Wikipedia

Talk:Brazil/Archive 16

< Talk:Brazil
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 168.181.62.234 in topic Sections structure
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The text in Wikipedia under Brazil - "Science and technology" is wrong. There no other synchrotron accelerator in Latin America! The reference shows different machines that is not Synchrotron at at all. Please, consider reviewing.

Brazil is one of two countries in southern hemisphere [1] with an operational Synchrotron Laboratory, a research facility on physics, chemistry, material science and life sciences. 134.79.222.200 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This proposed edit seems like WP:Undue weight to me. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "LightSource.org". 23 July 2014. Retrieved 23 July 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When it says that Brazil is 23rd in export worldwide, the country is actually 20th. 75.159.198.109 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That statement in the article is unsourced. Can you point me towards a source that says 23 or 20? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The page that "source" link goes to does not say if Brazil is 20th or 23th in export worldwide. If it is a subpage of that site, please give a specific link to the page that says it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Venetian

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talian dialect, that is, shouldn't Venetian be added to spoken languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.251.252 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

change 'such as its local ((Stock Exchange|stock exchanges))' to 'such as its local ((stock exchange))s' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 (talk • contribs)

  Done Stickee (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

brasil,es el mas puto pais de todo el mundo y arrogante, son una mierda 179.25.231.95 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done This is English Wikipedia, so all requests must be in English. Also, they need a reliable source, no source has been provided. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dialect vs Language

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does the box, in the Official languages section links to Brazilian Portuguese dialect article instead of linking to the Portuguese language article? The Official language in Brazil is Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese is just a dialect. I think this should be corrected. Tacv (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

179.183.3.97 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC) http://estacaotatuape.com.br/

  Not done no reason to add a spamlink - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)]]

Ethymology

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been suggested before to add the ethymology of Brazil as coming from Irish (legend of Hy-Brazil) than from Latin (Brasa). There's a new source now that seems to argue that the origin of "pau-brasil" (brazilwood) is actually from an Irish name that means "from red". Please evaluate. The source: http://ecoviagem.uol.com.br/noticias/curiosidades/historia/localizado-na-europa-o-primeiro-territorio-chamado-brasil-era-uma-ilha-magica-18422.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.213.146 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Libras is NOT an official language of Brazil

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That is a false information. The approved law (the source given) clearly states that Libras has been recognised as a "legal means of communication of expression": https://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Lei_Federal_do_Brasil_10436_de_2002 The info needs correcting. 3826384729O (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:658:5A01:18F5:B83D:FC51:F668 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

190.231.77.103 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  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. Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No pics of the most important city of the country São Paulo??

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

well, how can you describe a country if you don´t post no one picture of the most important city of Brazi? the metropolitan transport, railway network, avenues, shoppings, theather, trade centers, schools etc.. you must show the modern part of the country and not only ancient pics! this page look like a museum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.189.220.36 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a little bit more about corruption

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm in Brazil and it amazes me how there's a culture of corruption among the average Brazilian. The article does address corruption, but not in everyday life. Here are some Wikipedia articles:

and some external sources (some may be unreliable):

Google will find you a thousand more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.109.11 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Drives on the right ??

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is correct. Brazil drives on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.247 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the phrase: "Brazil is a developed country." to "Brazil is a developing country with political problems" Ziulmota (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ❤ 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

section language: "connexion"...? 174.19.240.40 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done While connexion is a valid spelling, I concur that the more commonly found connection is less likely to confuse readers; I have made the change to this spelling. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Optribeiro (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the proper english name is Federal Republic of Brazil.

  Not done: Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the briefness and historical perspective

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Recently in a revertion well performed by Lecen, was reminded that there is no sense in giving for the two last years of the history of Brazil, a weight equivalent to the previous 500.
I agree and go further, emphasizing that there is no sense in the overall history of a country with hundreds of years, in give excessive weight to a political crisis, common to today's democracies.
This is not seen for example in historical summaries of other countries (USA [as eg. In a recent crisis that has paralyzed public services in the country, 2011 England riots, strikes in France, cabinet changes in Italy, prison of some forme prime ministers in some of these countries, etc etc).
I see no point for example in giving prominence to the actual Brazilian political crisis, Same or Greater than for example to the transition of Monarchy to Republic, which had the biggest economic crisis of Brazilian history (so far), which led to rebellions and revolution attempts with thousands of dead. Or in relation to the Paraguayan War, just because the actual crisis is in the present time (pleonasm apart). There are other spaces in Wikipedia more appropriate to the detail of these events.
So I suggest a reduction in the last 3 paragraphs of Contemporary History section, placing references only in English, and giving more neutrality to such stretch.
My suggestion:
"The peaceful transition of power from Fernando Henrique to his main opposition leader, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (elected in 2002, re-elected in 2006), was seen as a proof that Brazil had finally succeeded in achieving a long-sought political stability. In June 2013, following the viral phenomenon of worldwide manifestations (such as the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street, English 2011 riots and the Spanish Indignados), numerous protests erupted in Brazil." (Here, I suggest a cut of the rest of the paragraph - the reasons, motives, and the unfolding of the protests must be - as others themes linked in the article - under "the responsibility" of the link about the protests. A summary section shouldn't explain all details, every reason or why, but keep a general idea indicating links that can do it by themselves - and their sub-links).
Just as there is no need to detail Every change of prime minister or president in a general history summary of a country (including the recent ones), or the historic "summaries" of all countries would become paradoxically and impractically Large.

Continuing (on the same line):
"In the wake of the polarization of the presidential campaign in 2014, amid a political and economic crises that came from the middle of her first term, Dilma Roussef (related this stretch, I state that mention on the fact of she being the 1st woman president of the country, that she was elected in 2010 and reelected in 2014, or related to her popularity peaks and falls, due the reasons explained above and bellow, 'should be in the proper link, of her public Wiki profile) suffers an impeachment process by the lower chamber of Congress, under large street protests for and against both sides." Cybershore (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Again: there is no need to make a general summary of a country too detailed, adding for example every past Election campaign, or change of prime minister/president, at the risk of such "summaries" become paradoxically and impractically huge (an example of such practicality is that most of past Brazilian presidents, as their election campaigns, are not even mentioned in this article).
Just as there is no need to detail names of police operations or a single scheme, since in this case In addition to Petrobras scandal, as the unfolding of Operation Lava Jato and attached Plea Bargains revelations, surfaced decades of Odebrecht schemes, financing campaign from Belo Monte Electric bribes, Tax Evasion at Panama Papers etc.
Even under the excuse of being current facts, since Wikipedia has adequate spaces for Present events coverage. Cybershore (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Lecen and Cybershore: First, there is no reason not to mention Dilma's election in chronological order. Secondly, neither is there any logic in not mentioning why the lower house began a impeachment process against her. Delete it with the excuse that makes the section "too extensive" is simply wrong and creates a historical gap in the text. I already agree to delete the mention about the Operation Car Wash, so I do not understand the reason for this absurd insistence on reversing my contributions. Chronus (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, there is no need to make a general summary of a country too detailed, the mention about the reasons of approval of the impeachment procedure for example are in the specific article concerning the procedure, which is already linked in this section! For example, anyone interested on the reasons and other details about Paraguayan War, will have just to click at its related link, to acess the full articule and its details, as well as other subjects
BTW, the election of 2010 is already linked (See in "who succeeded Lula in 2010 "); So, Please Pay Atention! Cybershore (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The history section has to be trimmed down more and more. It's simply too large as it is now. If it has poor grammar, then fix it, but don't waste time adding more information. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, definitely me and Lecen have our divergences about the extent of this "too large", as well as where and how cuts eventually could or should be made. Anyway, surely we agree that there is no any help in make it longer. Cybershore (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
That poorly written text that you want to impose on the article tries to pass the idea that the president is going through a impeacheament process because of corruption scandals that have come to be investigated in her government, which is not true, since the reason is fiscal responsibility crime. BTW, the comparison with the Paraguayan War is simply absurd and ridiculous and 200 kb not make anything "too detailed". Chronus (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"BTW, the election of 2010 is already linked (See in "who succeeded Lula in 2010 "); So, Please Pay Atention!" - Do you know the concept of chronology or should I leave the link to a dictionary? In your wrong version the 2013 protests are quoted before Rousseff's election, which was in 2010. Moreover, it is important to mention that she was the first woman president of Brazil. Stop trying to impose your version based on weak arguments. Chronus (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't try to impute to others your faults and own practice, here it simply doesn't work.
Besides failing to refute any of arguments above, you are going against the consensus of 2 editors. Cybershore (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
We are not trying to impose anything. I'm going to repeat it, again: the present text is bad. Adding more information won't make any good. The text has to be diminished and its wording and facts improved. Adding two paragraphs merely to talk about the last year in Brazilian history makes no sense. The country has 500 years. In fact, it should be something like "in 2010, Lula was succeeded by Dilma Rousself, who was reelected later on in 2014." It's painfully clear that the present events in Brazil aren't done yet. She'll probably be impeached, but it's not up to us to argue her true importance to Brazilian history. The past 10 years, no matter how important to us now, because we are living it, do not have the same importance as the westward conquest by the Portuguese during the colonial times, the rise of Pedro II, the delimitation of boundaries by the Baron of Rio Branco and the dictatorships of Vargas and the military. --Lecen (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why do you not try to refute my arguments instead revert my edits? Stop straightaway to promote wars editions and vandalize the article. Your childish behavior is embarrassing. Chronus (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, do not tell lies. There is no "two editors consensus" and I am rebut your version with consistent arguments. In addition, the editor Lecen criticized all "history" section and said that the entire text should be changed. This is not support your version. Stop this juvenile behavior! Chronus (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You again try to impute to others your own practice, you have been warned, yet insists on the same behavior.
No, you is who could not refute any of arguments above, mine or of Lecen. Cybershore (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, here them again:
Mine:
"...There is no sense in the overall history of a country with hundreds of years, in give excessive weight to a political crisis, common to today's democracies.
 This is not seen for example in historical summaries of other countries (USA [as eg. In a recent crisis that has paralyzed public services in the country, 2011 England riots, strikes in France, cabinet changes in Italy, prison of some forme prime ministers in some of these countries, etc etc).
I see no point for example in giving prominence to the actual Brazilian political crisis, Same or Greater than for example to the transition of Monarchy to Republic, which had the biggest economic crisis of Brazilian history (so far), which led to rebellions and revolution attempts with thousands of dead. Or in relation to the Paraguayan War, just because the actual crisis is in the present time (pleonasm apart). There are other spaces in Wikipedia more appropriate to the detail of these events."
 of Lecen:
"We are not trying to impose anything. I'm going to repeat it, again: the present text is bad. Adding more information won't make any good. The text has to be diminished and its wording and facts improved. Adding two paragraphs merely to talk about the last year in Brazilian history makes no sense. The country has 500 years. In fact, it should be something like "in 2010, Lula was succeeded by Dilma Rousself, who was reelected later on in 2014." It's painfully clear that the present events in Brazil aren't done yet. She'll probably be impeached, but it's not up to us to argue her true importance to Brazilian history. The past 10 years, no matter how important to us now, because we are living it, do not have the same importance as the westward conquest by the Portuguese during the colonial times, the rise of Pedro II, the delimitation of boundaries by the Baron of Rio Branco and the dictatorships of Vargas and the military"." Cybershore (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop copying sentences already said and have the decency to stop behaving like a 12 years child and create minimally plausible arguments to defend that absurd edition. I'll reverse your vandalism as much as necessary. Chronus (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Have refute any of the above arguments? No
Not only that, you simply insist in going against two editors, besides trying to impute your own behavior on others.
So, I will not only repeat the above arguments as much as necessary against your attempts of flooding the discussion (enjoy the meaning of term in your own language, For those who are following this talk and don't understand Portuguese, any online translation of the link will be enough);
as well as since you insist, from now I'll also start to work in the version for the same section of Wikipedia in Portuguese. Cybershore (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of attitudes that you make. You should refute my arguments, as I did with this childish tantrum that you call "argumentation". The fact that Rousseff is the first woman elected in the country is relevant and historical want your child's mind accepted or not. The 2010 election should be cited before the 2013 protests, as a matter of chronological order. Do not make me repeat it again. And what is this? A threat? Please, don't make me laugh! Your juvenile behavior is quite embarrassing and shows the kind of people I'm dealing with here. Chronus (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is just show yourself ;)
Apparently, in the absence of counter arguments by your part related to the arguments widely exposed above by me and Lecen, you completely lost your emotional balance. So I suggest that in addition to rethink your position and attitude, perhaps a break in your Wikipedia activity might be a good measure for maintaining your sanity. Cybershore (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Dilma Rousseuf has been recently impeached by the Brazilian senate. You need to remove her from wikipedia as the president of Brazil 2A02:C7D:C53:8100:ECC3:588B:669C:47B1 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The historical section of this article is a summary of country history (about 500 years so far), not a 24 hours news update of its recent events!!!
The Brazilian Senate would vote this week whether or not it would follow the Lower House for the opening impeachment procedure against the current president. What would mean a temporary suspension of her from presidency for 180 days, while the procedure runs, not her definitive impeachment. What, only occur at the end of the process.

  • Now, with the cancellation of the Lower House voting made 2 weeks ago, there is simply no sense in a summary of 500 years of history, keep it updating with the comings and goings of such procedure (Again, there are other spaces in Wikipedia appropriate to the news updates).
  • So, any mention of such a procedure must be kept out of this sum until the impeachment of the current president is TOTALLY completed Or at least her temporary suspension defined by the local senate (even so, is worth to remind that even this in a summary of 500 yrs country history will be removed IF the impeachment process doesn't end with the definitive removal of current president, after the 180 days of the opening procedure by Senate). Cybershore (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

alert "lol lol lol u hav been hacked shrubs. go die in hell" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxxorguy123 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Media in Brazil

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It'd be nice to have Media in Brazil, akin to Media in the U.S.; see Category:Media in Brazil. fgnievinski (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As the world's fifth-largest country by both area and population, it is the largest country to have Portuguese as an official language–and the only one in the Americas.

Being the wold's fifth largest country does not make Brazil the largest Portuguese-official-language country. The two are unrelated--there is a logic disconnect. Either delete "As," changing the introductory phrase into a noun appositive, or go to an independent-clause construction: "Brazil is the world's fifth-largest country by both area and population; it is also the largest country to have Portuguese as an official language–and the only one in the Americas.

While I am here, "fifth-largest" should not be hyphenated. I would not consider "fifth largest" to be a single-unit modifier.

Scrambles729 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical perspective

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Once user Chronus has repeatedly tried to reverse the last paragraph of "Contemporary Era" in the History section without providing any justification, I reopen a discussion which had ended in April. Cybershore (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Without justification"? What? Did you notice us saying that this article is a summary and that does it makes no sense to mention the Arab Spring, especially because you said yourself that it has no direct relation to Brazil's protests? It's a summary. That's it. You mention the most important facts. Even so, people and events that had great repercussion in Brazilian history are left out. However, you want the Arab Spring there, even though it has nothing to with Brazil. Lastly, learn to discuss on the talk page. You won't go anywhere edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I could make a case about it if I wanted to, but have you ever noticed that there is NO mention of the "Arab Spring" in my recent editions?
Obviously not, so I strongly recommend to you and anyone else first read the edition before reverses it. Anything else apart it? Cybershore (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Brazil has 206.081.432 inhabitants now according to this recent pool from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Here is the source: http://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2016/08/brasil-tem-mais-de-206-milhoes-de-habitantes-segundo-o-ibge.html apachaves 17:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Note that your source is dated in August, while the article's source is dated today, this month (September) and gives a figure of 206,440,850 (as of this moment, in fact).  Paine  u/c 04:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I found a mistake but I can not fix it . It is a pronouncuation mistake . Crafthole21 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Brazil's military enemies

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What are their enemies Crafthole21 (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See Paraguayan War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.179.77.127 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section Law Enforcement and Crime, there is Federal and ESTADUAL .... at the beginning ESTADUAL show be changed to state Dougbr (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Photo that shows the impeached president Dilma should be removed when the page is about brazil and not about someone especially when that person made 12 million people loose their job by irresponsible acts and corruption! The photo must be replaced as it is talking about Globo the second largest Tv network of the world by something similar, could be the JN (National Journal) 177.40.1.153 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done Rousseff was head of state and an important politician in Brazil's history (regardless of each of us liking her or not), and the picture of her being interviewed at the TV studio is a valid illustration of Globo network's influence and relationship with brazilian politics when it brought a head of state for a live interview in the most watched prime time newscast.}} Fbergo (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong claim

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The claim that Brazil is the only country that officially speaks Portuguese on America is wrong. Uruguai also recognises Portuguese as one of its official languages after Spanish. 187.79.216.126 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So fix it? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Which is the source for that? Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If someone provides a source, please add it to Uruguay also (where Portuguese as a language is already present). Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Note, however, that one thing is the presence of people who speak a given language, and another one is an official language. A reference for this point should say that Portuguese is legally acknowledged as an official language, not simply that there are many Uruguayans fluent in Portuguese. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rare drawings of Brazilian animals by 17th-century Dutch painter Frans Post now on Wikimedia Commons

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Frans Post (1612-1680) was a Dutch painter from Haarlem belonging to the Dutch School. Between 1636-1644, he received a commission from John Maurice of Nassau, then governor of Brazil, to travel to Brazil and document its people, nature and landscape. During his time in Brazil, Post made drawings and sketches of animals, which he probably used as studies for his paintings. Thirty-four of these drawings were recently discovered in the Noord-Hollands Archief. The archive has graciously made the digitised drawings available for re-use on Wikimedia Commons. Regards, AWossink (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Chronus and Arthur Brum: Please discuss your differences here instead of constantly reverting each other. --NeilN talk to me 20:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Images in section religion

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello @Chronus:, it would be nice to see that everyone assumes good faith in everyones edits. Also you in mine. I took the image of the statue exactly due to the fact that it is a well known monument. It does not get clear to me why this is a drawback. Furthermore Christianity is without a doubt the only major religion in Brazil. Islam and Judaism form far less than <1% of the population and do not play any significant role at all. That is why using an image showing a building or religious monument of one of these two minor religions will portray a distorted view in this article. That is the reasoning behind the edits. I insist in either excluding the image of the Jewish site or reinstating the prior double image with the Christ Statue. Greetings. --Joobo (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I ask you Chronus and others to engage into discussion as this is the way one deals with such things in WP. obrigado.--Joobo (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About today editions in the "Early Republic" Section:

In order to let the article lighter, besides have deleted the excess of references for a same stretch, I repositioned the reference about "League of Nations" in the 2nd paragraph, which is the one referring to the foreign policy of the 1st Brazilian republic (which came after its 1st military civilian dictatorship - not to be confused with "Old Republic" or 1st Brazilian Republican Period, of which Both are part); where there already was also a link referring to Brazil during the WWI.
As well as I deleted another duplicate link (the one of Encilhamento), which is already linked in the 1st paragraph (as economic crisis) of the edited section.
In this way, the foreign policies of both phases, the 1st Brazilian Republic Period and the 2nd Brazilian Civilian Military Dictatorship (Vargas Era), are now split and positioned in their respective paragraphs.

I would like to leave this section open to all editors who find it necessary to justify duplicate link edits, in order to prevent possible war edits. Unbaratocha (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo - Don't know procedure for fixing in a semi-protected article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the History - Early Republic section, it reads "In the 1930s, three faleid attempts to remove Vargas" - how can this be fixed? 148.88.244.57 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Please see WP:EDITREQ for future requests, or consider joining Wikipedia and creating an account. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Italian

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

please change ((Italian)) to ((Italy|Italian))

The word "Italian" appears 7x in the article. Can you please be more specific? —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  Note: Added {{Tb}} to OP's talk page. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Note: Marking this as closed; no response from original editor. st170e 16:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change [[constitutional republic] to [[Republic|constitutional republic]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.76.234 (talk) 18:02, June 6, 2017

  Not done Constitutional republic redirects to Republic so the requested change does not affect either the presentation or the function of the wikilink. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Italian Brazilians

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this article should be more democratic. It should describe the real brazilian population, composed by indigenous people, brown, black, asians, middle east and europeans (mainly portuguese). We can´t ignore that Brazil has the one of the largest italian settlement of the world, but we should show pictures that reflect the diversity of the brazilian population.

I don't know why you brought that up since the suffix "-itali" and the word "Italy" are much less frequent in the body of the article than "-indige" (indigenous). Maybe when you created this entry it wasn't like that? All the more reason to always sign the comments in Wikipedia.--Bruno Ulivi (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Brazil is not the largest country in the Americas by "continental area"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The intro of the article currently says "...besides being the largest of the Americas by continental area." WTH is continental area? Google turns up nothing: I'm assuming this is WP:original research. The only logical assumption is that it is excluding islands, in which case Brazil might be larger than Canada but not the US. The contiguous United States + mainland Alaska is still larger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.173.8 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't find anything in the references either, so I'm removing it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of the "contemporary era"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to propose to the other publishers to expand the "contemporary era" section of the article to include more details about the past and present events, in addition and more recent illustrative images, since almost the last image shown in this section of the article is almost 30 years old And is no longer exactly conttemporary. Ignácio (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Brazilian law being based on Roman-Germanic traditions" not being in the citation given is false

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The statement is in the citation given, but only in the Portuguese version of the page. They removed it from the English translation for some reason. If you click the green "POR" button in the top corner, the language changes to Portuguese and the new article opens with: "O ordenamento jurídico brasileiro é baseado na tradição romano-germânica..." which translates to "The Brazilian legal system is based on the Roman-Germanic tradition..."

The "not in the citation given" template doesn't even make sense to begin with. Even the English translation says the law is based on the "Civil Law tradition", the modern term for Roman-Germanic law. Sentido33 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Partly done: The Portuguese text of that page does indeed differ from the English. However, civil law (legal system) has an article to link to which Roman-Germanic legal tradition does not, so I edited the text to point to the civil law article. Also, as you point out, the correct term in English to describe this legal tradition is is civil law and the Portuguese text also draws the equivalence between the terms. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone reverted the edit for no reason. Sentido33 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chronus:, can you explain why you restored the text that was tagged and the tag? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sentido33:, I have restored the change since @Chronus: has not replied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Sentido33 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change

 
The Rio Carnival, a type of samba parade.

to

 
The Rio Carnival, a type of samba parade.

Gresasc (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Brazil gdps

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Brazil must follow all other countries presentation standards.United States,UK and all main countries have 2016 estoimates.Do you live in the future?2017 has yet to end.If nobody answer it'll be set all at 2016.Kingofwoods (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you!, well.. it is always good to wait until the end of the year, with nominal you don't have to trust. AlfaRocket (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
already the value of the brazilian gdp nominal with the latest projection of the IMF shows today

Brazil GDP value in brazilian real ( 6604) 1,979 trillion of US dollars. Italy GDP Value in Euro ( 1,703) 2,009 Trillion of US dollars, it means that for next year Brazil will have a weak GDP.AlfaRocket (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The area considered of Brazil in the second line "At 8.5 million square kilometers (3.2 million square miles)" as per reference "https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/cartografia/default_territ_area.shtm" is wrong it should be "At 8515 million square kilometers (3287 million square miles)" or "At 8.5 billion square kilometers (3.2 billion square miles)" Anantha.rks (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: My guess is that you are relying on a machine translation of the IBGE source, which on my browser also renders the area of Brazil as 8,515,759,090 km2. But in the original Portuguese, this number is rendered as 8.515.759,090. This number uses the convention where the thousands separator is a dot and the decimal separator is a comma, which is the opposite convention of that used in most of the English-speaking world. For comparison, the entire surface area of the Earth, land and water combined, is about 510 million km2. So if we were to believe your proposed number, the area of Brazil is more than 10x greater than the entire surface area of the Earth. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Mythical Island of Brasil inn Irish Mythology

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/hy-brasil-legendary-phantom-island-ireland-003608

I suggest that someone revises the main article that states the origin of the name is unknown.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Know it all58 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Grammar Mistake

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be a grammatical error in the dialogue pertaining to one of the pictures in the cuisine portion of the article. I am not able to edit the mistake, so please fix the error. Thank you.Crazymantis91 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Biodiversity

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

no biodiversity info? since Brazil holds half of the worlds animal species — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobomanokio (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This page need more information and pictures about culture and urban life! not more nature!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You must upload pics like São Paulo or Rio de janeiro Theathers, Curitiba, Porto Alegre Urban pics, Minas gerais Church, Paulista Avenue, Rio de Janeiro dowtown, Recife etc... this page is very small if you compare with Chile, Argentina or Mexico pages, please more details and modern pics about urban life and culture not only Nature! check out pages of Brazilians cities to you see how you need improve! they are modern and almost complete!

The telegram owes itself to Rondon in Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.31.129 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Alegre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recife

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Horizonte

SEE ALSO

See also:

Articles are not property

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some people need to have in mind that articles aren't their private property for only them to edit of for other people need their approval in editions. Escherion (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
191.54.96.23 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) to Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB). 189.69.66.226 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Done Fish+Karate 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unique location?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"It is also the only country to have contiguous territory both inside and outside the tropics." I don't understand how this sentence can be correct. Mexico, India, China and other countries all have land that lies unbroken across the Tropic of Cancer, while Australia, Paraguay and other countries all have land that straddles the Tropic of Capricorn. Doesn't that mean they "have contiguous territory both inside and outside the tropics [The tropics are a region of the Earth surrounding the Equator. They are delimited in latitude by the Tropic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere at 23°26′12.8″ (or 23.43688°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern Hemisphere at 23°26′12.8″ (or 23.43688°) S;

wikipedia lede on tropics]"? The statement seems to so eminently wrong that I am loathe to change since I might be missing something.Kdammers (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think who wrote this sentence meant that part of country's territory is above Equator line, and part is below Tropic of Capricorn.--Luizdl Talk 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Economy photos

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I really think we should be selective on good image, it's quality and follow some patterns on editions. And so, I'm changing som photos on the Economy section of the article to display better what the subtitle shows and also follow patterns on what is exposed on the economy section of different nation's articles. And so, I'm reverting the KC-390's new photo back to the previous that was far much better and changing the economic charter exposed, proper to the economy own article, and adding a photo of the country's financial center, following the pattern seen on the Russia's, UK's, Argentina's, Croatia's and etc articles. I'd appreciate if someone could give me opinions and not just change people's work because does not fit your own will and remind people that an article isn't a personal blog. HistorianM (talk) (contrib) 15:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you add links to the images, which ones were there before and which ones you propose as replacements. Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
HistorianM has been exchanging good photos for worse ones. The new KC-390 photo he added has very low contrast between the aircraft hull and the interior of the hangar, and the distinctive shape of the aircraft is not visible. The previous picture of the airborne KC-390 was much better. The BR-116 road photo he keeps placing is a generic roadside photo that displays no distinctive features of that road. The previous aerial overview, even if with lower resolution, was a much better depiction of Brazil's longest road. Poor choices of photos will be reverted. Fbergo (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, checking the history versions of long articles is a bit difficult. Please link the images under discussion so we can easily discuss them. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The KC-390 current photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EGLF_-_Embraer_KC-390_-_Força_Aérea_Brasileira_-_PT-ZNJ_(43532779431).jpg The older one and better on my opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apresentação_KC-390_(15414135738).jpg The BR-116 old photo, dating from 30 years ago in terrible quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BR116_Viaduto_em_Fortaleza.jpg The current one that I added, generic but at least recent and visible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BR-116_em_SC.jpg HistorianM (talk) (contrib) 00:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you? How can an image that shows the airplane completely and in the middle of the flight be worse than another that shows only the tip of the aircraft wrapped in smoke? And how can an image that shows a corner of Paulista Avenue be more representative than the image of the new financial center of the city with the skyline in the background? Not to mention that the images that you usually choose are usually worse in resolution, framing and lighting (an example). And you make use of editing wars to impose your point of view. I get confused. Is your problem technical ignorance or simply bad taste? Or both? @Cambalachero and Fbergo: Can you give an opinion on this? I'm really tired of this situation. Chronus (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • why are all these images not even referenced in the text of the article even being added. Fighting over an image of a plane that gives zero help or info to our readers about the economy is absolutely pointless. Pls try not to spam random images.... but carefully considered images that would enhance the text. Think I will be doing a trim of non props images again .....as per WP:Image use policy.--Moxy (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Such galleries of photos are common in country articles, and I do not think the currect situation in the article is excessive. The issue here is that HistorianM has been replacing photos that are of good technical quality, and which are good illustrations of each topic, for photos that are clearly worse (i.e. generic roadside picture where the road and location in question is not distinguishable; a plane picture where its model, shape and size are not recognizable; and probably the worst, most generic picture of Avenida Paulista available, with no clearly identifiable landmarks in thumbnail size). I agree with Chronus's selections and reversals on this matter, and will keep reverting photo replacements the worsen that quality of the article. Fbergo (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Only 2 precent of articles have galleries and non of our GA and FA country articles do......as the would not pass the process with them. That said I see all still willing to edit war.....thus will protect the page till you guys work this out.--Moxy (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I just removed the protection after one day. Should this be protected for a week? Enigmamsg 20:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Is @Moxy: going to perform the image cleanup ? My issue in this edit war (in which I did some of the reverts) was the repeated exchange of good quality photos for worse ones. I am not against a cleanup and removal of many of the unnecessary photos, but I am not comfortable in making the decisions for the removals myself. Fbergo (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I plan to clean up the article pics as a whole.....but waiting to see what you guys beside on first.--Moxy (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Backwards copy of parts of this article in a published book

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, recently I have discovered that large parts of the history section from the article on Greece, have been plagiarised by the following book:

The book has a chapter on Brazil, and with just a quick look I have identified at least one instance of plagiarism from this article. The book reads The land now called Brazil was claimed for the Portuguese Empire in 1500, with the arrival of the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Alvares Gabral. The Portuguese encountered indigenous peoples divided into several tribes, most of which spoke languages of the Tupi-Guarani family, and fought among themselves. THough the first settlement was founded in 1532, colonisation was effectively begun in 1534, when King Dom Joao III of Portugal divided the territory into the fifteen private and autonomous Captaincy Colonies of Brazil). This is present word-for-word in the lead paragraphs of the Portuguese colonisation. I'm sure there is more blatant plagiarism in the book, the entire section of Greece was copied from Wikipedia. You might want to consider carrying out an investigation and placing {{Backwards copy}} to this talk page. --Michail (blah) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fifth largest country by population

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first paragraph, the article says that Brasil is the "sixth most populous" country in the world. But according to the latest population data (linked at the claim!), Brasil is the fifth most populous country. So this should be updated. --Koroneos (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Done after checking relevant page and source. You can always do these edits yourself if the edit is based on a reliable source. Robynthehode (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Brazil as great power

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello!

The last edition about this issue, by Doug Weller, have one problem: The source of great power is wrong.The correct source is: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/rise-and-fall-great-powers-twenty-first-century-chinas-rise-and-fate-americas-global

Please correct it! The source for Great Power, as we see now, is the doubled source of middle power. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We are looking for neutrality so we'll give sources for both... as per the main articles on the topic....sourced added.--Moxy (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Moxy! B777-300ER (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

São josé dos campos population error.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The correct number of people in são josé dos campos - SP is 703219 and not 1.5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.7.152.2 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Government and politics

The name of the current president needs an update. In the first paragraph it is "The current president is Michel Temer, who replaced Dilma Rousseff after her impeachment.[192]" and need to be updated to Jair Bolsonaro. [1] [2] Peter Red 16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatoRed (talk • contribs)

Maternal Mortality rate is wrong

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! Maternal mortality rate, said in the article to be 73.1 from 1000 is wrong. In this, the true number of the reference is actuaaly 73.1 per 100.000 (not a thousand.

And since the number presented is from 2006, it would be nice to update it to the last number linked here from Brazilian Health Minister as 62 per 100.000. See ya! Vamadeu (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Vamadeu

Official name of Brazil from 1889 to 1967

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was the official name of Brazil from 1889 to 1967 the United States of Brazil or Republic of the United States of Brazil? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Image in "Economy" section

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Generic515: Why did you do that?! Why does the image of Brazilian agriculture have to be the image of a sugarcane field and cannot contain the representation of an agricultural machine? Is there any rational explanation?? The only justifications you said were: "is an image to agriculture topic, not economy topic (the vehicle)", "please don't use Wikipedia to fake 'well economy' propaganda" and "poor English Brazilian edit warrior". What that means??? @Bruce leverett: @AuH2ORepublican: @ST47: Can you join this debate too? Chronus (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that User:Generic515 has been blocked indefinitely, for the use of WP:Sock puppetry. Although I do not know how sock puppet investigations proceed and I don't keep track of them, it is not surprising that this happened. When a user is persistently hostile and disruptive in ways that one cannot understand, he can be blocked from editing, by Wikipedia administrators, and it will sometimes happen that he will try to evade the block by creating "sock puppet" accounts.
Thank you for making corrections to this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to what it was, as I think it fits the overall article better. Thanks for pointing this out, Chronus. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

renomear para o brasil, por favor, substituiria z por a como o nome é brasil em português 2600:8805:BC82:2300:45FF:5A67:9844:15A0 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Como esta é uma Wikipedia em inglês, o nome em inglês é usado.

As this is an English Wikipedia, the English name is used. — IVORK Talk 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Brazil is 5th in population, not 6th

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population, Brazil is 5th largest country by population, so both Brazil and Pakistan pages should be corrected accordingly. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) hello  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.37.146 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Substitute 'genetic mixing' for 'miscegenation'

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Race and ethnicity subsection, the use of the word miscegenation has a negative connotation, and suggests that racial mixing is undesirable and negatively affects the purity of a race or culture. I'm going to change to 'genetic mixing', which is neutral.LaTeeDa (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The federation is composed of the union of the 26 states, the Federal District, and the 5,570 municipalities.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there some mention of the municipalities in the constitution? I suspect not, which makes this phrasing incorrect. A federation is composed of its federal subdivisions (i.e., the states and federal district), not the municipalities that make up those subdivisions. I am removing this mention of municipalities in the lede. Lexicon (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

On the history of slavery in Brazil and anti-Black hatred

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The history of Brazil was severely marked by pervasive slavery and the massive transports of Africans, but this not reflected in the description in this wikipage. It was the fear among white Portuguese Brazilians that the freed African labourers, the Afro-Brazilians, would constitute a majority, that, in 1891, they encouraged the massive immigration of poor (white) Europeans and Middle Easterners from the Ottoman Empire. This wikipage tries desperately to whitewash the persistent anti-black hatred in the current white-dominated Brazilian echelons of government and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:A87:6000:F063:9C34:D5B4:CF7A (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"It has the ninth largest GDP in the world by nominal, and eight by PPP measures."

Please change "eight" to "eighth". 64.203.187.77 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive run-on sentence in the last paragraph of contemporary era

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure how that paragraph should be restructured. Does not read well. Putting this here to bring it to attention. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It also reads like a glowing endorsement of Bolsonaro. Doesn't exactly seem to conform to the apolitical and balanced standards expected of Wikipedia. --92.40.187.192 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about the alleged political bias as it merely describes the most recent political climate changes. It does provide a lot of sources, although I have not checked the validity of them. What should be done is fixing the sentence structure. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It should be revised to use English-language sources. The use of Portuguese-language sources makes it impossible for us to check WP:NPOV, which is especially important for descriptions of political events. This is perhaps even more conspicuous than the poor sentence structure. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, albeit with the acknowledgement that due to the article pertaining to Brazil, it may be challenging to find English as opposed to Portuguese sources that cover more specific details. I am not aware of any template for this, but if someone could add a notice to the section regarding this, that would be best. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's probably a perfectly good reason but I just want to say, why is this page semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midshipman Percy (talk • contribs) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC) LoL what the hell happened here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B080:B8A0:9840:FA4B:FB04:C099 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

spelling mistakes ones that can be easily overed Userx3x4x5x7 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? – Thjarkur (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

this data are wrong , the national IBGE are better Allenson9988 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? – Thjarkur (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sections structure

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's going on with this article? Two images were removed at the Geography and Economy sections leaving both with a poor structure; the Geogrpahy section for once comparts a huge blank gap, and the Economy section's images are entirely out of structure, with a enourmous space between the firts and the second images, five images on the same side. 168.181.62.234 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidente_do_Brasil
  2. ^ http://www2.planalto.gov.br/conheca-a-presidencia/biografia-do-presidente
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazil/Archive_16&oldid=1044658561"