Talk:National Museum of Brazil fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

ITN

Nominated here. José Luiz ^talk 02:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a Rewrite

The article prose sounds translated. It should be rewritten into natural English. -- Veggies (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Electronic copies

Was a portion of the museum collection electronically copied? I think people would like to know, so if someone can find out, please add it to the page. I would like to think that someone carefully scanned those 400 yr old chants that are from a language no one speaks anymore. Jake Papp (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Some pieces, specially the most important ones, were 3D scanned (here in Portuguese). But it will be some time before we know what was and what wasn't. José Luiz ^talk 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This article should name names

The names of the successive politicians who are accountable for such a tragedy. Objectively and without blaming, simply saying who, when and what they failed to do. There has to be ample evidence of the failures. This is an example of failure to save the collective memory of mankind, not just Brazil or Brazilians. One has to wonder if any level of embarrassment is ever going to be enough to change our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.101.79 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Do sources do? Another thing I noticed is that the article appears to have no information related to any ongoing investigations (it could be too soon?). —PaleoNeonate – 18:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You clearly has never been to a rich third world country like Brazil. There are a million things going wrong down here and and that is just another disaster to handle. We will probably never be able to pinpoint exactly who was responsible and even if we can, the mutual accusations will prevent anyone to actually paying the price for this huge loss. We do have politicians in jail, but they openly accuse "the system" to be "rigged" against them and every time the control of the government passes from one group to other, everything done gets reversed and a new plan, on the opposite direction, starts. Our institutions do not have the level of independence from harmful political influence as yours do and corruption is rife. Just so you know, three years after Mariana disaster, with its huge impact in lives and on the environment, basically nothing happened. But hey, things are way better than they were 30 years ago, but we are still 100 years behind you guys in this.... Sadly. José Luiz ^talk 19:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for the info.Kdelaluz (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

English

"The building located at the Quinta da Boa Vista park as the São Cristóvāo palace was constructed in the early 19th century, when it was donated to the Portuguese Royal family and later renovated."

What's this supposed to mean? 71.223.28.239 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It means that the building, which is now the museum but has not always been the museum, is old and was expanded in the early 19th century to become the building it is today. Probably needs more clarification, it comes from a source with more context. Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But how can a building locate? 71.223.28.239 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The "located" in that sentence, and the part which follows, is meant to describe where the building was located and what it originally was. It is not the verb of that first clause; that would be the "constructed" part. By abbreviating the first part, it becomes more clear: "The building located [at this place] was constructed in the early 19th century [...]". This is because "located" is the verb for the dependent clause that is embedded within the first independent clause, though the lack of punctuation obfuscates this. But yes, it could be worded better. Even some commas or dashing might have helped clarify the sentence. Although it can still be improved, I have reworded the sentence to the following:

The building—located at the Quinta da Boa Vista park—was originally the São Cristóvāo palace and was constructed in the early 19th century, when it was donated to the Portuguese Royal family and later renovated.

I hope that's better. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 14:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Museu Nacional de Historia Natural da UFRJ (Rio de Janeiro/Brazil)

O nome correto desse museu é "Museu Nacional de História Natural da UFRJ", esse museu é de propriedade da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), e ele está localizado dentro da Quinta da Boa Vista, em São Cristóvão, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil, e ocorreu um incêndio dentro do museu ha poucas semanas atrás.

Anos atrás eu entrei dentro desse museu, eu fui junto com uma excursão de alunos do ensino básico, e eu tirei diversas fotografias de tudo o que estava exposto em exposição dentro desse museu. Quem quiser ver as fotografias, elas estão aqui nesse link = https://www.flickr.com/photos/amgauna/albums/72157660323409443 e eu já mostrei essas fotografias aos responsáveis da UFRJ e da UNIRIO, dentro do Facebook. Ana Gauna (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Translate

The correct name of this museum is "National Museum of Natural History of UFRJ", this museum is owned by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), and it is located inside the Quinta da Boa Vista, in São Cristóvão, Rio de Janeiro / RJ, Brazil, and there was a fire inside the museum a few weeks ago.

Years ago I walked into this museum, I went along with a tour of elementary school students, and I took several photographs of everything that was on display in that museum. Who wants to see the photos, they are here in this link = https://www.flickr.com/photos/amgauna/albums/72157660323409443 and I have already shown these photos to the heads of UFRJ and UNIRIO, inside Facebook. Ana Gauna (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong. Even the official site of the museum calls it just "Museu Nacional". The direction of UFRJ for several times refused private donations and deals to secure and renovate the building (for ideological and partidary reasons), and chose to reduce the museum's funding even though it required only a ridiculous portion of UFRJ's annual budget. It is reasonable to expect that whatever is left of the museum be cut off from UFRJ's administration at the start of the next federal administration (2019). Fbergo (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Blanking/Merging to Museum Article

User EEng has copied the contents of this entire article to National Museum of Brazil without any consensus on 21 September 2018, and then blanked this article and turned it into a redirect without seeking any discussion. His blanking has been reverted 4 times by different users and it's clearly edit warring. This article was a high-level article about an important event, was featured on the main page and the merge should never have been done without a discussion in the first place. Please voice your opinions here in favor of keeping the separate article (Keep) or in favor of merging (Merge). Fbergo (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, you can't just keep resurrecting a defunct version of an old article which has been under active development for more than a month elsewhere. The four who have reverted the redirect are far outweighed by the twenty editors who are happily improving the content over at National Museum of Brazil, and none has contributed to either the original or redirected article in any significant way. Arguments like This article was a high-level article about an important event, was featured on the main page are completely irrelevant; like it says at WP:NOPAGE:

There are ... times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

In any event the right place for this discussion, if you really want to waste time on it, is at Talk:National Museum of Brazil since that's where those who are actually doing the work will see it. EEng 18:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you did start a discussion there at the time. Got 2 votes against, 0 in favor, and did it anyway. Fbergo (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'd already done it and was simply noting that fact. Later an objection was raised, I answered it, and the person objecting never responded. Then someone else raised an objection, I answered it, and that person also never responded. Conclusion: they either accepted my arguments or didn't care enough to continue. The page has 35 active watchers and apparently 33 of those 35 don't object (though most of them have happily edited the merged article to make a more integrated presentation).

Now a month later you've come along and made an objection, I've answered it, and instead of giving a substantive response you've simply shown that you don't understand WP:NOTVOTE. Do you have any actual reasons, maybe something about what's in the article, how it's presented, how the reader will perceive it – ya know, actual stuff about the content? EEng 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)