Talk:Brazil and weapons of mass destruction

Unfairness

How come the US enters another soveiring country, demands full access to technological secrets (who are allegedly cheaper, stronger and overall better) than the tech it uses, in the pretense claim that its inspections WMD (in a country like Brazil!), while NOT accepting inspections themselves?!?LtDoc 04:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What would they inspect? The nature of inspections are to ensure that a state is using nuclear research for peaceful purposes only. What would inspections find? That the US had a nuclear weapons program? Ok, but the US is allowed a NW arsenal under the NPT. Brazil isn't, which is why Brazil, and every other member of the NPT who is a non-nuclear weapons state has inspections. Moreover, it is not the US that demands full acesss to technological secrets, or inspections, it is the IAEA, an body of the UN, that conducts inspections (which all non-nuclear weapons signatories agree to).

Waht does anyu of this have to do with wikipedia anyway? this section is supposed to be related to the article, it's not (and it's not supposed to be) in any way an open forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.213.116 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

US Perception

I think it is important to note that both Condolessa and Colin Powell has estated that they have no reason to believe that Brazil would ever use nuclear technologies to develop weapns. Also, Brazilian's costitution forbids it.

All the criticism from USA to Brazi's nuclear program came from crappy journalists -- not government. --Pinnecco 13:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Guinsberg remove information and ruling sources.

User:Guinsberg removed sourced information and ruled Veja (magazine) as not a reliable source by his own value judgements. The information is restored. Accusing a source of "rightwing" not only leads to bias, but violates the Wikipedia:NPOV policy and relies on a simple Wikipedia:I just don't like it maneuver. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept your criticism, Ciao, but I also urge you to look at your edits:

The recent approach of Lula with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised concerns about the possibility of Brazil confront OTAN in nuclear warfare.

Whose concerns are those? I have not heard political authorities - neither Brazilian nor foreign - manifest such doubts about Brazil. I challenge you to provide information on political authorities linking, directly or indirectly, Brazil's recent diplomatical efforts in the Iran affair, on the one hand, with alleged Brazilian plans to build nuclear weapons, on the other hand. Given the sensitivity of the subject, we cannot say that there are such doubts only because Veja magazine - a media well known to oppose current Brazilian government - has advanced such speculation. This applies to other media as well.

was claimed in the Brazilian press that left-wing socialist militancy desires to manufacter a bomb and reaffirm Brazil as a power and enemy of the United States.

That the above sentence is inflammatory and highly loaded with POV bias, I don't think I need to show. Veja, by-the-bye, is not the sole representative of Brazilian press. Is it fair to characterize speculations that, AFAIK, are limited to this media, as a stance of Brazilian press? If I look at articles on American politics, I doubt that stances of particular media such as conservative think tanks or Fox News will be characterized as something advanced by vaguely terms such as "American intellectuals" or "American media".

Now, I need to recognize that I am not as well informed on Wiki policy as you seem to be. But I believe my objections are sensible.

I will invoke a third party to judge on this matter.Guinsberg (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what policial view Veja magazine follows. It is, however, the largest magazine (in number of sales) in Brazil and that makes it a reliable source, others wanting or not. However, I agree with Guinsberg that the way that the text is written in misleading. Although one thing that I do know is that Veja magazine never said that the Brazilian government wants to make Brazil an enemy of the United States. It is correct that the present government has an anti-U.S. stance and many of its members have advocated once and there the possibility of Brazil fabricate a bomb of its own. But saying that there is already a research and production happening as we talk, or that the desire to create a bomb is to become an "enemy of United States" is going to far. Since VEJA magazine content can be seen in internet, I request that editor Ciao 90 present us the exact sentence, the page and what issue of magazine it came from. --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Lecen. Please, look at the Article's history. Ciao has provided some links to Veja online on the issue. How, or how much, those links support Ciao's edits, I do not know, however.Guinsberg (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know. As a reader of Reinaldo Azevedo (a very good journalist, BTW), I know the content. Nowhere he said of a "possibility of Brazil confront OTAN in nuclear warfare" or "reaffirm Brazil as a power and enemy of the United States". What he asked was for an national discussion over the Brazilian atomic project and where it might lead. And most important of all: it is a personal blog. That's all. A blog. And a blog can not be used a source in Wikipedia.

A warning to both of you: if you, Guinsberg, is a leftist, or you, Ciao 90, is a rightist, do not bring you own personal point of view in here. To dismiss VEJA magazine because it might have a rightist stance is wrong. But using a source to fabricate information that it does not have is very, very, very wrong. Doing that will ruin Wikipedia's image as reliable source. Ciao, do not do that again. --Lecen (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Veja is indeed the best-selling magazine in Brazil, but it is however not appreciated by a considerable portion of Brazilian people, not only because of its conservative, right-wing, anti-Lula view (which does not justify the disaproval of those people, IMHO), but also because of its highly distorced texts. For instance, when my school decided to sign Carta na Escola, a magazine by CartaCapital designed for academic purposes , instead of Veja na Sala de Aula, by Veja magazine; the latter explicitly accused the school of intending to "obligate students to sign a pamphlet of Workers' Party propaganda". You can check it here, in Portuguese. As it was suggested above, the text by Reinaldo was written for a blog, it shouldn't be taken that serious, although it seems that the information was misundertood by the user. I just mentioned the issue involving my school for people to see how unreliable the magazine can be. Not that other magazines wouldn't do that, but Veja is not as reliable as it is considered to be. At least for such analysis. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Veja is extremely unreliable. Not because it is a right-wing magazine, which would make it merely POVed - as all magazines and newspapers are, in varying degrees -, but because it systematically distorts things to push its views. In short, it is a pamphlet, and one in bad quality. Yes, it is a best-seller, but popularity and reliability do not always walk hand in hand. Ninguém (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend avoid using in this article words such as left-wing or right-wing to refer to the Brazilian government, as it a non-neutral point of view. Regarding the statement that Brazil wants to build nuclear weapons, it is very controversial and thus needs a very reliable source, otherwise it needs to be removed. For now it is probably better to remove that statement. Veja is in my opinion a reliable source, but when using such magazines as a source, it is better to explicitly mention the magazine in the text by writing something like that: "according to Veja magazine, the Brazilian government...", as the readers can decide by themselves if they agree with the magazine's opinion or not. Blogs should be avoided as sources, as they are not considered reliable. --Carioca (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I am sorry, but I don't agree with some of your opinion. Saying that a government is left-wing is not POV. Although I am quite surprise to see an "anti-VEJA" stance in here. Since the magazine is internationally known and is the highest selling in Brazil, ti could be used as source in wikipedia. The matter in here is that Ciao took an information not from VEJA, but from a blog that exists in VEJA official website. Not only that, but he also fabricated information that that blog did not tell (and Ninguém must remember, just as I do, from someone who does that). --Lecen (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposed

Deletion was proposed and the following reason was given:

No functional purpose. The article clearly states that Brazil doesn't posses or has ever possesed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The article limits itself to be a list of the current/past nuclear power plants, that have nothing to do with WMD. Similar articles (In the form "Country_name and weapons of mass destruction") are created when a country is officially or clearly considered to currently posses WMD by international organizations. This is not the case of Brazil.

The deletion tag should not be removed, until the editors discuss it. Thanks.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with deletion. It is public knowledge that Brazil had a covert nuclear weapons program during the 1970s-1980s. Furthermore, the country has completed the nuclear fuel cycle technology and is capable of producing weapons of mass destruction if it so chooses. Therefore it is a relevant article about WMD. Limongi (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Users are allowed (though discouraged) to remove the deletion tag at will, unless the removal is part of an obvious vandal edit. Once the article is deprodded, AfD procedures must be taken. At least that's what I read at WP:PROD. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AlexCovarrubias re-inserted the deletion template (twice). The article was created on 4 January 2005, and User:AlexCovarrubias is the only user who has come forth proposing (imposing) deletion. User:AlexCovarrubias has a long history of vandalising Brazil-related articles. In fact, he was blocked for 1 month from Wikipedia for this exact reason (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AlexCovarrubias). Limongi (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rather than getting into a reversion cycle, I wanted to start a discussion here. One editor has made multiple changes to the introduction of the article that suggest that Brazil has a nuclear weapons program and will soon have the capability to produce nuclear weapons. When I read these edits yesterday they struck me as unreliable, despite the citations. I checked a couple of the citations and they seemed either unreliable or misrepresented in the text. There may be parts of the recent edits that are worth keeping, but I think most of them are mistaken. That's why I took the uncomfortable step of reverting them all. Better to start with the article as it was and discuss the claims one at a time. NPguy (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

NPguy, did you actually read the article after the edits? Because nowhere does it state that Brazil ever had nuclear weapons. Infact, it states very clearly that it never did. If you took the time to compare the before and after you'd notice that I did not add much at all, besides the references and a history about the program. As for the references they are all reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, to name a few. So your reasoning is flawed. Every single sentence is supported by at least two reliable sources. Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to see an edit war break out here. The edits should be reverted, WP:AGF. If NPguy believes them to be unreliable, pick one disputed one, and let's discuss it. We're in no rush. patsw (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should always discuss before deleting sourced content. I reverted the article to my last edit.Limongi (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the changes I made, was to the lead. As per Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." In this article the lead should state the relationship between "Brazil" and "weapons of mass destruction", right? That is why I rewrote the lead (supported by 10 sources) to reflect that. The lead states Brazil's intention to develop a nuclear weapon in the past and it's current situation (free of weapons of mass destruction). The lead reads: "In the 1970s and 80s, during the military regime, Brazil had a secret program intended to develop nuclear weapons. The program was dismantled in 1990 and Brazil is considered free of weapons of mass destruction." (note the words "intended to develop", as none of the sources state that it actually built any WMDs)

Sources:

[1] "Brazil and Argentina embarked on a bilateral nuclear arms race in the 1970s and 80s. Through technology transfers from West Germany, which did not require IAEA safeguards, Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program..." (Reaching Critical Will)

[2] "Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program in response to Argentina's program", "...following the 1975 agreement Brazil transferred technology from its power plant projects to a secret program to develop an atom bomb. Code-named "Solimões," after a river in the Amazon, the secret program was started in 1975 and eventually came to be known publicly as the Parallel Program." (Globalsecurity.org)

[3] "It began developing a covert nuclear weapons program in 1975 but abandoned it in the late 1980s under a new government, which also included a prohibition on such activities in its 1988 constitution." (Arms Control Association)

[4] "In 1975 Brazil signed an agreement with West Germany for the supply of technology for a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing. Following the deal, Brazil transferred the technology from its power plant projects to a secret program, code named Solimoes, to develop an atom bomb." (PBS)

[5] "Brazil began a secret program to acquire nuclear weapons code-named "Solimoes" in 1978 under military rule." (Nuclear Weapon Archive)

[6] "Brazil already had three secret military nuclear programs between 1975 and 1990..." (Der Spiegel)

[7] "Rivalry between Argentina and Brazil led the two South American nations to embark on nuclear weapons programs in the 1970s and 1980s." (Global Security Institute)

[8] "Brazil possesses one of the most advanced nuclear capabilities in Latin America and is one of very few states with the indigenous capability to produce fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Alongside its civilian programme, in the 1970s and 1980s the military government pursued a parallel secret nuclear program..." (SIPRI)

[9] "In 1990, Brazil took the decision to quit the arms race and to help make Latin America a nuclear weapons-free zone.", "Brazil's generals came very close indeed to exploding the country's own nuclear device. The evidence, a bore hole 300 metres deep, is to be found at a remote site in the Amazon. It was intended for an underground atomic blast. Brazil's first civilian government made a very public show of stopping the secret work." (BBC)

[10] "During the 1980s, Brazil ran a secret effort to build an atomic bomb that ran in parallel with the public program to make electricity. It was administered by the military, and hidden from the IAEA. In 1990, the program was openly repudiated by Brazil's newly elected President, Fernando Collor de Mello." (Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control)

[11] "One part of Brazil's reach for international power identity has been its efforts at developing nuclear weapons during the 1970s, 80s and 90s." (American Thinker)

[12] "During a military junta in the late 1970s, Brazil began work on a secret nuclear-weapons program parallel to its civilian power program..." (Newsweek)

[13] "She [Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State] noted that 15 years ago, Brazil had been striving to develop a nuclear weapons program." (Federation of American Scientists)

I would like to know how NPguy came to the conclusion that these sources are unreliable or misrepresented. Am I missing something here? Limongi (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverts at Brazil and weapons of mass destruction

The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes - I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, and with it, erased all the sources. Limongi (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Limongi's references were pretty damn solid and his formatting very good. I would offer if he removes some of the "what Brazil could do" content nobody could justify reverting his edits. It's speculatory and unnecessarily controversial. I think that's all I saw wrong. I don't agree with blanking it out and starting as it was, he had a lot of work in it. Middle ground looks easy here.Batvette (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of merit to the edits that were unilaterally removed, and don't see most of them as unreliable (for example, GlobalSecurity.org is a pretty solid source). If there are specific concerns with the content, it would have been much better to discuss it before wholesale reversion. If there are still issues (especially with reliability), bring them up one by one; please don't revert again. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support (restoring Limongi's edits) It's important to understand that editors don't have to demonstrate that the accounts given by the secondary sources, either factual or speculative, are true, but that the summary and citation of them is correct. That's the essence of WP:V. If an editor has a problem with what Der Spiegel, the BBC, the New York Times, etc. are reporting, you have to take your fight to them. patsw (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• The edits made by Limongi are fully grounded in reliable sources and must be restored. Like Batvette, I also think that quotes like "Brazil could do..." should be replaced, although there are several indications that Brazil is able to produce WMDs. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 15:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For balance, sources, assuming they exist, could be cited to show that "Brazil cannot..." patsw (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support The discussion in the section above shows Limongi has done his work well at finding reliable sources. Dream Focus 17:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• RFC Comment I support Limongis version of the article. If editors have issues concerning details of it, then those should be discussed separately, but e.g. SIPRI is a very reliable source that has excellent material and this stuff shouldn't be reverted wholesale. --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not impressed by the very first source. Reaching Critical Will is an NGO that does some things well but in this case seems to have done an quick and dirty job of compiling and interpreting information. It is not an academic or journalistic source and does not have a reputation as a reliable source for this type of information. Saying Argentina and Brazil undertook an arms race in the 1970s is a case in point. Neither had nuclear arms. I propose to delete this source. It is used to justify some facts that are undoubtedly correct, but it should be possible to find more reputable sources. NPguy (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made some edits to fix some of the more obvious problems with the new text. There are more. Sometimes getting these things right requires actual knowledge and not just the ability to use Google. NPguy (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

1. In September 1990, he symbolically closed a test site at Cachimbo, in Pará State. That October, he formally exposed the military's secret plan to develop an atom bomb. Within Brazil's Congress, a CPI looked into the Parallel Program. Members visited numerous facilities, including the Institute of Advanced Studies (Instituto de Estudos Avançados--IEAv) at the Aerospace Technical Center (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial--CTA) in São José dos Campos.
2. In 1990, President Fernando Collor de Mello symbolically closed a test site at Cachimbo, in Pará and exposed the military’s secret plan to develop an nuclear weapon.[1] Brazil's National Congress looked into the Parallel Program.[2] Members visited numerous facilities, including the Institute of Advanced Studies (Instituto de Estudos Avançados - IEAv) at the Aerospace Technical Center (Centro Técnico Aeroespacial - CTA) in São José dos Campos.

1 (globalsecurity.org) -2 (the articel) gives: +September -President Fernando Collor de Mello -That October, he formally

This plagiarism. If anybody want the material in than rephrase it 100% or make it a quote! I did not look in the rest of the article, but somebody should do so! --18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't plagiarism. The text you quoted was obviously rewritten to comply with WP:PLAG. Limongi (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To leave out a word and make two sentences one is still plagiarism, sorry. You have to change more.--Stone (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brazil and weapons of mass destruction. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716182112/http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/pubs/Inventory/Brazil.pdf to http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/pubs/Inventory/Brazil.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100601142555/http://www.defesanet.com.br:80/docs1/ruhle_brazil_nuclear.pdf to http://www.defesanet.com.br/docs1/ruhle_brazil_nuclear.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brazil and weapons of mass destruction. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718080521/http://www.sipri.org:80/research/disarmament/nuclear/researchissues/past_projects/issues_of_concern/brazil/brazil_default to http://www.sipri.org/research/disarmament/nuclear/researchissues/past_projects/issues_of_concern/brazil/brazil_default
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706023855/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/2004/BrazilsNuclearPuzzle.htm to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/2004/BrazilsNuclearPuzzle.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br/Detalhe.jsp?id=15243
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716065102/http://anes.fiu.edu/Pro/s5ara.pdf to http://anes.fiu.edu/Pro/s5ara.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219035350/http://www.ipen.br:80/sitio/? to http://www.ipen.br/sitio/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319233602/http://www.crcn-co.cnen.gov.br:80/ to http://www.crcn-co.cnen.gov.br/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517120017/http://www.abacc.org/home.htm to http://www.abacc.org/home.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br/Detalhe.jsp?id=15243

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) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brazil and weapons of mass destruction. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716182112/http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/pubs/Inventory/Brazil.pdf to http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/about/pubs/Inventory/Brazil.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601142555/http://www.defesanet.com.br/docs1/ruhle_brazil_nuclear.pdf to http://www.defesanet.com.br/docs1/ruhle_brazil_nuclear.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipen.br/sitio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crcn-co.cnen.gov.br/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514085108/http://www.eletronuclear.gov.br/ingles/inicio/index.php to http://www.eletronuclear.gov.br/ingles/inicio/index.php

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) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)