Jump to content

Talk:Brazil/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

IPA transcription

in Brazilan-Portuguese, Brasil is pronounced /bɾaˈziw/

Les pido que lo cambien. Lhes peço que o mudem. Vi chiedo di cambiarlo.

I ask to them they change that it.

I don't speak english. I'm sorry.

--Aramaicus (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Language

I believe the following paragraph has been vandalized and presents extremely biased and somewhat offensive views:

"Brazilian Portuguese has had its own development, influenced by the Amerindian and African languages.[130] Due to this, the language is somewhat different from that spoken in Portugal and other Portuguese-speaking countries, mainly for phonological and orthographic differences. These differences are somewhat greater than those of American and British English.[130] Portugal may have to recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil, its former colony; it is considering reforming its own language to accommodate linguistic developments in the Brazilian Portuguese since the two languages diverged. [131]"

Here are the main issues: - [130] offers no evidence whatsoever the differences between pt_PT and pt_BR are greater than those between en_EN and en_US. - "recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil" -- ???. This is nothing more obviously than article vandalization. - "it is considering reforming its own language to accommodate linguistic developments in the Brazilian Portuguese" -- There is no "own language", the language is called Portuguese, what there is consists of an orthographic reform set to be adopted by all Portuguese speaking countries, elaborated by ALL those countries. (There will be changes in both pt_PT and pt_BR orthographies).

I would propose reverting that paragraph to some previous version that offers a better script.

--janjokela 20:15, 24 June 2008 (GMT)

Your observations seems to be right. I support reverting that paragraph and see if the author of the latest version has something to say.--ClaudioMB (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree and I too support reverting the paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliOGrande (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! This line "recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil" is taken from a tendentious article published by The Independent, they obviously do not speak Portuguese and make distorted and unverified asserts, also making arguably unfitting comparisons of our case to their american-british feud. Infinito (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Working towards Featured Article Status

I think this is a good time to start considering work towards FA status. Check out the criteria here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article's references (or sources) need to be improved using Wikipedia:Citation templates. Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Someone could help me? It is so difficult? Where are the editors of this article? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I worked on a couple of the paragraphs in the last week. Some of them seem like they were translated directly from another language, and some of the wording was awkward, so I reworded some of them. I'll continue to work on the wording, but I'm not an expert on Brazil, so it's hard for me to contribute extra content. Kman543210 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, for your collaboration! But we need more... The sections about "History", "Government and politics", and "Subdivisions" need to be improve. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
How can i help? I´m willing to put some extra content in the page but it seems i don´t have access.Joevicentini (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

new gini coefficient for brazil is 50,5

The new gini coefficient for brazil is 50,5 . You guys need to change the article, becouse it's showing it like 55.9 . the font is here: http://economia.uol.com.br/ultnot/bbc/2008/06/23/ult2283u1279.jhtm ! Update it please! Quiclky! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.124.204 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazillian Volleyball National team deserves a mention in the sport sections

Brazil currently hold the titles of the World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Championship and the World Cup, as well as the gold medal at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Brazil is the #1 team on the FIVB World Rankings. Joevicentini (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Volleyball has been one of the most successful sports in Brazil. Please, enter the text here for discussion before adding in the article.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of Course Volleyball is the second sport in Brazil! You dont say it. The text puts Volleyball after Basketball, a sport that is not so popular here in Brazil! Actually F1 is more popular than Basketball too!

FIFA ranking

I believe the FIFA ranking is not very important and changes very often. The most important is FIFA World Cup titles that are already there. So, the text about it could be removed to give space to other more important things about sports.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence.--ClaudioMB (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nheengatu as a co-official language

I read this article and it says that Portuguese is the only official language of Brazil, but if I'm not mistaken, Nheengatu, an indigenous language of the South America has gained a co-official status in the city of São Gabriel da Cachoeira in the year 2003, so should it be mentioned in the article? I've also found an article in the New York Times that mentions about it too. [13] Kotakkasut (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a co-official language of a city doesn't warrant status of official for an entire country. Spanish is co-official in Miami, FL (US), and Spanish is co-official in a border town in Gabon, but they do not have any recognized or official status country wide. Kman543210 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you on that, but if you see the United States article, in the Demographics > Language section, it does mention that Spanish can be legally used in New Mexico, but in this article, not a single sentence about Nheengatu can be traced, so should I add it up into this article? Kotakkasut (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning it as a co-official language might go too far, however a mention in the "Language" sub-section seems logical. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it in the language sub-section, but just make sure its entry is relative to its prominence. In other words, if only a very small percentage of the entire country speaks it, then it would not warrant an entire paragraph but a brief mention. Spanish is probably a different situation in the United States, as it is spoken by a large minority due to a constant influx of immigration from Spanish-speaking countries as well as parts of the U.S. formerly being under Spanish/Mexican control. With the exception of Puerto Rico (with U.S. commonwealth status), Spanish is not official in any state, but the law does give allowance for it's use in both New Mexico and California (I think).Kman543210 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments guys :) I will put up a sentence about Nheengatu in the Demographics > Language section, feel free to correct it if I made any mistakes alright. Kotakkasut (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Riograndense Republic AfD discussion

There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riograndense Republic that could really do with input from experts and contributors to Brazil-related articles. - Toon05 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Encarta" :
    • "People and Society". Encarta. MSN. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
    • "Ethnic Groups". Encarta. MSN. Retrieved 2008-06-10.

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First University dispute

Please consider further investigations regarding the title of first Brazilian University.

The article says it was the University of Paraná, in 1912. I found some references showing University of Amazonas as the first one in 1909

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidade_do_Amazonas

There is also an important mention to the Medicine College of Bahia, founded in 1808, as the first College/Faculty.

Lskbr (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)lskbr

GDP Info Box

I've been using Wikipedia to compare GDP figures for several nations. I noticed that in the portion of Brazil's info box to the right of the screen pertaining to GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal), the figures are given using a comma instead of a period; i.e., USD 1,804 (trillion). Using a comma in this circumstance implies 1 quadrillion, 804 trillion dollars. I have looked up the following other countries in comparision: United States of America, France, Italy, Russia, China, India, Japan, Canada, United Kingdom. The GDP info for all of these countries is shown using a period, not a comma.

Krystoffer 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

date format choice

The date audit revealed a mess of US and international date formats. I made all of them international format, since that appears to be the preferred format according to MOSNUM (although there's current debate about this). If editors here want US format, please buzz me and I can easily switch them. Links in edit summary. diff. Tony (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian Territories

I believe that information about Brazilian territories should be moved to a separated article since there is no territory today in Brazil.

The article should provide only actual and abridged information about Brazil.

I will move them if nobody opposes.

--Quissamã (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"miscgenation"

Is it really necessary to use this notorious phrase that is associated with racism? I would have replaced it but for this page being protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.152 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Where is the section on the interesting etymology of the name Brazil? For decades it was taught that Brazil came from brazilwood and brazilwood came from Portuguese "brasa" (ember) (hence the spelling change from Brazil to Brasil in Portuguese) but it is well established noew that the name came from the old Irish legend of the Island of Hy-Brazil. This should be added, since all articles must contain at least links to the etymology of the title word.

Mopcwiki (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not "well" established in Brazil. Cite your source before claim something. Leonardomio (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of links to the etymology of Brazil on the Portuguese page.Mopcwiki (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an Etymology section but someone deleted it. Why? 

Mopcwiki (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Government and politics

I´d like to point out a miswritten phrase in the sub-topic "Foreign relations and the military". In "Brazil is sought to be a political and economic leader in Latin America,(...)" the use of the past tense of the verb "seek" (sought) lacks sense in comparison with the rest of the phrase. I suppose the original meaning was: "Brazil is thought to be a political and economic leader in Latin America,(...)". Please someone correct it.

Marcusvrs (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it could also mean that "Brazil seeks to be a political and economic leader." I guess that would depend on whether it is already considered one in Latin America. Kman543210 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information in Climate section

There are two wrong statements in the "Climate" section: 1) the semiarid climate always has rainfalls below 1,000mm, but not exactly below 800mm, which is what happens in most of that region, but not in some areas of mild semiarid climate that are quite numerous - besides, IT doesn't fall in two or three months (Encarta is wrong, I'm sorry), but MOST OF IT fall in a period of three to five months, mostly between January and May; 2) The Southern subtropical climate doesn't have average temperatures below 16ºC, which is what happens in cities like Curitiba and others which are in highlands - so, the average temperatura is actually below 18ºC, but it's below 16ºC only in higher altitudes. I hope these two statements are corrected soon, because it makes one believe the semiarid climate is actually much more irregular and arid than it is and that the subtropical climate is colder than it is in average. 189.13.30.6 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done for 2, but not for 1. I made a little research about it, and for the brazilian semiarid climate the rainfalls was generally below 800 mm as show here and here(in portuguese), at Embrapa meteorological station in Bahia and Pernambuco. So, I only changed to "generally receives". Leonardomio (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- - -

That's right. "Generally receives" will make it, though I must reinforce that we here have many subtypes of Semi-Arid climate, so that in higher lands or in the Semi-Arid coast there is a subtype called "mild semi-arid climate" which may have rainfalls as high as 1,000mm. That's what happens in many parts of Ceará. What remains typical of the Brazilian semi-arid is the irregular distribution of the rainfalls.

I only ask you something more: please, change the number of months in which most of the rainfalls occur. It's simply not true. The rainy season in the Sertão Nordestino happens in 3 to 5 months, mostly from January to May, though it is MOST INTENSE in 2 or 3 months (in general, March and April).189.13.30.6 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"nowadys"

{{editsemiprotected}} "Nowadys" should be "nowadays."

Interesting - I thought "Nowadays" was slang or at least informal, but apparently we can trace it back to 1325 (according to Dictionary.com)

Urbushey (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done It was an incorrect usage of the word, so I changed it to "modern-day".--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lula fans

This article has 3 pictures of President Lula. That's a lot. On the other hand, the article has a single picture of the city of Rio de Janeiro. Actually, not of the city, but of the Statue of Jesus Christ the Redeemer... It seems big fans of Lula have been posting his pictures everywhere. I think we should just remove 1 or 2. Opinoso (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaced too dark Itaipu image (invisible in thumbnail) with a better one. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand?

I think the article need organization, and I propose a standard number of sub-sections (4) for each section. This will significantly increase the size of the article, but will include important issues in the text that are hidden. Each sub-section would have only one image. The "History" section already has 4, the "Economy" has 5 ("Transportation" could be eliminated), and will determine the other sub-sections to be added in the other sections. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sections you want to add!? Leonardomio (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From User Franz weber: I provided a link to the e-books of the Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales, which provides many high-quality e-books with relevance to Brazilian and general Latin American research. High-quality titles include studies on MERCOSUR, Argentine-Brazlian relations, the EU and Latin America and what have you. To simply remove the link with reference against spam protection might in the end amount to nothing more and nothing less than Northern hemisphere censorship against Southern hemisphere good and serious scholarship in the traditions of Raul Prebisch and Celso Furtado. It was removed, may I ask here why?

Here again is the link, judge for yourself:

http://www.caei.com.ar/es/irebooks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction in the Introduction

Last sentence: "first most biodiverse" is redundant; should be "most biodiverse". It does read better to have instead: "Brazil is considered to be [ref. 13] the most biodiverse country in the world."Roboso (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest Cities: spell out Duque de Caxias

Duque de Caxias should be spelled out in the list of Largest Cities. It is spelled out in the 2nd footnote, but there is no reason to abbreviate it n the main list. There is plenty of space left and "D." will not be understood as an abbreviation for Duque by the typical reader.Roboso (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned up a large number of wikilinks that I think are unneeded and really clutter up the article. Do we really need to link "Latin America" every time it appears? Once is enough. And especially linking every instance of things like "corn" and "fire" and "fishing". There's still some cleanup that can be done, but I have to go to lunch.Bishop^ (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semiarid deserts?

I don't think the following statement is correct: "ranging from equatorial rainforests in the north and semiarid deserts in the northeast, to temperate coniferous forests in the south and tropical savannas in central Brazil." The semiarid vegetation in Brazil is unique in the world, because it is in fact a savanna, characterized by a significantly denser vegetation than in other semiarid biomes. So, one can't say "semiarid deserts", because in fact the only desert-like areas in Brazil are rather the result of disasters caused by excessive agriculture and bad use of the land's resources, but never a natural landscape. Caatinga, which is our semiarid vegetation, I insist, is a semiarid savanna, which varies from a low and sparse vegetation to forests of trees adapted to dry periods.189.13.6.77 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Area Error

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the geography section, 

   {{km to mi|8511965|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}, include {{km to mi|55455|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}

should probably read 

   {{sq km to sq mi|8511965|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}, including {{sq km to sq mi|55455|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}

The value that currently results for the "mi" is especially unfortunate.

I say "probaby" because I cannot find a definition of the Wikipedia unit-conversion template, so I don't know for sure that "sq mi" and "sq km" will work.

And -- the server will not allow me to edit the page, even though I'm a logged-in user. I don't how I can acquire the ability to edit a semi-protected page; the Wikipedia edit header for this page says, enigmatically, that I'll be able to that "after a while".

And -- the numbers here disagree slightly with the numbers given on the "Geography of Brazil" page. But they do match up with geography-source referenced by this page (the CIA Factbook), so they probably be left alone for now.

Garry

Sqzx (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, well spotted - I've corrected the template (it's {{km2 to mi2}} in fact) and the conversion numbers look much more reasonable. As for the discrepancy in the numbers - I agree with leaving it for now, as long as it matches a reliable source that's provided, it's not a problem. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More conflict!

I was looking up topics of Brazil for a project, but I needed some conflict information. I know that not everything is Happy-Go-Lucky on countries like these. More information on a high-traffic article please! K50 Dude the GreatTalk to me!Look at me!

Countries like these? What is the criteria you're looking for? Try going to a forum on the internet. --Pinnecco (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. I meant populated and well-known.

Rewrite

I think this is a good time again to start considering work towards FA status. For this, we need to rewrite the section "Subdivisions" and the subsections "Regions", "States" and "Science and technology". We could put two subjects in the same subsection, for example:

Government Subdivisions Et cetera...
 Law and politics  Regions and microrreginos
 Foreign relations and military  States and municipalities

We need also to review all the sections, update and improve text and references. Check out the criteria here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article's references (or sources) need to be improved using Wikipedia:Citation templates. Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently struggling to maintain its GA listing, never mind FAC. See Talk:Brazil/GA1, referred to above. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Economy into overdrive"

My eyes jumped out at the phrase "Brazil's booming economy is shifting into overdrive, with biofuels and deep-water oil providing energy independence and the government collecting enough cash to irrigate the desert and pave highways across the Amazon Rainforest," previously in the "Economy" section. I was impressed at how many incorrect and misleading statements could be gathered in one single phrase. Although substantiated by a broken link to a Yahoo! News/Associated Press article, the phrase was so blatantly delirious to any Brazilian or to anyone who is familiar with the country that I couldn't help but delete it. None of those statements resists serious verification with other sources:

  • Even before the current worldwide economic crisis, there were no economic indicators showing that Brazilian economy was "booming" in a dramatic, steady and stable manner as the East Asian economies, for example, although it was indeed in a favorable growth phase when the referenced article was published (April 2008). I also think that "overdrive" is too vulgar, emotional and judgmental for an encyclopedic article (unless it was about motors, of course).
  • Biofuels are a big promise in theoretical terms, given the country's size, tropical location (meaning lots of sun, where the energy in biofuels ultimately comes from, and the possibility of several crops a year), and agricultural potential, but are far from having a consistent policy and even the most successful of such programs, the ethanol fuel program, is plagued by problems and far from being a mainstay of Brazilian economy (even though it is so for some areas of the country, most notably sugarcane-growing areas of São Paulo state and the southeast).
  • Deep-water oil production has been steadily growing and has given Brazil net self-sufficiency - meaning that the oil has low quality (it is too heavy and bituminous for the most part) and has to be traded for better oil in international markets. So, Brazil would still be in a bad situation without access to foreign oil. I believe this hardly qualifies as "energy independence." Additionally, the alleged monster reserves in very deep ("pre-salt") seabed deposits, announced with fanfare in 2008 as if they would turn Brazil into a new Saudi Arabia, have become an embarrassment as falling oil prices made their prospection economically unfeasible (the extraction would be too expensive and demand technology that is not even fully developed yet).
  • I am not going to even scratch the surface of tax collection in Brazil, but as for "irrigating the desert," Brazil does have semi-arid areas in the Northeast, as well as other areas subject to occasional droughts, but there are no true deserts in Brazil to be irrigated. Even a large project of irrigating Northeastern lands with waters from the São Francisco River has met considerable opposition, particularly for environmental reasons, and has not taken off yet.
  • There are no current plans to pave or even build highways in the Amazon rainforest after that proved to be a colossal fiasco at the time of the military regime, in the 1970s. The one possible exception is the BR-319 highway between Manaus and Porto Velho, which has been the subject of talks for its recovery and paving, but little action has been taken so far, and this is far from being a consistent plan, policy or trend for transportation in the Amazon region, where boats and planes still rule.

If anyone feels that any of the deleted phrase's statements is correct, or that the mere reference to a single (and obviously misinformed and flawed) press article justified the phrase's presence here, feel free to revert my change and reinstate it, but I would love if more reliable references could be added and that almost propaganda-like tone could be lessened. --UrsoBR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge population growth in the 18th century

I think it'd be interesting to add in the "History" section that, simultaneously with the exploration of the gold and diamond mines, there was a massive immigration from Portugal to Brazil, and also a huge increase in the number of Africans brought to the colony. The Brazilian colonial population is estimated to have risen from 300,000 to about 3,000,000 from 1700 to 1800, what is an incredible population growth. In a book I've read there was also a comment from a officer from the Portuguese Crown who mentioned that, if the immigration continued in such an intense way, Portugal would be "empty" in some years.189.13.24.51 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Subject/headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.85.187 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Geography

Wrong: The highest point in Brazil is the Pico da Neblina at 3,014 metres (9,890 ft)

Right: The highest point in Brazil is the Pico da Neblina at 2,994 metres (9,822 ft)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_da_Neblina http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=8700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.20.209 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

I would like to request the exclusion of a commentary made in the image "Boa viagem.jpg" in the topic Demographics by claiming it is unverifiable. The phrase: "Recife, the most important metropolitan region of the Northeast" does not follow any criteria of objectivity as the city clearly does not represent the biggest, wealthiest or most cultural important metropolitan region of the Northeast.

Furthermore, I fundamentaly object to the existance of the image "Boa viagem.jpg" as it is not representative of the topic Demographics. The picture does comply a usefull role, by judging how enlightening can a picture of a beach and some buildings be in face of the great mixture of races that exists in Brazil.

--Marcusvrs (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marcusvrs. The sentence "Recife, ..." is not objective and probably not correct. Also, the different ethic groups of Brazil are unique in the world and it will suites much better than a beach and buildings.--ClaudioMB (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Recife is for sure a very important city in Brazil, but the idea of representing the whole northeast and its state capitals with Recife only doesn't sound accurate or fair. If we are to make compliments on northeast's states' capitals, we shouldn't focus only in Recife but expand it to all of the other states' capitals and try to be less emphatic in one place only. Denisxavier (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed → Boa Viagem beach in Recife. Much of Brazil's population is concentrated across the coastline. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The current infobox of this section, wich represents the largest cities of the country, can be quite misleading for those not used to the subdivion system of the country, since the information contained in this box refers to the population of the main municipality only, not to the whole of the urban area wich contains it. The figures for the urban area of São Paulo, for instance, are twofold that of the municipality of São Paulo, displayed here. I don't think there is any other country page in this encyclopedia wich works this way and I advise you to look around for any precedent. I strongly suggest this infobox to be replaced by another one, wich shows the actual figure for what really matters, i.e., the population of the urban sprawl itself, not only the jurisdiction of the main city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.107.52.242 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the population of 44,150,249 for São Paulo is not correct (even for São Paulo Metro area). --Celso Pinheiro (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems that the data for Sao Paulo refers to the population of the metropolitan region (so the population of Guarulhos, for instance, is double-counted) whereas for all other cities, the data is that of the municipality itself. What a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.82.60.148 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian population

The brazilian population is not 196,342,592 as the article says... The Official Brazilian Population clock says its 191,120,592 as you can see: http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

That error must be affecting the percapita GDP too, it must be higher... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.36.248.236 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography

Pico da Neblina is 2.994 m high, not 3.014 m as is stated in Geography section. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_da_Neblina is clearly proven that 2.994 m is correct. I already corrected it but was reversed ... why is unclear to me. Now Brazil page is locked. How can i correct that out-of-date fact? 77.38.44.85 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

add an article

o brasil

o brasil e um pais de todos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.59.55 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

cash crop

What is the cash crop of Brazil and can someone put it on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.76.102 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a colony in 1822

In the second paragraph it's written that Brazil was a Portuguese Colony from 1500 to 1822.

However, in 1808 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) became the capital of the Portuguese Empire, making it, at least de facto, not a colony. Later, in 1815, Brazil was no longer a colony, not even de jure as the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves was established. I guess that this period, even beeing short, is very important to Brazil's History and can not be ignored.

So, Brazil was not a colony at the time of it's independence, but part of a country (the United Kingdom of...) that had it's capital in Brazil. That's important to say, as it makes Brazilian Independence very peculiar among the other American countries ones. Oli1944 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Timezone changes

The timezones mentioned in the info sidebar should be fixed to fit the new official timezones, defined by federal law since June 2008. UTC-5 doesn't exist anymore within Brazil, so both official timezones and daylight saving timezones spread only from UTC-4 to UTC-2.

Krystoffer 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Time Zones

The state of Acre does not belong to UTC-5 anymore (since last year); it is now UTC-4. Thus, Brazil spans now only three time zones.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo.scampos (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

environmental NGO's in Brazil

According to Marc van Roosmalen, certain environmental ngo's are actively engaged in deforestation. [1] Also, he mentiones that some do little more than make nice photographs of the rainforest, hereby creating the impression that the environmental degredation is not yet so serious here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.131.133 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marc van Roosmalen accusing environmental ngo's for deforestation, along with tree loggers, ...

ethnic groups

The article contains incorrect numbers about ethnic groups in front page. Please correct it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.146.200 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Social issues - many problems to fix

Main article: Social issues in Brazil

{{Multiple issues|disputed=March 2008|POV=March 2008}}

Located between some of the richest areas of Rio de Janeiro, the Rocinha favela is testimony to high economic inequality within Brazil.

Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.

I strongly oppose this view, saying that the economic achievements of Brazil are not being reflected into social development is not true. In the last 10 years brazilian social development accelerated. In that time more than 20 million brazilians jumped to middle class, the minimum wage almost doubled it real value and the brazilian HDI is advancing faster than its neighboors. Joevicentini (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards,[2] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.[3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings[4] and gang violence[5] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread.[6][7] Innefficient public services,[8][9][10] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s.[11]

References

  1. ^ Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Poverty, Inequality and Income Policies. Retrieved 2007-09-19.
  2. ^ IBGE (2000). ""PIB dos municípios revela concentração e desigualdades na geração de renda"" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-02-22.
  3. ^ "No end of Violence". April 12, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ BBC News "Brazil's evolving kidnap culture" retrieved 2007-08-24
  5. ^ BBC News "Gang violence grips Brazil state" retrieved 2007-08-22
  6. ^ Human Rights Report "Police brutality in urban Brazil" retrieved 2007-08-24
  7. ^ Amnesty International "Violence in Brazil" retrieved 2007-08-24
  8. ^ FT.com, "Brazil ‘must lift barriers’ to new infrastructure" retrieved 2007-08-22
  9. ^ World Bank report,"How to Revitalize Infrastructure Investments in Brazil", vol.1, retrieved 2007-08-22
  10. ^ World Bank report, "How to Revitalize Infrastructure Investments in Brazil", vol.2, retrieved 2007-08-22
  11. ^ IPEA "A Dívida da União com a Previdência Social" retrieved 2007-08-22

Non-Spoken Languages

ATTENTION When we enter the article on Brazil, we read in the gray box at our right, right above the national flag and seal, the name of the country in English ("Federative Republic of Brazil"), in Portuguese (the ONLY official national language in Brazil: "República Federativa do Brasil"), and then in some other 5 or 4 languages that ARE NOT BRAZILIAN LANGUAGES, nor are they de facto spoken languages in that country. Some, that I recognise, are spoken by minorities in neighboring countries, but NOT IN BRAZIL. Thus it does not make any sense having such a bunch of international names for Brazil in the English article. Please, editors, remove all those names and solve that mess. The same thing happens regarding the "Motto", the "Anthem" and the "National Seal". After the official Portuguese name, or phrase, the following phrases are in indigenous languages of neighboring countries, I repeat: those languages are not spoken and do not have an official status in Brazil. There is no need to have their names under the Motto, the Anthem or the Seal. Only Portuguese is recognised in Brazil as national language, and besides being the de jure language spoken and writen in all the country's territory, it is the de facto language of 99% percent of the population. The remaining 1% are circa 200 native brazilian languages with no official status. And they are not the ones shown in the article. I am Brazilian and I can assure you that my statement above is right. I hope someone do something about it. Good luck, and thank you

The above. is correct that at one point the editors did list indigenous languages not spoken in significant numbers in Brazilian territories. However, Portuguese is not the de jure language of 99 percent of Brazil. Italian and German play significant roles in the south of the country and are much more spoken then most of the Amerindian languages. It should be brought to the attention of the editors that German and Italian (and possibly Japanese) are large minority languages and therefore should be mentioned in the box on the right. This would seem controversial to many Brazilians in the north because many of whom have not encountered these foreign minorities. Therefore, a Brazilian from a Northern city like Recife would be surprised to see this. Nonetheless, the Italian and German minorities deserve to be recognized. Even if the mentioning of these languages would bother a standard Lucophone Brazilian, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Portuguese. Most people who would read the English article about Brazil would not be Brazilian and therefore not have adverse feelings about the mention of the Italian and German languages in Brazil. Brazilian hostility to this would likely be left over, needless animosity from the World War II era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.200.159 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New GINI of 2009

The new gini is 0,493 (June 2009)... The article says its like 57,0 :S! You should update it to 49,3 please.

Source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u604787.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.36.213.132 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Derivation of the name Brazil?

Can anyone add some information as to how the name Brazil was derived? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.171.231 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The name "Brazil" was taken from "brazilwood", a red-wooded tree (Caesalpinia echinata) then unknown in Europe that was largely abundant almost everywhere in the brazilian forests when the Portuguese arrived in 1500. So the word "brazil" was related to the red color of the wood, that resembles the ember - "brasa", in portuguese, leading to "Brasil" (with "s"), after what the wood - and the country - was named. Thanks to the red color of its wood, useful to get fabrics colored with a superior quality, the tree was intensively explored, causing it almost to extinction (nowaday it's yet considered a endangered specie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.145 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Brazilwood was named after Brazil, not the other way around. Brazil was spelled with "z" in Portuguese well into the 20th century, when the wrong etymological association with "brasa" caused a switch. The word Brazil is Irish Gaelic and represents a mythical island in the South Atlantic whose legend was well known to sailors in the 1400's/1500's. The etymology given in the paragraph above is the nonsense schools teach kids in Brazil. Mopcwiki (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What we learn at the schools here in Brazil is that our country was named so because of a rare kind of tree called in Portuguese as pau-brasil, wich was found in high quantity 500 years ago. Luizdl (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is wrong. First of all, why was Brazil spelled with a "Z" in Portuguese if the word derived from "brasa", which was always spelled with an "S"? The Irish Myth origin is far more likely. The country was first named Brazil and then brazilwood was named after it.

The story of the naming is given in Born in Blood and Fire but I can not find my copy now. As far "Brazil" vs "Brasil," so many words have had minor changes like that over the years. --Phil5329 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: there was a widespread legend of a island in the south Atlantic called Brazil or Hy-Brazil, from Irish sources well before Brazil was discovered. What is more likely: they name the country after it or they ignored the legend and manage to accidentally derive the name Brazil again from a tree which is red like ember, even though there are many things red like ember but they are not named "brasa", besides, where did the "-il" com from? The etymology section should at least give the two sides of the story, either it came from "brasa" or it came from "Hy-Brazil". Brazilians dislike the latter because its not what is traditionally taught in schools.Mopcwiki (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't do original research here. Provide reliable sources or put it on your blog. --TS 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I say let's put the personal attacks aside here for a moment and just say that Mopcwiki, if you can give us a reliable source for this claim we can include it in the article. Simple. --Phil5329 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
After the dictionary Michaelis, the word "brasil" derivates from the word brasa plus the suffix il meaning the colour red which some women used for adorn and also mean a synonym of pau-brasil http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=brasil
and after the dictionary aulete the word "brasil" means the same thing http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital&op=loadVerbete&pesquisa=1&palavra=brasil Luizdl (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Brazilwood was named after the original 'Brazil' name used in Ireland centuries before. There are Brazil surname in England and Ireland dated from ancient ages. The origin is probably from that region. I think Michaelis is Brazil country-focused and just lack of deep research. In 2000, when the country celebrated 500 years I read an article citing that the name is of Irish origin. --201.78.23.171 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it is good to notice, that it may be just a coincident, and the term in Portuguese it is written with "s" instead "z" like that other term, and always was written so, even in some other romances languages like the Spanish, the French (which it is Brésil) and the own Latin (which it is "Brasilia"), and when they named the Brazil to the actual term they already knew they aren't in an island, because Brazil had several other names before like "Santa Cruz" for example.
Other thing that is also good to notice is that the Wikcionário (Wiktionary in Portuguese), they also gave this etymology using as reliable source this book about the Medieval Portuguese on Google Books, but unhappily the Google only sell this book, and does not offer for on line reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizdl (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the etymology definition at this dictionary in French cnrtl, I think if it is a Brazilian tradition, this definition should not be present on this dictionary of the France right? Well, I suggest the term Brazil with "z" is which was originated in a British-Irish legends.Luizdl (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikcionário actually has two articles: wikt:pt:brasil and wikt:pt:Brasil. The etymology of the latter article, which is about the country, says:
Da árvore de pau-brasil (Caesalpinia echinata), chamada pelos índios de pernambuco (daí se deu o nome a um dos estados brasileiros, o Pernambuco), abundante na mata atlântica no período colonial português e extraída até quase a extinção, que por sua vez foi assim chamado por causa da sua madeira avermelhada, da cor de brasa (brasil em Portugal).
I don't speak Portuguese, but it's obviously the brazilwood etymology. --TS 04:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford derives the name from brasilium, late Middle English brasile, the name of the East Indian tree Caesalpinia sappan, "from which dyers obtain a red colour." The word brazil was later used, the etymology says, for "the similar wood of the S. American species C. echinata, and also other species, all valuable to the dyer. Now usu. called Brazil-wood."

Indeed our Brazilwood article is about that latter tree. Both Caesalpinia trees (the East Indian and the South American) are sources of a red pigment known as brazilin.

Our Brazilwood article says "Brazilwood trees were such a large part of the exports and economy of the land that the country which sprang up in that part of the world took its name from them and is now called Brazil." Unfortunately this is not sourced.

Shorter Oxford dates the name of the country as "Brazil" or "the Brazils" as 1555. "The Portuguese named it Brazile, from the red wood of that name," attributed to W. Rogers. --TS 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica says that was the brazilwood which played a role in the naming of the country: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/78361/brazilwood Luizdl (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian biggest cities - 2009 data

IBGE - Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics - has disclosed new information about Brazilian population. So this article can be updated with brand-new data regarding the numbers of the greatest Brazilian cities.

The address where you can find the information is the IBGE's official site: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/estimativa2009/estimativa.shtm.

There are downloads both in xls and pdf formats. The page is written in portuguese, but I believe this won't be a problem.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiocese (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't one edit this article?

Hi. I don't seen eny edit tabs in this article. Why is that so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.135.98 (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a Wiki admin will block anonymous users from editing an article. This is usually because of vandalism. You should create an account and then login. You will then be able to edit most articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New racial data from the Brazilian Census

According to a recent study by the IBGE (Braziian Census)now 48.4% of the Brazilian population is white, 43.8% is mixed race (Pardo), 6.8% is black and 0.9$ is Native American.--79.146.210.58 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

  • 07:23, 29 April 2008 Ryulong changed protection level for "Brazil" ‎ ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])

There had apparently been heavy IP vandalism. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary nearly 18 months later. As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors I have contacted the protecting admin, Ryulong. --TS 12:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The following two comments, from Ryulong and xeno, were copied from user talk:Ryulong:

Major nations' articles are routinely semiprotected. United States has been semiprotected for a month longer. And it's not like I can unprotect it now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We actually reviewed this at AN a while back coincident with some other protections... I think there was a general feeling that Brazil be left in place, and I was kindof on the fence. If you're willing to watch it though, Tony, I'll give it a shot. –xenotalk 12:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonintervention?

Brazilian foreign policy has generally reflected multilateralism, peaceful dispute settlement, and nonintervention in the affairs of other countries

How do you rationalize that with Brazil's involvement in the Second World War? I suggest rewording this, as Brazil has clearly not reflected these concepts "generally." --NEMT (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that statement is fair since it has the "generally" caveat. Off the top of my head WW2 was the only example of Brazilian foreign adventuring. For example they weren't involved (I believe) in the Balkan wars, Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor have they tended lately to send their troops into any regional countries.--Phil5329 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but what about the scores of conflicts Brazil has started or participated in regionally? Post WW2 Brazil may generally believe in peaceful nonintervention, but it has an incredibly bloody interventionist history. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to "Postwar Brazilian foreign policy..." --NEMT (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed it.--Phil5329 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Better, but I suppose it may need to be changed again as they appear to be taking a meddling/confrontational and extremist position with regards to the current situation in Honduras. --NEMT (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.--Phil5329 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oil production in Brazil

This site: [Brazilian Oil] talks about oil production in Brazil.Agre22 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

2009 Population Estimate

The right population estimate is 191,8 million, not 198 million.--80.31.72.234 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem fixed. I reverted the vandal which is this anon user, 79.44.228.165. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Hello, everyone! I have noticed that the text about the Imperial era in Brazil is quite weak. I would like to know if I could rewrite it and improve it. If that´s ok to everyone, I will start the text at once. - --Lecen (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have completly reworked the text about the Empire. I think is quite good. Any opinions about it, please say so. I will try to work on the text about the Independence and later on in the one about the republic. - --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am doing quite a few important changes in the history text. Anyone has opinions about it, please say so. - --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have ended writing the sections "Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers", "Independence and Empire" and "Emperor Pedro II reign". No more additions are necessary, unless to correct grammar or spelling mistakes. I am going to work on the remaining sections. - --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I am working now on the text about the territorial expansion of Brazil. Once I finish it, I will begin writing the text about the republican Era. I have removed sourced material indeed, but for two main reasons: or because it was controversial information or even because it was not correct, or because it was based on internet websites, that are not thrustworth. I am using as sources books written by the most famous Brazilian historian such as Oliveira Lima, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, José Murilo de Carvalho and Francisco Doratioto. - --Lecen (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph that explains the Portuguese expansion that resulted in the current national borders. I am working on the remaining text for the section now. - --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Done working on all sections about the colonial and imperial period of Brazilian history. I´ll move towards the republican era now. - --Lecen (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks biased to me

In my opinion, these changes are biased. The new changes clearly show a positive view of the user about Monarchy and a negative view about Republic. The sentence about the Empire saying "Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country" largely contrasts with the sentence about the Republic "a little more than a century of existence, the Brazilian Republic faced twelve states of emergency, seventeen institutional acts, the National Congress shut down six times, nineteen military revolutions, two presidential resignations, three presidents hindered from assuming office, four presidents deposed, seven different Constitutions, four dictatorships and nine authoritarian governments”."

No, the new changes are not clearly show a positive of the monarchy as a form of government. Pedro II reign is seen by historians as an exceptional and high succsessful era of the history of Brazil. And Pedro II was a republican himself. About being respected internationaly, that was also true. Why not put it in here?

It actually erases the fact that during the Empire a great portion of the Brazilian population was living under slavery, most of the free population was starving to death and only a small minority of people from the aristocracy had a "prosperous" life. After the end of the Empire, things did not change so much, because the same old aristocracy of the Empire remained on power. This article is trying to sell the idea that the Republic is guilty of the underdevelopment of Brazil, as if the Empire with its slavery, poverty and with its violent repression against popular movements was not guilty as well.

In 1823, 27% of the population was composed of slaves. In 1872, 15% and by 1888, 5%. Yhat is not "a great portion" as you wrote. Most of the Brazilian population was not starving to death. See the article about Pedro II of Brazil and Economy of the Empire of Brazil. The fact that you use the word "guilt" and tries to blame one form of government for Brazil "backwardness" reveals that you are only defending your point of view, not an unbiased view. If you have something against monarchy, that´s up to you. But I am not trying to tell in here that monarchy is better or worse than republic (it is not the forms of government that changes something for a country, but how its political class rules it).

Sentences like "Pedro I was never a tyrant and always respected the constitution" or "The regime that followed the overthrown of the monarchy revealed itself to be highly unstable" are really biased. The Emperor Pedro II reign section is really odd and biased. It only talks about supposed strengths of the government of Pedro II and actually ommits the negative points. At the end of the section, the user attacked the Republic with odd informations. This is not the place to post personal points of view of scholars about which Government was better or worse. This is the place to speak a little about the History of Brazil, not its governments or if Pedro I was a tyrant or not (many people will consider him a tyrant, and we cannot affirm if he was or not). This is really biased. I do not think that Wikipedia allows an user to erase half of a sourced article and replace it with informations in favor of Monarchy and against Republic. All the History part of the article was sourced, there was no need to erase it (in fact, it's not allowed to erase sourced informations). Moreover, the new changes are full of citations, which seem quite odd. This article has been chosen as a good article and deep changes like these may not be good for it. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not being respected here. In my opinion, it should be reversed to its original way. Opinoso (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro I not being a tyrant and always respecting the constitution was taking from two famous Brazilians writers. I do not understand why you say that "we cannot affirm if he was or not". Yes, we can. Simply you have to read a history book. The reasons that made him abdicate are all written in the text, didn´t you read it? I erased the text that or had mistakes (such as saying that Emperor Pedro I obliged Brazilians to accept the constitution when in reality the Municipal Councils voted in favor of its acceptance) or was sourced by websites. And between a website and a book written by a famous historian, we have to stay with the latter one. It is oodd to be full of citations?! What?! That does not make sense! It must have citations! And once and for all: I still did NOT begin to write the text about the Republican era. Let me finish it first. - --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Your texts only talk about good points of the Empire, and ommits the negative points. And they only talk about negative points of the Republic, and ommits the positive points. It says, for example, that Pedro II did not own slaves, but it ommits that during his government Brazil imported more slaves than any other period of Brazilian History, for example. And the slave trade was only abolished because England forced Brazil to stop it, because if it was not English pression, the slave trade would continue. Your text tries to sell the idea that Pedro II was some kind of god, and that Republic was a negative change to Brazil, when in fact for most Brazilians, who were starving to death or living under slavery, the change from Empire to Republic did not change their lives in any way, because the same elite of the Empire remained on power (and you ommited that too). The only notable difference was that the Emperor was replaced by a President. The rest, did not change in any way (even though your texts try to sell the idea that when the Republic was proclaimed, Brazil lost a wonderful government led by Pedro II, which was far from being a wonderful government to poors or slaves, who made up the bulk of the Brazilian population).

And the 5% of slaves as late as 1888 is an scandal. You also ommited the fact that the Empire of Brazil was the last country to free slaves on earth. Why did you ommit that?

You also claim that Pedro II left the government because he wanted to leave, when in fact he was forced to leave because he lost the support of the rural elite that used to feed him. He was taken from his position, he did not want to leave at all.

In fact, you erased the original History part of this article, which was sourced, small, straight and neutral. You replaced a good History part with these Monarchist texts. These non-neutral attitudes only destroy years of work to make this article a good one. To erase sourced informations and replace them with biased ones is not allowed in Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased parts

  • Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”. And also of rapid slavery progress. During this period Brazil imported more slaves than any other country in the world.[14] Material progress did not seem to be compatible with human progress in Brazil at that time.
Wrong. The United States had a larger slave population and was richer then Brazil. Having more slaves does not mean that a country could not be rich. And that is a direct quotation from a history book.
  • From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government. The economy of the Empire may have grown and the small elite may have enriched, but for the mass of poors and slaves the economic situation did not emprove, but it became even worse. See Darcy Ribeiro] for more details.
Another direct quotation. For example: “In a general way, the 1870s were prosperous for the nation and its monarch. It was a period of social and political progress where the distribution of national wealth began to benefit a greater part of the population”. (Olivieri, p.37) And stop taking in account the slave population. It didn´t matter for a country to be considered rich or not if slaves had or not a good standard of living.
  • 1850 there were 50 factories in the country and in 1889 it grew to 636.. It sells the false idea that Brazil became a industrialized nation in the 19th century, when in fact Brazil remained mostly rural and industrialization of Brazil only happened in the 1940s, many decades after the end of the Empire and the Emperor's death. In fact, the Empire wanted to remain agragarin and it prevented the early industrialization of Brazil[15] which is one of the main reasons for Brazil's undervelopment (see Darcy Ribeiro for more details).
I will not discuss as long as you use websites as sources. Between a website information ad another granted by Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Boris Fausto, José Murilo de Carvalho, Hélio Vianna and other famous Brazilian historians, I will keep with the latter. Unless you tell me that they are monarchists! See the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil for more info. And stop usind only Darcy Ribeiro as source. It is the only author you use it as source! The same as in the article Brazilian people. You can not use only one author as source, this is why I have added quotations and citations by several different authors.
  • While its neighbors fell into anarchy and dictatorships in Brazil civil liberties were respected along “with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press. I wonder if the millions of slaves had any civil liberty at that time.
Neither they did in any other country at that time as they were considered property and not human beings and even less citizens. You are losing your point.
  • The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888.. The Emperor never owned slaves, but he allowed the massive importation of slaves from Africa and Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery, as late as 1888.
He could not hinder importation. There was free market in Brazil, if someone wanted to import slaves, he could do it freely. I can see clearly now t hat you simply dislike the emperor and the monarchical era in Brazil and that´s the only reason you keep complaining. Brazil was not the last country to end slavery. Slavery was still ongoing in african and middle-eastern countries up to the end of the 20th century. You don´t even know history and use only websites as sources, it makes really hard to discuss with you.
  • Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country. Maybe the economy was prosperous for the ruling elite of the country, but the mass of poors did not see all that prosperity.
Any country that evolves its economy allows an improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens. But that not the point. That´s simply your opinion, and your opinion does not matter in the article.
  • There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.. It tries to sell the false idea that all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule, when in fact the Emperor was forced to leave Brazil when the elite of the country stopped feeding him and decided that the Republic should be proclaimed.
Yes, all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule. Read the article Pedro II of Brazil. You will find all sources and books you need about it. That does not mean, of course, that the Brazilians are nowadays monarchists, which they aren´t.
  • Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”. Actually, his overthrown was due to his inability to add the elite of the country, which decided to overthrown him.
That´s your opinion and once again: it does not matter in the article. The quotation comes from the British historian Roderich J. Barman, a famous "Brazilianist".

There are many other biased posts out there. When somebody reads these texts, one may think that Pedro II was some kind of merciful god and that Brazil was some kind of paradise during that time. And when one reads the text about Republic, it seems that Brazil became a terrible place since the departure of the Emperor. In fact, for most the population of Brazil, which is poor and far from living in a paradise, both Monarchy and Republic were terrible governments. These new biased changes must be reversed to the originl, neutral History texts that existed here, before they were erased and replaced by these distorted Monarchist viwes. The history of Brazil has been rewritten from a monarchist perspective here. Opinoso (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have something againt monarchy or republic, that´s your problem. Just don´t come into wikipedia and try to ruin an article for personnal motives, ok? Thank you. - --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I won't talk about the Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship part because it's not even a historic text, but a text dedicated to point the negative views of the Republic, contrasting with the part about the Emperor, which is also not historic, but enterely dedicated to point the positive views of that Monarchy. Opinoso (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."[16]

An user cannot erase sourced informations, as you did to the entire History part of this article. You may add informations, not erase them and replace them. We took years to make that History part look small, straight and sourced and you are not allowed to erase it. From this perspective, I am reverting to its original History. Opinoso (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Relations

I think this bit on the foreign relations section isn't quite right: "Between World War II and 1990, both democratic and military governments sought to expand Brazil's influence in the world by pursuing a state-led industrial policy and an independent foreign policy.". It's well know that during the first decade of dictorship the general guideline of the foreign relations was the total alignment with the USA. And I wouldn't go as far as saying there were an independent foreign policy in the Geisel and Figueiredo mandates.

It is said (on an UESB lecture[1]) that "Os governos do ciclo ditatorial, de início executam uma política externa de total alinhamento aos Estados Unidos e direcionado pelo conceito de fronteiras ideológicas e da inevitalidade da guerra. (...) O segundo período apresenta uma política externa de maior envolvimento no mundo e é marcada pelo conceito de “pragmatismo responsável”" and . Okay, it's just written on a blog, but what I'm clayming is easily verifiable in any history book.eusourei(talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://blogdopaulonunes.com/v2/2009/03/politica-externa-do-regime-militar-do-brasil/

This article is so bloated that I can't reliably edit it.

Sorry, giving a TLDR to the article as a whole.- Sinneed 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Humor: The US article suffers the same problem... 160Kb long... ick.
Sorry I can't help.- Sinneed 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame that such a good article is going under a process of ruination because of the actions of a single user who wants to sell his personal admirations here. Sinned, what do you think about reestoring it to the original History session, which was erased by user Lecen withoiut any justification? The original part had nothing controversal, it was neutral, well sourced and far from being biased, and there was no reason to erase it. In fact, I already reverted the page to its original way[17], but I got reversed by Lecen without any justification, who decided to start a edit-warring.

This is the original article which was erased by Lencen without any justification: Opinoso (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

History

Main article: History of Brazil

Origin

Main article: Indigenous peoples in Brazil
Two Brazilians of indigenous descent wearing traditional costumes.

Most native peoples who live and lived within Brazil's current borders are thought to descend from the first wave of immigrants from North Asia (Siberia) that crossed the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the last Ice Age around 9000 BC. In 1500 AD, the territory of modern Brazil had an estimated total population of nearly 3 million Amerindians divided in 2,000 nations and tribes.

A not-updated linguistic survey found 188 living indigenous languages with 155,000 total speakers. In 2007, Fundação Nacional do Índio (English: National Indian Foundation) reported the presence of 67 different tribes yet living without contact with civilization, up from 40 in 2005. With this figure, now Brazil has the largest number of uncontacted peoples in the world, even more than the island of New Guinea.[1]

When the Portuguese explorers arrived in 1500, the Amerindians were mostly semi-nomadic tribes, with the largest population living on the coast and along the banks of major rivers. Unlike Christopher Columbus who thought he had reached India, the Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama had already reached India sailing around Africa two years before Pedro Álvares Cabral reached Brazil. Nevertheless, the word índios ("Indians") was by then established to designate the peoples of the New World and stuck being used today in the Portuguese language, while the people of India are called indianos. Initially, the Europeans saw the natives as noble savages, and miscegenation of the population began right away. Tribal warfare and cannibalism convinced the Portuguese that they should "civilize" the Amerindians.[2]

Colonization

Main article: Colonial Brazil
Map of Brazil issued by the Portuguese explorers in 1519.

Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of the high profits to be gained from its commerce with India, Indochina, China and Japan. Brazil's only economic exploitation was the pursuit of brazilwood for its treasured red dye. Starting in 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies.[3] Although temporary trading posts were established earlier to collect brazilwood, with permanent settlement came the establishment of the sugar cane industry and its intensive labor. Several early settlements were founded along the coast, among them the colonial capital, Salvador, established in 1549 at the Bay of All Saints in the north, and the city of Rio de Janeiro on March 1567, in the south. The Portuguese colonists adopted an economy based on the production of agricultural goods for export to Europe. Sugar became by far the most important Brazilian colonial product until the early 18th century.[4][5] Even though Brazilian sugar was reputed to be of high quality, the industry faced a crisis during the 17th and 18th centuries when the Dutch and the French started to produce sugar in the Antilles, located much closer to Europe, causing sugar prices to fall.

Statue of António Raposo Tavares at the Museu Paulista.

During the 17th century, private explorers from São Paulo Captaincy, now called Bandeirantes, explored and expanded Brazil's borders, mainly while raiding the hinterland tribes to enslave native Brazilians.[6] In the 18th century, the Bandeirantes found gold and diamond deposits in the modern-day state of Minas Gerais. Profits from the development of these deposits were mostly used to finance the Portuguese Royal Court's expenditure on the preservation of its Global Empire and the support of its luxurious lifestyle. The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities. Gold production declined towards the end of the 18th century, beginning a period of relative stagnation in Brazil's hinterland.[7] Both Amerindian and African slaves' man power were largely used in Brazil's colonial economy.[8]

In contrast to the neighboring Spanish possessions in South America, the Portuguese colony of Brazil kept its territorial, political and linguistic integrity, through the efforts of the colonial Portuguese administration. Although the colony was threatened by other nations during the era of Portuguese rule, in particular by the Dutch and the French, the authorities and the people ultimately managed to protect its borders from foreign attacks. Portugal even sent bullion (a rare naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value) to Brazil, a spectacular reversal of the colonial trend, in order to protect the integrity of the colony.[9]

Empire

Main article: Empire of Brazil
Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil in 1873. Fala do Trono, by Pedro Américo.

In 1808, the Portuguese court, fleeing from Napoleon's troops who were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of government of Portugal and the entire Portuguese Empire, even though it was located outside of Europe. Rio de Janeiro was the capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808 to 1815, while Portugal repelled the French invasion in the Peninsular War. After that, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1815–1825) was created with Lisbon as its capital. After João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil, within the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Following a series of political incidents and disputes, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal on 7 September 1822. On 12 October 1822, Dom Pedro became the first Emperor of Brazil, being crowned on 1 December 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent country in 1825.

In 1824, Pedro closed the Constituent Assembly, stating that the body was "endangering liberty." Pedro then produced a constitution modeled on that of Portugal (1822) and France (1814). It specified indirect elections and created the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; however, it also added a fourth branch, the "moderating power", to be held by the Emperor. Pedro's government was considered economically and administratively inefficient. Political pressures eventually made the Emperor step down on 7 April 1831. He returned to Portugal leaving behind his five-year-old son Pedro II. Until Pedro II reached maturity, Brazil was governed by regents from 1831 to 1840. The regency period was turbulent and marked by numerous local revolts including the Malê Revolt,[10] the largest urban slave rebellion in the Americas, which took place in Bahia in 1835.[11] The Cabanagem, one of the bloodiest revolts ever in Brazil, which was chiefly directed against the white ruling class, reduced the population of Pará from about 100,000 to 60,000.[12]

Banner of the Empire of Brazil

On 23 July 1840, Pedro II was crowned Emperor. His government was marked by a substantial rise in coffee exports, the War of the Triple Alliance, which left more than 300,000 dead,[13] and the end of slave trade from Africa in 1850, although slavery in Brazilian territory would only be abolished in 1888. By the Eusébio de Queirós law,[14] Brazil stopped trading slaves from Africa in 1850. Slavery was abandoned altogether in 1888, thus making Brazil the last country of the Americas to ban slavery.[15][16] When slavery was finally abolished, a large influx of European immigrants took place.[17][18][19] By the 1870s, the Emperor's control of domestic politics had started to deteriorate in the face of crises with the Catholic Church, the Army and the slaveholders. The Republican movement slowly gained strength. The dominant classes no longer needed the empire to protect their interests and deeply resented the abolition of slavery.[20] Indeed, imperial centralization ran counter to their desire for local autonomy. By 1889 Pedro II had stepped down and the Republican system had been adopted in Brazil. In the end, the empire really fell because of a coup d'état.

Republic

Main articles: Estado Novo (Brazil), Brazilian Second Republic, Military dictatorship (Brazil), History of Brazil (1964–1985), and History of Brazil since 1985
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, current President of the Federative Republic of Brazil
The Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, the lower house of the National Congress.

Pedro II was deposed on 15 November 1889 by a Republican military coup led by general Deodoro da Fonseca,[21] who became the country’s first de facto president through military ascension. The country's name became the Republic of the United States of Brazil. From 1889 to 1930, the dominant states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais alternated control of the presidency.[22][23] A military junta took control in 1930. Getúlio Vargas took office soon after and remained as dictatorial ruler until 1945. He was re-elected in 1951 and stayed in office until his suicide in 1954. During this period Brazil also took part in World War I and World War II. After 1930, successive governments continued industrial and agricultural growth and the development of the vast interior of Brazil.[23][24] Juscelino Kubitschek's office years (1956–1961) were marked by the political campaign motto "50 anos em 5" (English: fifty years of development in five).[25]

The military took office in Brazil in a coup d'état in 1964 and remained in power until March 1985, when it fell from grace because of political struggles between the regime and the Brazilian elites. In 1967 the name of the country was changed to Federative Republic of Brazil. Just as the Brazilian regime changes of 1889, 1930, and 1945 unleashed competing political forces and caused divisions within the military, so too did the 1964 regime change.[26] Democracy was re-established in 1988 when the current Federal Constitution was enacted.[27] Fernando Collor de Mello was the first president truly elected by popular vote after the military regime.[28] Collor took office in March 1990. In September 1992, the National Congress voted for Collor's impeachment after a sequence of scandals were uncovered by the media.[28][29] The vice-president, Itamar Franco, assumed the presidency. Assisted by the Minister of Finance at that time, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Itamar Franco's administration implemented the Plano Real economic package,[28] which included a new currency temporarily pegged to the U.S. dollar, the real. In the elections held on 3 October 1994, Fernando Henrique Cardoso ran for president and won, being reelected in 1998. Brazil's current president is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006.

Everything is sourced here and it was a nice job conducted by several authors during years. Lecen erased all this good work for nothing. This must come back as soon as possible. Opinoso (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ In Amazonia, Defending the Hidden Tribes. The Washington Post. July 8, 2007.
  2. ^ Megan Mylan, Indians of the Amazon, Jewel of the Amazon, FRONTLINE/World, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), (24 January 2006)
  3. ^ "Casa História website - "Colonial Brazil"". Retrieved 2008-12-12.
  4. ^ JSTOR: Anglo-Portuguese Trade, 1700-1770. JSTOR. Retrieved on 16 August 2007.
  5. ^ Janick, Jules. Lecture 34. Retrieved on 16 August 2007
  6. ^ Bandeira (Brazilian history). Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
  7. ^ Maxwell, Kenneth R. Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil and Portugal 1750-1808. Cambridge University Press: 1973.
  8. ^ Slavery in Brazil retrieved on 19 August 2007.
  9. ^ Kenneth R. Maxwell, Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil and Portugal 1750-1808 (p. 216), JSTOR
  10. ^ Rebelions in Bahia, 1798-l838
  11. ^ Reis, João José. Slave Rebellion in Brazil  — The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia. Translated by Arthur Brakel. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  12. ^ Renato Cancian. "Cabanagem (1835-1840): Uma das mais sangrentas rebeliões do período regencial". Universo Online Liçao de Casa (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-11-12.
  13. ^ War of the Triple Alliance. Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
  14. ^ Leslie Bethell, The Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Britain, Brazil, and the Slave Trade Question, 1807-1969, JSTOR
  15. ^ Brazil's Prized Exports Rely on Slaves and Scorched Land Larry Rohter (2002) New York Times, 25 March
  16. ^ Anstey, Roger: The Atlantic Slave Trade and British abolition, 1760-1810. London: Macmillan, 1975.
  17. ^ "Slavery and Abolition". Retrieved 2007-07-19. A Journal of Comparative Studies
  18. ^ "Links between Brazil & Ireland". 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Aspects of an Economic and Political Controversy between Great Britain and Brazil, 1865-1870.
  19. ^ "JSTOR". Retrieved 2007-07-19. The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822-1826
  20. ^ "CIAO Atlas". Retrieved 2007-06-23. The Empire, 1822-89
  21. ^ U.S. Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Studies: Brazil, "The Republican Era, 1889-1985". Library of Congress. Retrieved on 16 August 2007.
  22. ^ "CasaHistória "Republic 1889-1964"". Retrieved 2007-06-12.
  23. ^ a b U.S. Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Studies: Brazil, "The Era of Getúlio Vargas, 1930-54"
  24. ^ Valença, Márcio M. "Patron-Client Relations and Politics in Brazil: A Historical Overview". Retrieved June 16, 2007.
  25. ^ Renato Marques (2006-02-17). "Plano de Metas criado por JK foi um marco da economia brasileira" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-08-12.
  26. ^ CasaHistória website, "Military Rule". Retrieved June 12, 2007.
  27. ^ Manuel Álvarez-Rivera (2006-10-30). "Election Resources on the Internet: Federal Elections in Brazil". Retrieved 2007-06-20.
  28. ^ a b c "20th century (1990-1992 The Collor Government)". Brazilian Government website. Retrieved 2007-06-20.
  29. ^ "The Rise and Fall of President Collor and Its Impact on Brazilian Democracy". JSTOR. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazil/Archive_7&oldid=1255168690"