' is the newspaper "Estadao", plus a few bloggers and 'columnists'. After all it's just a matter of what you believe, >in the numbers from the government, which are artificially exceptional, depicting brazilian as one of the best countries nowadays, and the politicians compare it to european and north-american countries, or >in the numbers from other institutions, which are in most cases, the opposite of the government numbers (e.g: according to the government, every student that finishes the highschool have the respective knowledge of mathematics, the ONG Todos Pela Educação numbers are more the opposite, with only 10% having that knowledge). Once you try to speak with any student from public schools about math though, you figure out what's the most probable 'truth'. The same happens with public health, according to the politicians and the president herself, our public health is on-par with the best countries in europe, but after a quick search on youtube, you can see the reality is very different: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Or9517ZfM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORLs_4iRKQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdHPhoKMfJA . Unless you prefer to believe that millions of people joined forces to wait on the queue of public hospitals just to make it seem that the (kinda) "best public health system in the world" isn't as good. If one lives in brazil, it's just a matter of opening their eyes to see the reality, which is almost 180 degrees the direction of that the government depicts. Unfortunately, most people in brazil are very ignorant, and it makes me sick when I see 'Paulo Maluf' on TV as if he was a hero, while it's widely known he's a criminal. I know americans, british, french and argentinians that knows him as a criminal, the massive majority of brazilians though, thinks he's a 'hero' or something. Sorry my english. PS: I've linked some contents just in case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.92.117 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So the independent IBGE is lying, but some weird youtube movies show the reality? just a reminder, IBGE stated that contrary to Lula's "zero hunger" program that more Brazilians suffer from obesity then from hunger. So they make statements that the government does not like. And youtube, no, really is not a reliable source. What are all these people doing in line? If they are really sick an ambulance will (eventually) pick them up, in case of an emergency a trauma helicopter is sent. Brazil is also the country where everybody wants a pills every day, if it's for free even better. Going to the hospital with a cold for god's sake. The Paulo Maluf example is more interesting: didn't he have slogans like "I steal, but get it done" and when confronted with huge embezzlement is was spun to "I rape, but do not kill"? And sure, whenever he runs for office he still gets 10% of the vote, at least. Democracy is a lottery; everybody can participate and if you win you, your family, friends etc. are secured of public jobs, huge salaries (public sector pays more then in the US, Japan or France) and pensions etc. I think that there is no solution, like you said, apparently 50% of Brazilians think that everything is bad and close their eyes for what's good, and the other half thinks that everything is good and will have none of anything negative. You can see that on the Portuguese version of this page- you can read that the editors there are really doing their best, but they want their country to be something like Germany, so it looks a bit like wishful writing. BTW I also have my doubts about the unemployment statistics, will research that. Anybody who knows a bit about Brazil will confirm that at any given time during the days the streets are full with people who, well, probably do not work (there aren't that many capital intensive non-stop industries for a night job). So as another reader pointed out, the unemployment counting in percentages is not that high.Magafuzula (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but IBGE is everything but independent imho. It's a governmental institution and 'zero hunger' received criticism from everyone. Even though, if what you said is true, it's insanity to say that only because we have a lot of obese people than it's okay to let some die from hunger. About the youtube videos, they just show the reality, the public health just doesn't work in Brazil, and you can be damn sure that in a lot of cases the ambulance won't help. The ambulance service may work in some richer cities and in the rich neighborhoods (Jardins in SP for example) but in 95% of the cases ambulances aren't a viable option. I experienced this when I needed an ambulance in Campinas and after 30 mins waiting I just drove the person to the hospital myself. Rescue helicopters I only know from TV, even though only in SP and Rio and some other capitals. I've never saw one personally nor any people I know. We know they exist, but no one never saw one :). I'm not closing my eyes to what's good, I know we have beautiful landscapes, variety of fauna and flora, samba, soccer, carnival, parties, and all these good things, but there are many bad things also, and it makes me sad when I see that a lot of people thinks these bad things are good also. Public health, public education, public transport and pretty much everything that has 'public' in the name is a shame. Dictatorship was bad (although it was much less violent than the other LA countries) but democracy isn't working here also imho. The people doesn't have the minimum of education necessary for it. Just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.92.117 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are things to change, but I think you guys are complainig too much. The article is not different from other countries here. You even want to change the words largest, only one, fifth largest, etc from the intro, although they are relevant and the undeniable truth. Isn't Brazil the largest Lusophone Country, the largest South American, the largest Latin American, the fifth largest area and population on Earth and the only Lusophone country in Americas? It is all true and relevant. If we were talking about Vatican City we would say smallest country in the world and if we were talking about Germany we would say largest economy of Europe. Those are the kind of relevant facts that someone looks for about the countries, if they are the largest, smallest, wealthiest, only one to..., eldest, first to..., last to..., etc, in a particular category. What's the need for more neutral words and, by the way, how do you say a country is the largest anything in a more neutral way? People are complaining about the airplane photo in the economy section, even though the subtitle clearly states that Brazil is the fourth largest aircraft producer. If you want to put a nice photo of the comodities of Brazil, like soybeans and iron, ok. But soybeans from Brazil aren't much different from soybeans anyelsewhere. The point of showing an airplane is that it is easy to identify it as a model of a Brazilian Company. There are a dozen Brazilian Companies larger than Embraer but, with excepition of Ambev, they are all about commodities or services, including Oil, Mining, Banking, Siderurgy and Energy. You also said everything with the word public in it is a shame, which is not true, as everybody knows Public Universities are way better, specialy in research, which, with feel exceptions, almost doesn't exist in the Private ones. There are several problems in Brazil, of course, but the article doesn't hide them the way you say. the conclusion of the Economy section has things such as "Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index ranking Brazil 69th out of 178 countries in 2012". 187.20.62.89 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, a great number of changes have been made since this thread started, including the points you mention. You raise some interesting other points though. The fact that brazil is the largest Lusophone country in the universe is of little interest, just for the Lusophones, this page is in English so I don't think any reader cares. I'm pretty sure Brazil has the most trees in the world and the most lightning, but there is a point where you must draw the line. I'd prefer to replace it with another more interesting fact, but the mere word "Lusophone" is interesting. The other points about "largest" etc, there are/ were 2 problems here: first of all the article used terms like "huge" and "enormous", that's why this page was rejected before even getting nominated and that's why this thread exist. So, if you say that Brazil is the 5th largest in area and population you mean to say what? What is the connection between these statements, put together in 1 sentence? As it is written now, it would suggest that there is a correlation. But there is none!!! The correlation is inverse: Brazil ranks 193rd on population density. And that is the problem, on many points in the article statements are/ were constructed, combining facts into false statements or suggestions. I know what is meant: Brazil is large and has a large population, between the large countries the population density is even the highest (after china), but the way this is phrased is just wrong. Like you suggested, I checked out another page, China, and boy are you right. The page on Brazil is way more neutral then that. Please feel free to put up a better photo of Embraer, the picture of a plane from below is not nice. You are right about the commodities, only in oranges, sugar cane and sisal is Brazil the largest producer, not soy. So a photo of soy wouldn't be very interesting. Magafuzula (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys this is my first comment on wikipedia and I don't know how to post it properly (I'm assuming : stands for indentation) @187.20.62.89: Brazil is the 4th largest aircraft manufacturer in which terms? I think the correct statement is Embraer is the 4th largest civil airPLANE manufacturer in the world by revenue/sales. I'm tired of the lies regarding Embraer, the government even states "Brazil is the 3rd largest aircraft manufacturer in the world". The fact is, it's very easy to manipulate this information, one true statement is: "Embraer is the 3rd largest producer of commercial airplanes by sales", what hardly means anything if you ask me, but it doesn't matter my opinion, fact is, that statement somehow became "Brazil is the 3rd largest aircraft manufacturer in the world", what is a complete lie, in the ranking of "countries by aircraft production", I'm sure Brazil stands somewhere between 7th and 10th. Anyway, I was going to complain on how this page is 'tendentious' but it seems someone already bested me, and it seems it was even more tendentious, so, good work wikipedia guys in 'balancing' it a little bit. I was looking at pages on other countries and I really noticed the difference. The Brazil page is way 'better'. If I didn't know the country I'd say it's better than most of the other countries by reading their pages on wikipedia. I live here so I can say the reality is that it's by far the worse imho (of the countries I browsed). Just turn on the TV and you'll see that bunch of well-known corrupt politicians living large and speaking as if they were the heroes of our people! Just to name a few: Maluf, Calheiros, Lupi, Roriz, Dunga, Lucena Filho, Campos, Trinta, Betão, Reis, Suassuna, Carneiro, Fonseca, Leitão, Azeredo, Nogueira, Silvestre. Only the ones that popped in my mind, that are 'familiar' faces on the media (some are still occupying their positions) and either condemned or well-known for 'severe' corruption. So I really think that if the article spoke 50% about corruption maybe it would better depict the current situation in Brazil :). Thank god I'm packing my bags outta this s-hole in this very moment. Couldn't care less about World Cup and Olympiads. I doubt Brazil would win even a 'brass' medal if the competition were for health, education, security or honesty. Scandinavian level of taxation for sub-African government services? No, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.74.84.29 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What the hell? Let's not forget Sarney and 'sumbitches' like Garotinho, Netinho, the 40 "mensaleiros", and apparently, according to recent corruption scandals, Mario Covas, Alckmin and Serra. In fact, I think it's easier to just list every politician and assume they're corrupt, because, what's the chance you're wrong? <0.01%? The level of corruption in Brazil is ridiculous, there's corruption in almost everything, the recent scandals pointing that large corporations from other countries, including Japan, Canada and Germany (where corruption is almost non-existent) are involved in every kind of dirty corruption scheme in Brazil is just another proof that it's simply impossible to do business here without getting your hands very dirty.

Cheerio!
gente, I do not want to watch this page anymore, done more then my fair part. I am sure that this page will quickly become what its (local) editors want it to be, a large photo album, list of silly statements etc. Cheerio! Magafuzula (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BNDES out of place in the article introduction.
In the summary, there's a long sentence about BNDES:

"Brazil's national development bank (BNDES) plays an important role for the country's economic growth. It mostly depends on its own money and invests in big local firms. The bank's goal is to promote economic growth as well as to preserve the environment and protection of local communities.[20]"

Not only it's misleading (BNDES is a public bank financed by taxes, not by "its own money") but totally out of a place in a general introduction about the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.207.20 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Din Mor Sutter Pik
Hej Alle Sammen! Idag Vil jeg Lære Jer Om At Jeres Mor Er En Skank, Som Slikker Tissemand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourkind123 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013
Brazil is now 6th largest economy not 7th as said in the article. Reference: http://ultradrift.com/brazils-economy-overtakes-uks-to-become-6th-largest/

41.190.2.172 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see that ultradrift.com quite fits the bill. Rivertorch (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Brasil redirect
I was looking for Brasil (mythical island) so I plugged Brasil into the Wikipedia search bar and it redirected me to Brazil. Fine; I presume 98% of people who put Brasil into the search bar are simply misspelling Brazil. So then I hit the Brazil (disambiguation) button expecting to find my Brasil I was looking for. But it's not there either. I believe that either 1) Brasil should not redirect to Brazil but to the mythical island, but with a button at the top that says, "Did you mean the nation in South America?" and a button to Brazil, and/or; 2) the Brazil disambiguation page should include Brasil (mythical island). Someone who is more experienced than I with Wikipedia can hopefully make this decision and implement it for me. If not, it becomes challenging to find Brasil (for those of us who can spell). 173.89.8.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Brasil is written with "s" in their local language, so it makes sense that "Brasil" redirects to the country. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2013
In section 2.5, it reads: "(including those ones about new stadium projects for international sports events, as well as demands on quality of public services a diffuse anger against corruption, and opposition to a constitutional amendment proposal, PEC 37, which was popularly misinterpreted as an attempt to curb repression of corruption),[138]" The words "diffused" and "misinterpreted" indicate opinion and are biased. They should be excluded. Regarding the PEC 37, one could say that it has been argued by some congressmen[*] that the PEC 37 is an attempt to curb repression of corruption. [*]http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Brasil/noticia/2013/06/camara-adia-votacao-da-pec-37.html [*]https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEC_37

AlexisCosta (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I've copy edited the whole section, as it was very poorly written, and have incorporated your suggestions. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

religion
what is the religion of brazil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.190.172 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Water percentual
On the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources is written: "Brazil is the country estimated to have the largest supply of fresh water in the world, followed by Russia and Canada.[4]"

But when one go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil and look at column on the right, he'll reed: Area -     Total     8,515,767 km2 (5th) 3,287,597 sq mi -     Water (%)     0.65

And, according to the wikipedia information, this water percentual of Brazil is surpassed by many smaller countries randomly chosen, like Norway [ Water (%)    5.2], Austria [Water (%)     1.7], Costa Rica [ -      Water (%)     0.7].

What does this 'Water percentual' refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.204.48 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The percentage of a country that is covered by water and the available water supply are two different things and can be quite different. I think you will find that the water flow through the Amazon is greater than that of many lakes of comparable or far greater extent.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Locked page
Why is this page locked? It has grammatical errors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.76 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014
AS Brazil is hosting world cup football in 2014 across 12 different locations, the inbound tourism is expected to gain huge growth esp in Boat and Yacht Travel. https://www.facebook.com/pages/oceaninvitesyoucom/618637048179922?ref=hl/

Petallboston (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As WP:NOTADVERTIZING and WP:COATRACK (Your similar addition to Yacht was removed by a different editor) - Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Colonization section: civilize the natives (NOT)
Tsk, tsk. The colonists didn't care a hoot about *civilizing* the natives - they cared in only two ways: exploiting them, first as trading labor, later as slaves, or evangelizing them to christendom. They were already in fact quite civilized, with central governments and advanced cultures. We're not writing some kind of alternate history.Sbalfour (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Colonization - Bandeiras and boundaries
Portuguese expeditions known as Bandeiras gradually advanced the Portugal colonial original frontiers in South America to approximately the current Brazilian borders.

The situation is a whole lot more complicated than this. The statement is so narrowly focused that it is essentially wrong. While the bandeirantes penetrated to the southern and southwestern borders, especially in the Cisplatina, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso, and Goias areas, they were unknown or at least rare in the Salimoes region north of the Amazon and west of the Madeira. By the end of the Bandeirante era in the first half of the 18th century, at the time of the Madrid Accord, the known world in Amazonian South America encompassed only the above mentioned states, plus a narrow strip in the lower Amazon centered on Belem along the Atlantic coast and inland along the Amazon to about the middle of what is today state of Para. The western-most boundary fixed by the Accord was along the Madeira and Negro rivers, that in consequence of the fact the the "map of the courts" used was skewed by the Portuguese to collapse the vast Amazon into a narrow strip west of the Torsedillas Line; the Spanish didn't know the boundaries encompassed so much territory, nor that most of the northwestern upper Salimoes was not represented at all on the map, hence not allocated to either country. The 1750 boundaries excluded most of what is today the state of Amazonas; those boundaries weren't fixed until late in the 18th century. The boundaries of Acre and Bolivia weren't fixrd until the 20th century.

In an overarching sense, the boundaries were fixed by mission occupancy, not bandeirante penetration. The Accord specified that the boundaries were to be fixed by "what each [country] now holds"; this resulted in Pombal's 1751 secret directive to the Brazilian Governor to establish a line of missions/feitorias along the rivers from Belem to the capital of Mato Grosso to establish occupancy that in fact did not exist at the time of the Accord. We understand, as they did, that the Accord was based on occupancy, either missions, forts, or feitorias. The statement about bandeiras needs to be changed. Sbalfour (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You must provide your statements with more than one book references (and, at least here in Talk page, with preview - on google books eg. - for each statement, so people can check them) for debate continuity with appropriate and referenced replies, until we reach a consensus. Otherwise, there will be no reason to argue the point. 187.38.66.68 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed the dispute sign, since references to support the arguments for it, for start checking and debate, were not presented. Unbaratocha (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A Regression?
Between 2009 and 2012, much has been discussed (especially in the historical section) about the need to keep the size of the article in an encyclopedic format, lean, with links directing to detailed articles. And precisely in this historical section, the era of Portuguese colonization was increased without justification, going to contain details that could very well be in the specific articles of colonial period. So, if unambiguous justifications are not displayed, with proper book references (preferably in English), I will revert the section to appropriate size as already agreed by consensus, in the years cited. Cybershore (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong indication of largest cities' population numbers
The population number of Brazil's largest cities is incongruous in that for São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro the author clearly used the number of those cities' urban areas (metropolitan regions), while for all the other cities the numbers are for each municipality alone. São Paulo, for example, had around 11 million inhabitants in its municipality in 2010, while its urban area had 19 million, while, for example, Fortaleza had about 2.5 million in its municipality and its urban area had around 3.5 million. So, this needs to be changed since the reference must be made to the "largest cities", with the correct numbers for São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and not the "largest urban areas".177.19.67.249 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014
Brazil has a new climate map.

Please include the map in the topic about climate of Brazil.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen_climate_classification_Brazil.tif

Thanks.

Climaupdate (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please be much more specific about exactly what you want changed. Thanks... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 02:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014
200.165.167.134 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) United Kingdom with Portugal Main article : United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves In late 1807, the Spanish and the Napoleonic forces threatened the security of continental Portugal, causing the Prince Regent John , on behalf of Queen Mary I, to move the royal court from Lisbon to Brazil. [ 66 ] There, they established some of the first financial institutions in Brazil, such as their local exchanges of stock, [ 67 ] a National Bank, Bank of Brazil , ended the monopoly of the colony trade with Portugal , opening it to other nations England and their allies who became a great world power at that period , absorbing large amounts of precious metals originating from Brazil by the Portuguese. In 1809, in retaliation for having been forced into exile , the prince regent ordered the Portuguese conquest of French Guiana. [68]

With the end of the Peninsular War in 1814, the courts of Europe demanded that Queen Maria I and Prince Regent João returned to Portugal , considering it unsuitable for a former head of European monarchy to reside in a colony. In 1815, in order to justify continuing to live in Brazil , where the royal court had prospered in the past six years , the Crown established the United Kingdom of Portugal , Brazil and Algarves , thus creating a transatlantic pluricontinental monarchical state. [ 69 ] Portuguese leaders demanded the return of the court to Lisbon, as the Liberal Revolution of 1820 required , and groups of Brazilians still demanded independence and a republic , as 1817 showed Pernambuco revolt. [ 69 ] In 1821, as a demand of revolutionaries who had taken the city of Porto [ 70 ] D. João VI was unable to resist any longer and went to Lisbon. There he swore an oath to the new constitution, leaving his son Prince Pedro de Alcântara as regent of the kingdom of Brazil. [71]
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 123chess456 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

1807 or 1808
When was the capital of the kingdom moved from Lisbon to Rio de Janiero? In the introduction text it says 1808, but in the history section, it says 1807... ---Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Time Zone
The top right panel currently includes : Time zone 	BRT (UTC−2 to −5) - Summer (DST) 	BRST (UTC−2 to −5) Time zone does not change seasonally, but the offset from UTC does change seasonally in Brazil. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014
201.25.180.88 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014
177.189.114.1 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  NQ    talk  00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014
86.156.229.176 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC) That Brazil should be spelt Brasil ike Brazilians spell it
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In the caption of the image of Sugarloaf, the is a link to sugarloaf, but the link should be Sugarloaf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.189.176 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Brazil Military
"The armed forces of Brazil are the second-largest in Latin America"

Second??? who did write it? Brazil IS the largest military power in Latin America.The own source say it

92.10.34.73 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Came here to say this, Brazilian Armed Forces says they are biggest


 * ✅ Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Official date of discovery most likely not true
There is new documentation found in Brazilian land registrars with claims dating 40-50 years back to the official date of discovery (this is an exciting new finding that should be confirmed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.179.138.67 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014
Mundial 2014 luego de Brasil perdiera 7 - 1 contra Alemania el pueblo Argentino y la la milicia le cantan el tema: "Brasil decime que se siente", esto es una cariñosa rivalidad de dos naciones hermanas que se convertira en un hito histórico al ganar argentina el mundial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnF8kXCNTXU

190.246.85.46 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, and all requests and references need to be in English. - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.