Talk:2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sophie007007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Racism

Let's be clear. There are two narratives being told right now. One is from the big corporations and first world countries that say Amazon is being destroyed and they need to "protect it", and are calling for "international action" (that is, invading and killing brazilians). Another narrative is of the brazilian people, government, and foreign policy specialists, which says nothing of the sort is happening, and there is a defamation campaign going on against Brazil and the brazilian people, with evil intentions.

I made an edit on this heavily biased wikipedia article, but the edit was deleted. Why is wikipedia reproducing the american-european narrative instead of the brazilian narrative? The Amazon is in Brazil, so obviously the brazilian narrative should receive priority. But instead, it is contained in a small section called "response". It's the american-european narrative which should be contained in a space called "response". I can only attribute this decision to racism against brazilians by the editors of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C0:E3FE:7C81:2664:96AF:2A0 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. It is clear that the Brazilian stance is a minority view. We are not ignoring it - we have responses from the gov't that address their stance this is a narrative against Brazil and their other concerns, but in terms of the presentation of the situation, we've got to go with the world-prevailing view, being this is from unprecedented deforestation.

This is also not racism. --Masem (t) 16:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How the brazilian stance is a minority view, if it is the view of the brazilian government, state, and Armed Forces? Supposedly, Macron or Merkel know more about the Amazon than brazilian authorities? Brazilian official position, that there is nothing atypical going on in the Amazon, and that fake news are being broadcasted in international media, should be the major narrative in the article. Yes, to suppose american New York Times and Washington Post know more about the Amazon than brazilian authorities is plain and obvious racism against Brazilians.

Only a part of the Brazilian people believe that it is happening with evil intentions and the Amazon aren't only from Brazil, but from Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. Ok, Brazil have the larger part, but is not 100%. Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if "only a part of brazilian people". Every patriot in Brazil knows there is an attack going on and that is the official position of brazilian authorities, generals and Armed Forces. In fact, it is being compared to the campaign in 2002-2003 against the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" of Iraq. It's sad to see that Wikipedia is promoting war and massacre of brazilians.

Define patriot/patriotism in this case. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not the place for the opinions of one person. If is really happening a campaign of "war and massacre of brazilians." you need to provide really notable sources. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I provided the sources, which were ignored, in my edit of the article. In the !Historical and Geographical Institute of the Federal District", a brazilian think-thank, two of our most important generals, Eduardo Villas-Boas and Alberto Cardoso, affirmed there is an "indirect war" being waged against Brazil, an attack against the brazilian state. This is not some conspiracy theorist, but the high command of brazilian armed forces. Source: https://www.forte.jor.br/2019/08/06/generais-dizem-que-pais-esta-sob-ataque-indireto-de-nacoes-estrangeiras/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C0:E3FE:7C81:2664:96AF:2A0 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"Generais dizem"/"Generals said"... Is their opinions. Without intel data and more notable and reliable sources, this could be considered as a conspiration theory that worth as much as the accusations from the president that the NGOs started that. At the moment, this is Argument from authority. The only thing that could be inserted in some article about the Amazon (or even here) is their ideas for the administration from the region.Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If it was the american generals, or american senators, or UN representatives saying one thing, it would be considered a valid source. But since it's the brazilian generals, it doesn't count as source because neocolonialists must keep their defamation campaign against the poor people of Brazil. I don't know how there could be any more "notable and reliable" source than the ex-commander of brazilian army, general Vilas-Boas. The man commanded many troops that serve in the Amazon. People who live in the Amazon. There is no greater authority in the world regarding the Amazon than him. If you can't see there is a coordinated defamation campaign of hate against brazilians going on, you are blind. I just searched "amazon forest" in google news and there were 2 million news related to it just yesterday. A month ago nobody in the first world even knew Brazil or the Amazon existed, and suddenly everyone is repeating the same narrative worldwide and there is no reasonable explanation for this phenomena except for it being neocolonialism and racism. It's the most obvious case of neocolonialism in recent years.

"A month ago nobody in the first world even knew Brazil or the Amazon existed," Are you serious? The Amazon river is the biggest river in the world. The Amazon rainforest is the biggest such ecosystem in the world. Brazil is one of the biggest countries, according to land area, in the world... And you're telling us that the "first world," wasn't AWARE of Brazil or the Amazon up to until only two months ago? This is information that us, in "the first world", learn in elementary geography/social studies classwork. Keep your fake, blown out assertions out of wikipedia, as such things do no one any good. Most people care about the environment, as it effects everyone on this planet and Brazil is not being invaded, nor is its sovereignty being violated, by people wanting to maintain one of Earth's most diverse and fragile ecosystems. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I found an article in Veja (a major news magazine in Brazil) that included quotes from Villas-Boas, in line with the idea that a military response may result, which I have included. --Masem (t) 21:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The only racism going on here is Bolsonaro’s avowed and openly admitted hatred for Indigenous Brazilians and their land which he pledged to destroy. So calm down. Trillfendi (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Brazilians are descendants of indigenous populations. Contrary to americans, we didn't exterminate the natives. It's typical of the colonizer to invert and blame the victims for his crimes.

Brazilians are a mixed population. Indigenous peoples, Europeans, Africans and combinations thereof The Euro-African portion of the population probably outnumbers the indigenous population, which as I understand it is under constant dispossession pressure by the money powers of Brazil (ranchers and resource extractors)Oldperson (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Both US and Brazil were colonized by Europeans. Still exist indigenous populations in North America. Portugal didn't fully exterminate the Indigenous People from Brazil, but tried - or would still exist a lot in the millions - and the currently government are really working against them. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You should study some history. Start by reading the letter of Pero Vaz de Caminha, which I'm sure you never did. Portuguese never "tried" to exterminate indians, that is an imperialist lie created by first worlders to pretend we are "as bad as they are". There are millions of descendants on indigenous people in Brazil. Pretty much all northwest population is half indigenous - that's 50 million people. That UN employee is clearly a first world racist trying to defame and attack Brazil. The new racism is all about saying people from the third world are the real racists - that is, inverting the victim with the perpetrator. Bolsonaro is the victim of world racism right now, as well as the entire brazilian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C1:3FC8:F9CE:3847:7F1:8921 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

When you use the argument that the another "need to study more" in a harsh an non educated way, you "lose" the argument. The idea that Bolsonaro is the victim and that the first world want's to exterminate Brazilians is ridiculous and the argument of "Pretty much all northwest population is half indigenous" also doesn't work, because in the past existed the idea of using miscegenation as in a way to "whiten the race" in a clearly racist politics. The way you talk - and I saw in the whole internet - is from whom tries very had to "protect" the President in any way and see him as a "saint" or even a "messianic figure" after the horrible assassination attempt - and only the hardcore Bolsonaro followers do that. At end, Brazil is not under attack, is not being victim of "extermination plans" and the evidence is that Bolsonaro discourses (the currently division the the Brazilian public - and the extensive use of fake news, like in the 2018 elections) are the one who fueled the things that happens now. Behaviors like the one that you shows here to the entire world (this topic will stay archived for as long as Wikipedia exist) are what really ruins the image of Brazil in the rest of the world. Just stop for a moment and see that the symbol that Bolsonaro represents (and sadly a lot of people - but not 'all Brazilians identify) mainly with his words, are the real threat for Brazil itself. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The page should be moved to 2019 Amazon basin wildfires. As satellite imagery attests, the fires don't magically stop at the Brazilian side of the border with Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.94.107.55 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Portuguese page, one proposed that the title "2019 South America wildfires" could be better. Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I have noted that these other countries are also experiencing wildfires, but from the media level, they are all taking responsible steps to halt them, and from what I understand, they also get these year after year. It's the Brazil ones that raising concern due to the gov't attitude towards it. --Masem (t) 02:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If the Bolsonaro Administration reacted better in the past weeks, the global concerns wouldn't have happened in the same level. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is any racism it is on the part of Bolisario. He has been blaming the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, when in fact, from news reports, the fires are being set by resource extraction companies and corporate ranchers to clear cut the land to make way for mining, petroleum extraction and cattle ranching, and in fact Indigenous peoples claim that Brazil's President is encouraging Destruction of the Rainforest https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8/23/headlines and How Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous People https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8/23/headlines/indigenous_communities_say_brazils_president_is_encouraging_destruction_of_forestsOldperson (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, your edit was the one which was biased. It is a fringe point of view of those who made those articles. Besides, blaming indigenous and NGOs for the wildfires is racist when it is clear it is the large companies being the main cause of the wildfires. Your edit also seemed to be attempting to spark anger to the Western countries, so it was reverted. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't think this is "racism", I could call a type of xenophobia. We know what Americans and europeans really wants from Amazon - what is inside the land, not the trees or forests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.64.240 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What you are saying is Xenophobic, with the "Americans" this and the "Europeans" that. When it's Brazil's leaders that were enabling irresponsible behavior by their own companies and citizens. Most of the people worried about this, from many countries, are legitimately wanting the preservation of the forest habitat. I suggest that the IP users that have been posting propaganda and casting aspersions, take the time and read more articles on wikipedia and learn why the Amizon rainforest is so important, before posting further nonsense. Persistent Corvid (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Endangered species

The article lacks information about the endangered species which are being burned by Bolsonaro, like lions, hyenas, giraffes and elephants. 131.72.222.158 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Amazon is in Brazil, not Africa. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

About this edit: "happy lions"? Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And let us not forget about the lemurs. They're very precious. —Partytemple (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Partytemple: lemurs live in Madagascar, nowhere near the Amazon. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 10:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Scientists discovered recently that lemurs live in Rio de Janeiro, and their favorite diet is the churrascaria. —Partytemple (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible "Media sensationalism" section

There is potential for a possible "media sensationalism" topic which is related to the mistaken photos, but we would need more sources beyond this NYPost article. I'm keeping an eye open for this. --Masem (t) 21:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't there a section for this before, and someone said it was unnecessary? I think if it has enough articles for a section, it deserves one. But I haven't looked at this in depth. —Partytemple (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Economic damage

I'm noticing that the economic damage figure cites a 2018 paper, about hypothetical forest dieback. I'm looking for better economic estimates but not finding any so far. Seems like "Cost: >957 billion" is not a legitimate estimate of the 2019 fires. Delete that part? (I think this study can be cited but needs to be made clear it's hypothetical and not about the actual fire.) --69.181.48.2 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)