Jump to content

Talk:Brazil: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m fruit?
Agent010 (talk | contribs)
146 edits
Vandalism
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA}}
{{Talk header}}
{{American English}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Article history
==Opening comments==
|action1=GAN
Ok I`ve made changes as sugested by Vertigo200, I belive all are satisfied now?
|action1date=02:39, 16 December 2005
*At kardrak: I checked the WB list and if we use it as our source of information then indeed you are right. Since we can go on giving arguments for wich list should be used I decided to follow Vertigo200s sugestion, hope you agree :)
|action1link=<!-- Unilateral action by Quadell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=31560178 -->
--[[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=31516584


|action2=GAR
I would recomed simply putting that the Brazilian economy is larger in PPP terms. It makes little sense to use any other exchange rate when comparing GDP countries, since economic theory says that an exchange rate can easily deviate from it's "correct" path, making PPP the best alternative we have (being considered as such by, I would guess, the majority of economists).
|action2date=21:22, 14 September 2006
In portuguese: Eu sugeriria simplesmente colocar que a economia Brasileira é maior em termo de PPP. Faz pouco sentido usar outra taxa de cambio para comparar o PIB de paises, uma vez que a teoria econômica prevê que taxas de cambio podem facilmente desviar de seu "valor correto", então o PPP é a melhor forma de comparar (sendo considerado assim, imagino, pela maioria dos economistas).--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 00:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Brazil/Archive 2#Delisted GA
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=75341501


|action3=FAC
Im very sorry, since the list you are using as fact is just a list of PREDICTIONS by the International Monetary Fund, the only list with current facts is that of the World Bank as for 2004, since 2005 is current year and still not ending.
|action3date=17:57, 18 December 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive1
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=95121865


|action4=GAN
Im sorry because of this confussion, since in the main article of GDP we have had some trolling.
|action4date=14:33, 7 May 2007
|action4link=Talk:Brazil/Archive 2#Passed GA
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=128902215


|action5=GAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
|action5date=03:42, 11 May 2007
|action5link=Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18#Brazil
|action5result=delisted
|action5oldid=130215626


|action6=FAC
|action6date=00:11, 12 May 2007
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive2
|action6result=not promoted
|action6oldid=130215626


|action7=GAN
--[[User:Kardrak|Kardrak]] 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
|action7date=02:35, 12 May 2007
|action7link=Talk:Brazil/Archive_2#GA_Failed:_Notes_for_fixes
|action7result=failed
|action7oldid=130215626


|action8=GAN
It isn't larger than the 19 odd Sp LatAm countries combined, as the word '''all''' implies. It is unquestionably bigger than '''any''' other, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]]
|action8date=28 June 2007
|action8link=Talk:Brazil/Archive 3#Fourth GA review
|action8result=failed
|action8oldid=141209638


|action9=GAN
|action9date=21 August 2007
|action9link=Talk:Brazil/Archive 4#GA Review
|action9result=listed
|action9oldid=152728135


|action10=FAC
-------
|action10date=00:02, 5 June 2008
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive3
|action10result=not promoted
|action10oldid=217073915


|action11=GAR
|action11date=23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
|action11link=Talk:Brazil/GA1
|action11result=delisted
|action11oldid=260390040


|action12=FAC
|action12date=10:01, 02 January 2014
|action12link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive4
|action12result=not promoted
|action12oldid=588633598


|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=geography
|otd1date=2004-09-07|otd1oldid=9704828
|otd2date=2005-09-07|otd2oldid=22805037
|otd3date=2006-09-07|otd3oldid=74305464
|otd4date=2007-09-07|otd4oldid=156286350
|otd5date=2008-09-07|otd5oldid=236671325
|otd6date=2009-09-07|otd6oldid=311957522
|otd7date=2012-11-15|otd7oldid=522953475
|otd8date=2013-11-15|otd8oldid=581594348
|otd9date=2014-11-15|otd9oldid=633898872
|otd10date=2015-11-15|otd10oldid=690429313
|otd11date=2016-11-15|otd11oldid=749619653
|otd12date=2017-11-15|otd12oldid=810443871
|otd13date=2018-11-15|otd13oldid=868978253
|otd14date=2019-11-15|otd14oldid=925936561
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=B |vital=yes |1=
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Brazil|importance=Top |geo=yes |gov=yes}}
{{WikiProject Latin America|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject South America|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
}}{{Copied
| from = Tourism in Brazil
| from_oldid = 246592471
| to = Brazil
| to_diff = 248478481
| date = 29 October 2008
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]]|6,785,350}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 8 2014 (19th)}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
Please sign your messages so we can have a proper discussion. Now, brazils GDP is larger in both categories as you can see on wikipidia itself:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 17
|algo = old(90d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Talk:Brazil/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Religion ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 (Brazil is 12th, Mexico is 14th)


*[https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/01/13/50percent-dos-brasileiros-sao-catolicos-31percent-evangelicos-e-10percent-nao-tem-religiao-diz-datafolha.ghtml 2020 est. by Datafolha]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 (Brazil is 10th, Mexico is 13th)
:Catholic: 50%
:Protestant: 31%
:No religion: 11%
:Spiritism: 3%
:Other: 4,3%


*[https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2022/06/datafolha-brazilians-go-to-church-less-and-give-less-contributions.shtml 2022 est. by Datafolha]:
Also in case anyone missed my post on the bottom of the list here it is again:
:Catholic: 51%
:Protestant: 28%
:No specific faith: 12%
:Other religions: 5%


*[https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/brazil/#people-and-society 2023 est. by CIA]:
Plese check this documment (pdf): http://www.ggdc.net/pub/online/gd52(online).pdf
:Catholic: 52.8%
It confirms that Brazil''s economy is indeed larger than that of mexico, though abit outdated I havent been able to find a more recent work. Also if you compare GDPs you`d see that Brazil`ss is higher than Mexicos.--[[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:Protestant: 26.7%
:No religion: 14.2%
:Other: 4.8%


The data on religion in the infobox needs to be corrected, the percentage of people without religion in Brazil does not reach 19%. As a Brazilian, I think the CIA's 2023 estimates are closer to reality. [[User:Mawer10|Mawer10]] ([[User talk:Mawer10|talk]]) 13:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


:It doesn't make any sense to consider spiritism as 'other religions' since they believe fully in Jesus Christ, and therefore they are Christians. [[Special:Contributions/2804:1E68:C201:5E94:435:455D:3B12:B756|2804:1E68:C201:5E94:435:455D:3B12:B756]] ([[User talk:2804:1E68:C201:5E94:435:455D:3B12:B756|talk]]) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Dont question the imparciality of the article just because you dont agree with it. I have presented facts, havent seen any from you yet
::There's no "Christians" at the comment. Only Protestants and Catholics. Do you believe that spiritism can be considered one of those? [[User:André Ishida|André Ishida]] ([[User talk:André Ishida|talk]]) 21:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)


== Coat of arms ==
--[[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] 12:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
---------


Twice recently, an editor has changed the infobox of this article to use the "dark blue" coat of arms rather than the sky-blue one. However, [[Coat of arms of Brazil]] says that the dark blue version was only used until 1968, and since then, either sky blue or a very slightly darker version of sky blue has been used. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Biased facts and affirmations out of specificity related to the size of Brazilian economy that is the largest in Latin America in purchasing power parity but is not in nominal terms.


== What about their cusine and foods, diversity? ==
---------


A d d. S o m e t h i n g. [[Special:Contributions/80.94.203.188|80.94.203.188]] ([[User talk:80.94.203.188|talk]]) 10:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
''the largest and most populous country in South America, and fifth largest in the world.''


:That is already present and of adequate length under Culture / Cuisine. [[User:Fbergo|Fbergo]] ([[User talk:Fbergo|talk]]) 11:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't this read: ..."and the fifth most populous in the world"?


== Form of government in Brazil ==
---------
''An event mentioned in this article is a [[Template:September 7 selected anniversaries|September 7 selected anniversary]]''.
---------
While the map is really nice, is it ok to use it? It's not uploaded to Wikipedia, it's linked from a .gov server. And it seems like it's taken from this [http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/maps/brmap.htm page]. And that page clearly says that it's copyrighted. -- [[user:Peter Winnberg|Peter Winnberg]]


Brazil's form of government is a representative democracy, with periodic and direct elections, where citizens elect their politicians and representatives in a direct, clean and fair manner.Brazil is a Federation composed of federative units (the states And the head of government and head of state is the President of the Republic, directly elected by popular vote. In other words, Brazil is a Democratic Presidential Federal Republic. I had added this to the page about Brazil but it ended up being undone by a colleague at Wikipedia I decided to write this to explain better. [[User:Poul Yoshida|Poul Yoshida]] ([[User talk:Poul Yoshida|talk]]) 04:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
----


== Grammatical error in Demographics ==
Likewise the CIA World Factbook content. Are we allowed to use this?


"Outside in the Arab world, Brazil also has the largest population of Arab ancestry in the world, with 15–20 million people." should be "Outside '''of''' the Arab world, Brazil also has the largest population of Arab ancestry in the world, with 15–20 million people."
:See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/concopy.html


I'd edit it myself but I don't have access yet. [[User:Bearfrost|Bearfrost]] ([[User talk:Bearfrost|talk]]) 18:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
----


:Hello! I have edited the page with the suggested change. Thanks for noticing. [[User:G4B-XD-3l|G4B-XD-3l]] ([[User talk:G4B-XD-3l|talk]]) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Another one is countryreports.org

http://www.countryreports.org/brazil.htm

You tell me. [[user:Nhishands4ever|Nhishands4ever]]

Hi Jorge,

Thank you for your interest in this important subject. Please know that you and I are not the only ones who care about it. We both will agree that every language or dialect has its 'worth' in this world...

That said, however, I would like to suggest that perhaps you were a little hasty in your decision to remove information from the Brazil page regarding immigrant languages. If you don't like the expression "Immigrant Languages" perhaps we could explore alternatives. Myself, I am fighting against invisibility here. There are strong political motives on all sides, obviously (explícitos ou não). However, immigrant languages do exist in Brazil and they are indeed very unique to that part of the world.

Both indigenous and immigrant languages are in need of recognition all over the world. This is no different in Brazil!

For example, this year German speaking Brazilians and their friends commemorated one hundred and eighty years of German immigration to Brazil. Most of these German-Brazilians speak a Brazilian variation of the Hunsrückisch dialect which was aptly classified as "Riograndenser Hunsrückisch" by Dr. Cléo Vilson Althofen, a linguist from Rio Grande do Sul.

Meanwhile Hunsrückisch proper is still spoken in the Hunsrück region of Germany today. Not unlike the Venetian language which continues being spoken in Italy today.

I can see that you have very strong feelings about your native language but please try and see other people's perspectives. That is all I'm asking...

For example, please checkout the texts below:

Kindly,

-Bepp


Dissionàrio Talian Véneto Brasilian Portoghese - Dicionário Talian Veneto Brasileiro Português

Autor: Darcy Loss Luzzatto
Editora: Sagra Luzzatto
Gênero: DICIONÁRIO DE OUTROS IDIOMAS
Ano: 2000
por: R$ 55,00
Entrega Prevista em:5 dias úteis com compras no cartão de crédito para Grande São Paulo.
Sinopse:
Com a formação do talian, que esta todo dentro do Dicionário de Luzzatto, nós levamos adiante a mesma cultura com um forma lingüistica única, embora ainda estejam vivas as línguas que o formaram. O Dicionário do Talian contém palavras do sessenta milhões de taliani que andam pelo mundo e, quem sabe de quantos que, depois da experiência migratória, continuam a falar esta língua, agora definitivamente, com palavras definitivas, porque o Senhor já os chamou para o definitivo, sereno, feliz e alegre destino. - Rovílio Costa .

ISBN:8524106344
Origem:Nacional
Encadernação:BROCHURA
Páginas:478
Peso:935 gr.


Fonte:
http://somlivre.globo.com/ProdutoLivro.asp?ProductID=034906


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talian (VÊNETO BRASILEIRO)

Língua de imigrantes italianos, muito falada atualmente no Brasil (cf. Luzzatto, 1994). Os falantes do talian se concentram na Região Sul, distruibuindo-se em diferentes cidades de cada Estado, por exemplo: Caxias do sul, Farroupilha, Garibaldi, Bento Gonçalves, Flores da Cunha, Veranópolis, Erechim, Carlos Barbosa - no Rio Grande do Sul; Joaçaba, Caçador, Chapecó, Concórdia – em Santa Catarina; Cascavel, Pato Branco, Francisco Beltrão, Medianeira, Toledo - no Paraná). É pela relação com o movimento de imigração de italianos para o Brasil no fim do século XIX e início do XX que podemos compreender a emergência do talian como uma língua. Quando chegavam ao Brasil, os imigrantes eram conduzidos a fazendas ou a áreas ainda não habitadas nem cultivadas. Disso resultavam as colônias de imigrantes, vinculadas ao processo de colonização dessas áreas. No caso da região sul, de modo geral, dividiam-se essas novas áreas em linhas e travessões e nelas se estabeleciam os imigrantes, aleatoriamente agrupados. Dos imigrantes italianos que se dirigiram ao Sul do país, em finais do século XIX, 95% eram provenientes do Vêneto e da Lombardia. Destes, 60% tinham língua e cultura vênetas, o que fez com que formas dessa língua predominassem nas situações de conversa entre eles, resultando no talian.

(R.M.)

==Immigrant languages==

The page claimed that there was n "immigrant language" called
: [[Talian]] or sometimes called [[Vèneto dialect|Vêneto]] (a uniquely [[Portuguese Language|Brazilian]] form of [[Italian Language|Italian]])
Vèneto was my first language, but it was certainly not a "uniquely Brazilian form of Italian" -- check [[Venetian language]]!

Likewise, the page claimed that there exist "immigrant languages"
:[[Hunsrückisch]] German or [[Riograndenser Hunsrückisch]], [[Pommeranisch]] or [[Pommersch]], [[Plattdüütsch]] or [[Plattdietsch]], [[Schwäbisch]] (or [[Swabian Language|Swabian]])
Are these really distinct languages, sufficiently well-defined to be worth writing about -- or were they just European languages that were spoken in Brazil, with variable degrees of lexical borowing? In any case, please follow the Wikipedia naming guidelines <nowiki>[[Riograndenser Hunsrückisch language]]</nowiki> etc.

[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 06:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Vicent Yáñez Pinzón DID NOT DISCOVER BRAZIL ==

To say that Vicente Yañez Pinzón discovered Brazil is not only historically wrong, but it is an insult to Brazilians and Portuguese people. Whoever believes otherwise, we want to see your sources (and no, a Spanish encyclopaedia doesn't count).

At the last resort, if there is really a dispute (which is not the case -- only if you WANT to believe that Pinzón discovered Brazil), then we should stick with what the Brazilians and Portuguese claim, and any claims from Spanish sources should be taken with suspicion, since Spain and Portugal disputed territories in the Americas. So, Pinzón went down the Amazon River. So what?

* The River goes beyond the Brazilian territory -- even today.
* Brazil's territory expanded due to the [[Treaty of Tordesillas]], which happened way after Cabral and Pinzón. Therefore Brazil's territory was way smaller at the time. Which means that the region explored by Pinzón was probably Spanish territory at the time. See: [[Portuguese colonization of the Americas]].
* The population of Brazil was not developed in the region where Pinzón made his way. Until today, only Indians leaves there, and Brazil want to keep it this way. The whole development of Brazil started on its East coat.

Therefore, if a State expands its territory to a place/region which dates before the colonization/foundation/discovery of the State itself, doesn't mean that whoever claimed this new acquired territory before, is now the colonizer/founder/discoverer of the whole State.

Brazil was colonised by Portugal, claimed by the Portugal crown, the emperor was Portuguese, they speak Portuguese, and Brazil wouldn't accept otherwise. So please, let's avoid further discussions on this topic: [[Pedro Álvares Cabral]] discovered Brazil. Want to claim otherwise? Let's talk about it here, ok?


If I sound like I am overreacting, I am sorry. But as a Brazilian, such claim is quite upsetting. You don't see me going to the Airplane page and wiping of the name of the Wright Brothers claiming that Santos Dummond invented the airplane, do you? (Although I do belive he invented the first proper airplane, and that his name should be at least mentioned somewhere ;-) )


___

My first source was a wikipedia article, [[Colonial Brazil]], where somebody wrote:

"Brazil's discovery is officially dated at April 22 of 1500, by Pedro Álvares Cabral, who was trying to discover a new route to India, around Africa. However, his pioneerism is still debated. He was in fact preceded by Vicente Yáñez Pinzón who discovered the Amazon river months earlier on January 26, but if the Amazon is now part of Brazil it was then west of the Tordesilhas Line, therefore actually Spanish".

Then I read fast some pages about Brazil's discovery, all in english:
*[http://www.reconcile.org/thespain.htm The mother that betrayed her children], brazilian
*http://www.ewetel.net/~norbert.fiks/columbus/seiten/cabral2.htmApril 1500: The squatting of Brazil], english and Deutsche

There are biographies about Pinzon:
*[[http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/pinzon.html]

I wrote "when the first European explorers, Led by Vicente Yáñez Pinzón and Pedro Álvares Cabral disembarked on 1500". As you see, I don't delete to Cabral. You deleted Pinzon.

Finally, I don't know because the possible fact of Brazil's discovery by Vicente Yañez Pinzón could be an insult to Brazilians and Portuguese people.

In the Spanish Empire, as example, many explorers were portuguese: [[Ferdinand Magellan]], [[Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo]] (João Rodrigues Cabrilho), etc. The own Columbus was probably genovesian. Hernán Cortés had 300.000 Amerindian allies and only 100 soldiers. Idem with the Tercios españoles in Europe, bankers, etc.

On the other side, all the brazilians are not of portuguese origin, too. See [[Demographics of Brazil]].

The debate exists, and we can't deny by nationalism. Where would be the truth?


___

Grimferrer, tell any Brazilian or Portuguese that Brazil was discovered by anyone else rather than [[Pedro Álvares Cabral]], and let me know if they agree with it. As I mentioned before, the estuary of the Amazon River only became party of the Brazilian territory long after both Pinzón and Cabral were gone.

Also, all these Internet sources are dubious. Probably done by some Spaniards with sense of nationalism towards the Issue. "Who discovered Brazil" is a discussion that normally takes place in little bars on the streets of Galicia, where elder Spanish and Portuguese people keep debating (with nostalgy) which country is more influential.

____

Well, I'm not expert about issue. I will read about it later. Ah, I've reverted [[Pedro Álvares Cabral]]

____

From Época, [http://epoca.globo.com/especiais/500anos/esp20000124.htm Em memória do navegante andaluz Cidade pernambucana antecipa a celebração do Descobrimento, que atribui ao espanhol Pinzón] :

"A presença do navegador espanhol em terras pernambucanas é questão controvertida, mas poucos duvidam de que tenha pisado em território brasileiro antes dos portugueses".

"Ao desembarcar numa ponta da atual Praia do Paraíso, em Pernambuco, o navegador batizou-a de Cabo de Santa Maria de la Consolación e lavrou o termo de posse. O documento só não foi oficialmente reconhecido devido ao Tratado de Tordesilhas, assinado em 1494 por Espanha e Portugal, dividindo entre as duas potências territórios conhecidos ou por descobrir".

"Já no dia do desembarque reabasteceu as caravelas e seguiu costa acima até o Cabo Orange, no extremo norte do país. Na foz do Amazonas, impressionou-o o tamanho do rio, que batizou de Mar Dulce. Dali, navegou até o Caribe e voltou em seguida à Europa com uma fortuna em pau-brasil, topázio, canela e animais exóticos".

"A versão foi contestada por um livro do historiador cearense Capistrano de Abreu, para quem Pinzón efetivamente pisou as areias do Cabo de Santo Agostinho. "Infelizmente, o primeiro capítulo da História do Brasil é também o mais obscuro e mal contado", lamenta a historiadora Maria do Socorro Ferraz, da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Ela coordena uma equipe de dez técnicos que vasculha o Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino, em Portugal. O projeto, apoiado numa verba de R$ 500 mil, trará ao Brasil cerca de 300 mil documentos relativos ao período colonial. "Sem a paixão nacionalista de portugueses e espanhóis, os brasileiros se abstêm ao remontar essa confusa parte da História", argumenta".

"Não podemos contar a História em função do Tratado de Tordesilhas", pondera o pesquisador amador. "Está na hora de mexer nesse vespeiro." Em novembro, Santo Agostinho tornou-se "município irmão" de Palos de la Frontera, terra natal de Pinzón.

____
Well, when it says that "poucos duvidam de que tenha pisado em território brasileiro antes dos portugueses". I would mention:

* Only people from Pernambuco thinks so.
* Even if that is the case, once again, that was NOT BRAZIL at the time. It was annexed. So what?

Let me put it this way: [[Kaliningrad]] is a province in the Middle of Europe that belongs to Russia (anexed by Russia during Soviet times). This doesn't mean, that Russia was founded by King [[Ottokar II]], does it?

_______

*The historical truth is not a show of hands. Did you know if this people from Pernambuco have any proof (prueba)?
*According to wikipedia, "the first permanent Portuguese settlement [...] São Vicente was founded in 1532". After only two years, "In 1534, Dom João III, king of Portugal created the Hereditary Captaincies. Pernambuco, one of these captaincies, was granted to Duarte Coelho. ", so Pernambuco would not be an annexed territory. It would be a Captaincies of the original Brazil.


I was surprised to red "After Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva came to power 2004 January 1st, the government has changed economic policies. The economy is growing again, and is expected to do so for the forseeable future." All observers agree that the macro economic policies were maintained. Maybe they were exacerbeted... The central bank was put in the hands of someone from of Cardoso's party and The Lula government concluded it first year with a negative growht!


:: Makes no difference, who's discover Brazil made a genocide killing a lot native americans (ìndios do litoral brasileiro)

No one discovers a country, because it was there all the time in the first place. It's like saying bacteria discovered the universe. We should say who went to Brazil first. And the answer would be indians.


===Who discovery Brazil===
I'm really scared with things that I read here. [[Pedro Alvares Cabral]] disovered Brazil. This is secular consensus, every brazilian kid know this. All encyclopedias published here (including [[Britannica]] and [[Encarta]]) brings this information. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 01:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

:[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]], thank you! I suggest you keep your eyes opened for anyone attempting to say otherwise either in this article or any other articles about other explorers and navigators. --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

::Did you ever consider that there was a relatively recent change in the brazilian educational curriculum? I am brazilian, and although this has never come to my attention, I was just discussing this with someone from an earlier generation and he seemed pretty familiar with Vicente Pinzón. Also, are either of you defending this point of view actually historians? I hardly think elementary school knowledge should take precedence when writing an encyclopedia article. However this strays from common sense, there is no reason to blindly reject the idea, instead of doing further research on it. The subject is at least controversial, such controversy deserves at least a mention within the article to acquire a neutral point of view other than that of what schools teach as national history. The case is, there's an official version of the story, yet there is a whole context to be considered when talking about the great navigations. Looking deeper into history, we know Brazil's discovery was far from unintentional, as is thaught to kids nowadays. I'd just like to point out that it is a shame to let any piece of knowledge or research that is different from your "secular consensus", fade away out of close-mindedness. To find the truth, one must always question and consider every point of view. I'd also like to remind those who defend that it was not Brazillian territory, or that it was not a "discovery", that it is a case of semantics, while you do not consider that the official discovery of Brazil, other people in the world might have different conceptions than you and actually disagree. There are reports about several expeditions that might have arrived in brazilian territory before Cabral, such as João Coelho da Porta da Cruz, Duarte Pacheco Pereira, Diogo de Lepe and the oh so controversial Pinzón. Why are these incidents not deserving of mention in any form? Why should wikipedia readers be shielded from this knowledge? I think a proper solution should be found to achieve a true neutral point of view. While I would agree to make a compromise and allow further detailing and recognition of the "official" point of view, the other versions are AT LEAST deserving of mention. I expect a reasonable reconsideration.
[[User:Starghost|Starghost]] 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:::This discussion is very valueable for [[History of Brazil]] article. Yet, alternative visions of History does not belong to this article, since it is shorter. [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Metropolitan Community Church - Brazil (GLBTT - Gays, Lesbians and Trans people) ==

Can someople please develop what is this all about?

== Brazil's health system ==

Anyone knows how Brazil's health system operate. What i mean by this is, is it purely socialized like Canada, a mixture of both public and private like Britian and Australia or purely capitalized like US?

:It's a mixture of public and private. [[User:Kieff|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash; [[User:Kieff|Kieff]] | [[User talk:Kieff|Talk]] 05:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
::It is, but the private part is highly capitalized, and someone in private health don't need to have any business with the public system. For example, in the UK, one must always go to the public GP and ask for him to reffer himself to a specialist. In Brazil, if one is a member of a health plan, he can visit any doctor/clinic that is a member of such plan straight away. [sigh... I miss this :)] --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 14:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:: The public system is poor as you can't imagine. [[User:200.172.115.194|200.172.115.194]] 03:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About health in Brazil
"Like most developing countries, Brazil's most problematic disease is AIDS"

This statement is completely wrong.
First because brazil is not a developing country, it is the 10th economy of the world, an industriallized country [ I'm not being proud. This denomination of developping country is totally innappropriate and OLD. Please use POOR country ]

Second beucase has by far and large brazil has the best public AIDS treatment system in the world.
( due the the breaking of patents ).

For numbers on brazil deseases (2001 version)
http://portal.saude.gov.br/saude/aplicacoes/anuario2001/morb/Mmorbt01.cfm

and for updated numbers the not-so-easily readable, official database
http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/idb2003/matriz.htm

As we can see, brazil suffers a lot from Malaria and Dengue. AIDS is ranked 8th in the deaseases ranking.

== Economic ==

I spoted some wrong information.

"After Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva came to power 2004 January 1st, the government has changed economic policies. The economy is growing again, and is expected to do so for the forseeable future."

It was 2002, not 2004, when [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]] came to power.

And da Silva's government hasn't changed economic policies, it is still based on controling the inflation and the public financial health, as recommended by the [[International Monetary Fund]].

oops, actually he won the election in 2002 and came to power in 2003.

yes, the actual government did NOT change economic policies.

Also, current economic practices are NOT commonly approved in Brazil. It is definetly NOT widely accepted the statement that "growth is expected for the forseeable future". In fact, Brazil has economic theories that *strongly* disagree with the IMF ones.

== Population ==

It is important to mention the importance, influence and size of the Italian colony in Brazil. 25 million descendents (world's largest) and deeply important to form the daily habits of Brazilians. Fred.


"Racism in Brazil is an unbailable crime." I don't know how to interpret this sentence. I didn't edit since I'm not sure what the author is trying to get at. [[User:24.179.23.9|24.179.23.9]] 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Egg

==Islam in Brazil==

Regarding this:

:0.1% to 0.2% (0.03% or 56,000 people according to the last census, mostly Arab immigrants)

Anyone has a link for this census? The only link I found on 2000 census was

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24481.htm

:Approximately 2.1 million respondents to the 2000 census checked "other," which includes Islam, Hinduism, spiritualism, esoteric traditions, and indigenous traditions.

What's the source/link for 0.03%? [[User:OneGuy|OneGuy]] 22:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

----
Who said that the [[Iguassu Falls]] are in the [[Parana River]]? These falls are located in the final section of the [[Iguassu River]], in fact. Some kilometers after the falls, the Iguassu River finishes up, in the Parana River. [[User:ApS Camper|ApS Camper]] 00:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== The name 'Brazil' ==

''Named after brazilwood, a local tree''

Does anyone have any information on this? I was under the impression that Brazilwood was named after Brazil, not the other way around. I've also heard allegations that the name Brazil is somehow related to 'Hy Braseal', some Celtic legend. I don't know how true that is. --[[User:Bletch|Bletch]] 13:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Well, for what I have studied in school (being myself Brazilian), our country is named after the wood.

:Perhaps Brazil come from a heraldy ancient french word for red color, so that is the color of the ink took from brazilwood.

:Please! Avoid these irish things. There IS a celtic legend about Saint Brandon (is that his name?) and a island called Brazil (see ''[[Brazil (movie)]]'') Although, Brazil was named after Brazilwood. In Portuguese (Pau-Brasil), it is related with the word Brasa (ember). '''Brasil''' is something like ''emberish''. (notice that we do not use this word currently).

:Brazil is definately named after the Brazil tree (Pau Brasil): Here is Brazil's sequence of names : Terra de Santa Cruz (because of the southern cross constellation), Terra de Vera Cruz (the 'true cross' ) and Brazil, which was NOT a 'given' name but one that was adopted from common use _ a terra do brazil _ meaning the land of brazil wood, since pau brasil was at the time the main export and source of revenue for Portugal. The Brazil wood has a charateristic deep red colour . As mentioned already, the word for ember in Portuguese is 'brasa'. Also the reference url given for this version of the name Brazil is based on hear say and is given by an american who lives in Arizona and does not claim to be a historian or an expert. I highly doubt that the portuguese at the time were at all aware of celtic legends.... As to french heraldic names it would be helpfull if we were told the actual french word. French and Portuguese are latin languages and have common roots. However I do not think the Portuguese wold have adopted a name based on anything french at the time since they were colonial competitors and the french more than once tried to occupy brazilian territory (as did the Dutch also).
:I really think this entry should be edited, the main reason for it being, as I said before, that Brazil was not a 'chosen, given' name but was adopted from commom use decades after the actual 'discovery' and is based on economical circumstances. I'm brazilian.

:Check this link for the celtic origin of the word Bresail[http://www.iol.ie/~gerardb/history.htm]

== Map ==

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] 02:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have also put this at [[Geography of Brazil]], --[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

:Has someone had a chance to create a page that lists all the various issues and points of view regarding Kelisi's new maps? When debates are strewn across lots of pages when need to come to a general conclusion about the best way forward. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 15:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, believing this issue needs to be sorted out on a page by page basis, and no general conclusion needs to be reached. At the end of the day I suspect some pages will adopt his map and other s not. The CIA maps are by no means Universal, see [[United States of America]] and [[Nicaragua]] for instance. The only way to find out where Kelisi is proposing changes is at [[Special:Contributions/User:Kelisi]]. I support the new lower Kelisi map here for Brazil, --[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

::First of all I would like to know whether the two maps differ in presentation or in matter. Are there any any differences in international / maritime boundaries depicted in the two maps. I could not see any, but I might have missed some. If not, I feel the CIA map is much better as it is less cluttered. Kelisi’s map is too complicated and a reader could get lost in the plethora of colors and numbers in it. --[[User:DuKot|DuKot]] 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Br-map.png|Map of Brazil]]
[[Image:Brazilmap.gif|Map of Brazil]]

In france BRAZIL is spelt BRASIL.I use google satalite to look at live imiages of brazil.[http://www.google/maps/satalite.com live satalite]

==Improvement Drive==
[[South America]] adn [[Developing countries' debt]] is currently nominated to be improved on [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive]]. You can support the article with your vote.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

== OtherUses template ==


Please change the article to use [[Template:OtherUses]] instead of [[Template:otheruses]] it currently uses. The ''OtherUses'' template has information about the contents of the article.

<nowiki>{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}} </nowiki>

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles [[Alabama]] or [[Algiers]]

==Brazilian city names -- standardized disambiguation?==
Attention all Brazilian and Brazilian-interested editors. [[Curitiba]] is located at [[Curitiba]] and [[Manaus]] is at [[Manaus]], and that's all well and good. But when it's necessary to disambiguate a location, the Brazilian cities are currently using a number of different systems. For example:
*[[São Paulo, São Paulo]]
*[[Alegre, ES, Brazil]]
*[[Lima Duarte (city)]]
*[[Indiana, Brazil]] & [[Natal, Brazil]]
*[[Coimbra (MG)]] (doesn't exist yet, but linked under that name from [[List of cities in Minas Gerais]])
Let's pick one method, standardize on it, and record the decision in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)]]. Taking Coimbra as an example, the options would be:
#[[Coimbra, Brazil]] -- transparent to foreigners, but problematic if there turns out to be another Coimbra in (eg) Paraná.
#[[Coimbra, Minas Gerais]] or [[Coimbra, MG]] -- the US/Canada "comma convention".
#[[Coimbra (Minas Gerais)]] or [[Coimbra (MG)]] -- using the domestic abbreviation/format. Probably not very transparent to foreigners, but the (parenthetical) helps make pipe-linking much easier.
#[[Coimbra, MG, Brazil]] -- no chance of confusion at all, but makes for very lengthy article names.
#Others?
We could of course have redirects from any number of the alternatives, but it would be useful to set a standard for the article locations themselves. And standardize now, to avoid a lot more work later. My vote, as an outsider, would be for #2, for clarity's sake and because it's a very familiar format for English-speakers, but perhaps the force of local custom would decide it in favor of #3. What do you think? [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 02:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

::No? No one? Can I be bold and simply adopt the [[Coimbra, Minas Gerais]], format for those cities that need disambiguating? [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

==Brazilian space program==
Doesn't Brazil have an entire space program, national space administration, launch facility? There could at least be mention of that..!

Yes it does. But it's not a very big... currently, to my best knowldge, there are 3 satelites being controled in the INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - the National Insitute for Space Research) and there are no sucessful launches of satelites yet. I may get around to adding a few facts, but the isn't much to say really... --[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:[[Agência Espacial Brasileira]], [[Centro de Lançamento de Alcântara]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

acording to [[CIA world factbook]] brasil is the South America's leading economic power and a regional leader

== Economy ==



Plese check this documment (pdf): http://www.ggdc.net/pub/online/gd52(online).pdf
It confirms that Brazil''s economy is indeed larger than that of mexico, though abit outdated I havent been able to find a more recent work. Also if you compare GDPs you`d see that Brazil`ss is higher than Mexicos.--[[User:RIP-Acer|RIP-Acer]] 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

== Racial Diversity ==

While I understand that this article has been written fot an english audience, I still find it colonized by the use of some "politically correct" terms the US insinsts of applying worldwide. "Afro-Brazilian" is a disrespect, a cultural submission, incorrect, and also not used (thank god) widely.

In Brazil, there isnt a tenth of the racial tension that exists on US. Surely, racism exists, but to a much milder extent. As noted elsewhere on the text, the very palpable discrimination that exists on brazilian society is that of the social status.
Also, there are important differences in the naming of non-white people; The equivalent of ''negroe'' (in portuguese: negro) is preffered to refer to people of dark skin. The use of ''black'' (portuguese: preto) is considered highly offensive and charged with racism. A popular T-shirt is one that says "Preto é cor, negro é raça" (Black is a color, negro is a race). Even more, brazilians think of themselves as a single block of people, even if diverse. Thus its unnatural for a brazilian to think of himself as Afro-brazilian, when he prefers to be called just brazilian, as the rest of the population does. You dont see people on the street claiming "Im portuguese-brazilian", "arab-brazilian" or "ukranian-brazilian". Therefore, the "political correctness" (which is euphemism for euphemism) in using the US -created "Afro-" prefix is completely unnecessary.
The other people of darker skin are sometimes called collectively "morenos" (which loosely translates to brunnetes[-skin wise]).

Also, I saw no note on the article that says that "Mulato" is the mixing of white and black races, "Mameluco" is the mixing of native indian and black races, and "Cafuzo" is the mixing of indian and white races. "Mestiço" (which means "mixed") would be the mixing of any one of these. [[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] 13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree pretty much enteirly with you LtDoc (except for the "preto" part, some people don't mind and / or don't think it's tinted with racism, so it's not universily held as a racist classification, albite a significant portion of people do), but I don't think we should change the entier article. Instead, we should probably make these observations and clarifications at the start of the article, because otherwise we run risk of entering a revert war with people who don't agree. In any case, we should step lightly on such changes.

== Poverty and Analphabetism ==

It's curious and notable no mention to the main problems of Brazil. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Indigenous People in Brazil]]
Looking through all text related to Brazil, the history of Brazil and its people it is obvious that information is missing about indigenous people in Brazil, their cultur, their languages, their history, their human rights, their social situation and the "reservate policy" of the government. Do you know that an indian of the Kaiowa tribe is not a brazilian citizen and has no right to get a brazilian passport? This means that 311.656 indigenous people in Brazil are foreigners in their own country.

Aspect of non official languages in Brazil:
Population includes 311,656 American Indians (1995 govt. figure). 155,000 speakers of American Indian languages (1985 Rodrigues).

:: No, our poverty/misery isn't problem of indigenous, but our society - million people living in extreme poor conditions because [[social injustice]] and [[elitism]] of our society.
:: Brazilian Indigenous are fine here. They have an organization - FUNAI - that cares their rights. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 23:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

== The number of languages listed for Brazil is 235. Of those, 188 are living languages and 47 are extinct. ==

Source: [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Brazil Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International]
:: All these variations are indigenan dialets, because imigrants in Brazil had adopted the default origin countries languages to be communicated, despite some knowing and telling in research that says dialects. --[[User:200.167.78.3|200.167.78.3]] 01:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

== Poverty and Lack of literacy ==

"This obvious abism between the rich and the poor is common in today's extremely globalized and culturally, economically interdependent world, and comes from external and internal means of exploration (typical effects of internationalized capitalism), driven by the United States central pole of power. This problem is incredibly accentuated in Brazil: while the brazilian rich people mantains their almost uncontested control over the State, which sees itself obliged to follow external market rules and pay the huge, massificated external debt, the privatization of State-based services advances, making it harder and harder for Brazil to assume control of it's own social disparities."

Ok, this paragraph is definitely not presenting a NPOV, so I fell we really should add some sort warning stating that the analysis comes from a certain point of view. Either that, or it should be removed. What does everyone think? --[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. I think it should be removed --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for more feedback. I don't want to remove it and start an edit war, so if I could get more opinions, it would really help.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:I strongly disagree with the proposal of removing the paragraph. This "perspective" is based on simple and solid observation of the country's reality. The previous text wasn't even an analysis (and a subject like poverty absolutely requires analysis). Beyond that, I say the text wasn't neutral at all. It presented a mainstream, ideologically corrupted, superficial view of the problem. It wasn't descriptive: on the contrary, the text contained typical right wing arguments, trying to transform complex social mechanisms into problems that appear from the present, with no roots or connections with any social, historical context. Don't make it invalid (and don't say it's perspectivism) because it's more analytical. A little bit of historical insight on the matter quickly shows privatization of State-based services and elitism in underveloped countries as two persistent and constant phenomenons (or do you think that's just another "point of view" too? -- globalization is not a fact?; do we or do we not live in a world of economical and political interdependence?). I urge you to note the difference between the history automatically injected and imposed by those who win wars and a true contextual analysis of a reality. Reality of the powerful and the poor. The abysm exists, it's there, it's not a vague concept (can you deny that?). It's not trough acceptance of what's agreed and settled that you will achieve that so-called "neutrality". This is fake. There is no neutrality when your argument has no purpose. And the previous text, as I wrote, doesn't just denote the facts, objectively. It imposes the mainstreamed argument, which is less neutral than anything. It is based on a small piece of the ideology on which our world was built upon. Look at the results.

:If you have to change it, then do it by the book and transform the paragraph into a thesis. Call it, lets say, "Thesis 1". Then, based on research and discussion, make "Thesis 2", and maybe "Thesis 3". For now, you could just make a subtitle called "The roots of poverty" and put it in there, with a notice capable of clarifying that this is what you call a given perspective. --[[User:Ww2|Ww2]] 20:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I rewrote the whole thing, based on the general toughts of authors and intellectuals, including Milton Santos and Demétrio Magnoli (both brazilian, which makes sense). I didn't really use any information or thesis provided specifically by these two autors, but I tried to translate the uttermost idea of this "point of view". I think the text still has its flaws, but you have to agree it's a lot more NPOV compatible than before, since now it clearly exposes perspectives that do exist and are shared/formalized by brazilian intellectuals (perspectives shared by a whole segment, obviously, not just one or another individual). Suggestions are welcome, in case you don't want to directly edit the text. Do you think it can be kept now? With a little more improvement, maybe? Anyway, you may say it exceeded the theme of poverty... I disagree with that in advance, since, from this given "point of view", poverty in underdeveloped countries and globalization are profoundly and intrinsically related. --[[User:Ww2|Ww2]] 21:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:Well, it's much improved now, because at the very least, anyone reading this will know from whom this type of analyses and conclusions come from (and may be able to judge if they agree/disagree, look them up…). However, I still disagree with most of the conclusions presented and I, unfortunately, disagree with that it hasn't exceeded the subject matter. Personally, I think we should divide the text into two: a more "descriptive" text and an analytical one. The first would be put into the main page, where we would concentrate on putting forwards the basic facts and then creating a new page where we can present the multiple views points on the subject (we could create a page like "Causes of poverty on under-developed countries"), putting a link on the main page to the new page. That way, this page won't be contaminated with the clearly NPOV that both of us possess, while still allowing for a presentation of our different POV's. For now, we should leave as it is and await further comments, at the very least because of your pretty good effort at leaving it more NPOV compatible.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your very good suggestion of splitting the theme of poverty in Brazil and other underveloped countries (but I still think the focus should remain on Brazil) in "basic facts" (and that should be composed mainly of socio-economic statistics, and not only the typically used purely market-related ones, since these banalize the theme -- statistics preferably coming from multiple sources, making it possible for the matter to be properly considered and further understood) and "analytical" as a separated page. But why do you disagree with the conclusions (talking freely now)? To me they find perfect matching when put up against historical facts and evolution of the human condition (and I'm talking about simple phenomenons that are not necessarily bound to any kind of arbitrary understanding of how things developed: like the existence of a ruling class, like capitalism as a "device" that inherently, necessarily, feeds from exploitation, since it is by nature based on competition... or the domain of alienation trough cultural means... aren't those matters of fact, literal concepts that you can learn from observation of the ends and means?).
I think that, in some way, calling something that truly works against the ''status quo'' a "point of view" has more roots in alienation itself than on pursuing any level of neutrality (I mean, points of view do exist, obviously, but follow what I'm trying to say). People seem to unconsciously caracterize everything that goes deeper into analysis as arbitrary points of view, instead of doing analysis themselves (as in Dictionary.com: "analyze - to examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations"). Most base their "understanding" of the world in completely arbitrary views, imposed and self-imposed concepts that, even if not intentionally, serve the interests of keeping things as they are (and you have to agree with me... poverty, wars, an abysm between rich and poor, death everywhere... those are punctual consequences that, theoretically, don't exactly appeal to a large amount of people). And if a mentality, a point of view, inevitably servers the purpose of keeping things as they are (and that can be concluded after doing minor evaluation of that specific mentality and admitting the simple implicit fact that consequences must have a cause -- no need for subjectivism here, since you don't have to see too far to know someone must be poor for some other one to be rich) isn't that point of view fake? Anyway, it seems very clear to me that the human race, considering we have rationality, making us, therefore, primarily social beings, can only truly coexist without the need for killing. So, after all, what point of view is more true: the one that necessarily involves killing and keeping the interests of few, keeping the ''status quo'' (which one seeks to keep the ''status quo''? As I said before, this is no hard conclusion to be made: it's the one that comes from capitalism, since capitalism ''is'' the ''status quo''), or the one that, trough peace, not war, seeks equality, erasing social contradictions and therefore, erasing the need for war? It's all a question of considering the effects means have on ends, and vice versa.

Of course Wikipedia must pursue "neutrality" trough multiplicity of opinions. But it's a thin line that divides what could be easily considered fact and what's actually coming from alienation or/and lack of analysis (to exemplify: can the economy statistics we see in regular newspapers, and I mean ''only'' punctual market statistics, be considered solid truth? I mean, they are facts, aren't they? But even being true facts they still impose a given view of truth, the mainstream view, which is naturally going to be propagated as unconscious truth). I mean, there is a clear need for differenciating what's plural, what's carries multiplicity, and what does not. Anyway, this was all for the sake of discussion (and I hope you and more people argue here, since this is, I suppose, a truly important question for the concept and future of this free encyclopedia).--[[User:Ww2|Ww2]] 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:I just made some major alterations and removed virtually all of the contested material. I would like ask that we discuss it here in some detail before placing it back into the article. Presenting the ideas of Marxists as if they are true, in an economic analysis, is first, about as scientific as presenting the ideas of Homeopaths as if they are true, in an analysis of health. That is to say, these are highly controversial and non-mainstream views, and should at the very minimum be labelled as such.

:In any event, the aritcle tended very strongly towards a type of editorialism that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It might be possible to find a home for some of the removed material in an article entitled "Marxist views on Brazilian poverty" or similar. But in the main article, it's just ludicrous.

--[[User:209.125.196.70|209.125.196.70]] 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that changing everything like that was a bit hasty 209.125.196.70 (could you please create a profile for further discussions, it would really help),

:Yes, thanks for inviting me. --[[User:Anemalu|Anemalu]] 10:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

even if it was going to happen in the (near) future, but you should have consulted with Ww2 before deleting or at least given him some warning that you were going to. Also, I disagree with you what Ww2 presented was a "Marxist analyses", please avoid using labels like that, it can sometimes offend people.

:Well, I meant no offense. Ww2 had written "Capitalism's typical production relations, as described by Karl Marx, are based on principles of exploitation of work in order to generate profit for the exploiter. To many intellectuals these principles would take place not only locally, inside a factory or office, but globally, between countries: the relation of exploitation would manifest itself under the larger spectrum of an interdependent, globalized world." I don't know what to call that, other than a Marxist analysis. --[[User:Anemalu|Anemalu]] 10:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

::I totaly agree with [[User:Anemalu|Anemalu]]. "Capitalism's typical production relations, as described by Karl Marx (...)". This is totaly biased and non-objective. The title of the section is "Poverty and Lack of literacy", and it quotes Karl Marx with what goal? To illustrate the country's reality? Well... perhaps from a Bolchevic point of view... I agree with the removal of any religious or political point of view on this matter. It must be base don pure facts only. As said before, this is an encyclopedia (and it is not the Great Encyclopedia of the USSR). --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 15:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, as regard for Ww2 question as to what I think, unfortunately, I must admit that I have a POV so completely different from yours that I don't know where even to begin! You might say that I have a POV that conforms with what the mainstream point of view is (I do have a degree in economics after all...)

To begin with, I'd point out to you that calling the "mainstream view" as having lack of analyses and / or alienation is to complete discredit such analyses, rendering them false from the start and pointless to debate. But that’s far from the truth, there is a rich and complex analyses (with which you may disagree entirely) behind this POV, so please don't treat it as being false or else we won't have much of a discussion! =] Regarding your specific example, economic statistics, I'd say they aren't the ''Truth'', far from it, but they are what I consider to be the best estimates regarding certain aspects of an economy. They always have a degree of imprecision within them, but there's nothing else (better) we can use.

I think I understand your point, that since they are formulated / aggregated from a mainstream point of view, they may be false if you considerer that point of view to be false, but if you don't take that as a common ground, then what is a common ground for you? We have to have some sort of starting point from which we can debate, and if you don't accept something like that as a common ground, then unfortunately there will be no debate, because that means we stand a diametrically different positions. If that's to be the case, then I simply propose we improve the "facts page" (contained in this article) and create the POV page as I suggested, presenting our different POV's. Until then, I hope that an edit war doesn’t begin because of the recent changes. I would ask everyone to ask / tell before they make changes to article, so as to not have the situation leap out of control. One last thing: Ww2, I'm pretty sure you're Brazilian and since I am too, fell free to communicate with me in Portuguese if you fell like it.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 16:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

:Incredible how Mr. Ip Adress just showed us his deturped view on social contradictions (that if he does think social contradictions exist) and classified the analytical one I wrote (giving proper references and making it clear it was a point of view, and a point of view shared by authors, which can actually be verified) as "Marxist", automatically dumping it in the trash with his Delete key. Well, I say your view on brazilian agriculture (saying absurdly contraditory and VERY discussable things like "the mechanization of agricultural techniques is alleviating conditions of poverty" -- this DOES NOT happen if the State doesn't direct the money to "social alleviation") is CAPITALIST. Basically, what you did was intentionally incorporate to the article a view that IS discussed and contested troughout people in the area, without giving any references to make it clear it wasn't simply what you tought... your political view (I'm refering to what you wrote in the agriculture-related paragraph).

:I know the text wasn't perfectly descriptive yet, but it was coming to be. What you just did is censorship. You censored a different perspective (yes, the text was written, as I said, with the intention of making it clear it was a perspective, and not the truth).

:I'm not going to do anything just now, so no "edit war" is started. But you should have respected what we were planning to accomplish (which you should have read in the discussion above) or should at least have warned us before doing anything so drastical.

:Vertigo200, in relation to our discussion, I can't consider "common ground" something that does not make any logical sense for me (the "mainstream view", which, logically speaking, is obviously the force, being it cultural or political, that, in my understanding, alienates people in order to keep things as they are, preserving interests of few). Our perspectives have obviously taken completely different ways. But what I was asking you (when I explained what I tough of the matters discussed) was why do you think it's not correct to see capitalism as a system with interdependencies (isn't that thesis applicable even within the scope of economics?) that cause a more powerful country to exploit another; why do you not agree capitalism bases itself on exclusion and competition (you can't accept that even when seeing a glance of the present situation in the news, with countries that are underveloped and countries that are developed, with rich and poor people and poor working for rich?)? I feel those are punctual affirmations... it shouldn't be hard for you or anyone with knowledge of the facts to explain why they are false or not (there is a logical "why", isn't there?).

:Well, anyway, what I mean to say can be summed up by our friend's prepotency: he promptly classified an analysis on history and social roots of poverty as not "scientific" enough and showed how the mainstream (and mainstream doesn't mean true and less compromised, lets remember that) view of the world can be easily accepted as the only "serious" one, whereas a critical view suffers with the prejudice of yers of unquestioned socially-acquired premises.

::Well that's all well and good, and a perfectly fine starting point for a polemical essay. But this is an encyclopedia, and therefore fringe views should not be presented as fact. The vast majority of people see the incredible advances in wealth being brought about by technological change and warmly embrace these changes as our best hope for alleviating poverty. Are they wrong? Let us imagine that perhaps they are. Nonetheless, it is not the job of Wikipedia to present, as fact, something that is clearly highly contentious (and, to my mind, quite simply and transparently false). As I said, this material would be perfectly appropriate for an article entitled something like [[Marxist views on Brazilian poverty]] -- not for the main Brazil article.--[[User:Anemalu|Anemalu]] 10:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering Ww2, Anemalu and Pinnecco, I'm currently consulting [[User:Angela|Angela]] (a highly respected wikipedia sysop) as to what she thinks of our current problem. Fell free to look at / contribute to (if you feel I'm being biased in any way) my questions to her. As soon as I conclude my (small) discussion with her, I'll continue discussing the matter here.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 18:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

:My comments are at [[User talk:Vertigo200#Brazil POV]], though I was considering the general question of whether articles should be split into separate POVs rather than presenting them together, which doesn't seem to be the only issue with the current case. I'd not looked in detail at this talk page or at the material removed when I made those comments, so I reiterate my suggestion of putting this to [[WP:RFC]] to gain some wider attention from people who can study the issue in more detail. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

: As per [[User:Angela|Angela]]`s suggestion, I’ve added this to the [[WP:RFC]] page (history and geography). Sorry it took me so long to actually do something, I’ve been pretty busy and didn’t want to stir up this "hornet’s nest" again.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 21:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my disagreement with Pinecco and Anemalu:
The first one mentioned above that this encyclopedia shouldn't contain political points of view. Now I ask: how can a subject like poverty NOT be approached from a political perspective? How do you actually PROVE that a non-analytical (statistics, post-card pictures, maps, agribusiness information with no contestation = INFORMATION BEING SELECTED) approach on a matter IS NOT political? How come a mainstreamed view be more right and more acceptable to the purpose of Wikipedia just because it's accepted by most? Is this knowledge or acceptance?

The NPOV policy makes it very clear: multiple points of view should be presented, not supressed. It also states that "neutrality" is not achievable trough information itself. It can be achieved trough multiplicity: presenting every possible perspective, if that perspective is relevant (of course perspectives based on obvious prejudice, for instance, should be supressed, there has to be a consensus on such things, don't you agree?). I don't see how an analysis that has manifestations troughout the speech of important intelectuals, that is FORMALIZED, can't be considered serious or "scientifical" enough.

I agree in every way that any political perspective should be presented as something OTHERS say, not what this encyclopedia says. That was the goal (before someone decided to censor it).

But making a page called "Marxist view on poverty" would be the same as relegating this perspective as not worthy enough to be on a main page, saying, based on nothing (other than your radical disagreement), that it's not serious and therefore shouldn't be put in the same level of the mandatory shallowness. Isn't that judging already? Why don't you delete the poverty subtitle altogether, and concretize this as a touristic page?--[[User:201.6.165.229|201.6.165.229]] 00:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is clearly POV, if its really a widely held view preface it by saying "a Marxist view is.." or "some people believe", but it would be better removed altogether [[User:Astrokey44|Astrokey44]] 11:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Brazil, specifically, but this looks to me an awful lot like arguments that have been around for 40 or 50 years about [[Dependency Theory]] and World System theory (see [[Immanuel Wallerstein]]), with some Brazil-specific set of issues, primarily having to do with the agricultural base and perhaps the structure of national politics. I think if this article is going to take on the issue of povery in Brazil (beyond noting that it's fairly widespread and that the difference between rich and poor is fairly acute and has increased a bit over time), you have to acknowledge that the arguments about the sources of poverty are contested. I think it's okay to note that there's a fairly broad level of popular political revolt and that analysts don't necessary agree on what the best solution to the problem is. But a bit here that says "...according to scholars, including Ronald Chilcote, the problem is best described as [something]....while Richard Graham has argued [something else]...and William Summerhill says [something else still]..." seems like it could work here. Just recogize that there's a debate here, give it a few paragraphs, and root in in the scholarship. If it needs a longer discussion than that, let's give it its own article.[[User:Adbarnhart|Adbarnhart]] 18:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

== Images polution ==

I think the article it's ugly after the images was inserted in Economy section. Sao Paulo, Igreja do Piracicaba, Barragem do Pirapora, Carnival, Rio? I will keep Iguaçu image in Geography section, but doesn't have reasons to infest the article with images of localities and events. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

==Area of Brazil==

Altough traditionally taken as 8,511,000 km2, new [[sattelitte]] measurements made in the early 90s gives a better value, wich already appears in newer elementary school classbooks. Brazil's area is of 8,547,403km2 (IBGE, Anuário estatístico do Brasil. 1996)

sources:
MOREIRA, Igor, Construíndo o espaço brasileiro. 1999. ISBN 85-08-07067-5
LUCCI, Elian Alabi. Geografia e espaço. ISBN 85-02-02107-9 and ISBN 85-02-02107-7

''The above was added to the article by {{user|Mdob}}. I moved it here and changed the value on the infobox template. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 23:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)''

== Spanish/Portuguese ==

An anon has changed the official language from Portuguese to Spanish twice. [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html#People This CIA reference], shows that the official language is still Portuguese, though I think many Brazilians can speak and do speak Spanish. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 09:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

:It is a common misconception that Brazilians can speak and do speak Spanish. The ones that do, are only because they studied it or somehow had an exposure to the language (such as living close to border with Uruguay), otherwise, they speak Spanish as Pepe Lew Pew speaks French :). Spanish and Portuguese languages might sound similar, but they have several 'false friends' as well grammatical and phonetical differences. Also, do we really need to point the CIA factbook to make a point in this case? ;)

: To clear things up a bit, Spanish is not a common second language here (I'd say that English is much more so), though the similarities between the languages mean that communication is possible between people who speak Portuguese and Spanish. I imagine that the anon ip user is just doing some random vandalism.--[[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]] 14:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry [[User:Vertigo200|Vertigo200]], but I must say that communication between both languages might be possible but only to a certain degree. I am fluent in both languages and the differences are enormousl. Most of the time, someone me believe it is understanding the other language... but it is not (this is why I mentioned 'false friends'). --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 16:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
::: I agree with is not common - what a wrote below do not compare with Canada/French and even though with United States/Spanish. The fact is has a very great proximity of the Portuguese with Spanish in the derivation of Latin what makes possible Brazilians understood Spanish without difficulties. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

: Brazilians that live in borders of Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia is very common speak spanish - because the cities of borders has integrated commerce, comunity and schools. But every brazilian can understand a little spanish because portuguese is very connected with it in the [[Latin]] derivations. Spanish is also learned in particular schools. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so you all know, the current presitent recently passed a law to make Spanish part of the official corriculum as well (along with English). Also, being fluent in both languages, I can say portuguese and spanish is not as close as many people think they are. --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 11:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was missing a reference to [[Portunhol]] here... That's probably what most (on both sides) speak when they want to communicate, unless they have learned the other language just like any other foreign language. [[User:Gê|Gê]] 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

== History of Brazil's foreign policy and international relations ==
If we cover this well, we'll be better than both Britannica and Americana, both of which make almost no mention of this history. [[User:Ingoolemo|Ingoolemo]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<sup>talk</sup>]] 01:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== Pirate School? ==

User:Leonardi have stated that specially people who go to Pirate Schools in Brazil achieve a degree of fluently.

First: What is a Pirate School?
Secound: I believe he meant Private Schools... but even in Private Schools they don't...

:Talk for yourself. I did... --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

: I have no idea where you read "Pirate School" - my edit mentioned this exact phrase: "the exception being those who went to private language schools". I think it's quite unfair to say that those who complete a private English course in a private language school in Brazil can't speak English fluently. [[User:Leonardi|Leonardi]]

==Civil and individual rights violations==

=== Phone bugs ===

I AM BRAZILIAN ...I THINK IT WAS NOT MENTIONED THE CONSTANT VIOLATIONS RIGHTS (CIVIL AND INDIVIDUAL) BY DIVERSE SOCIAL GROUPS, INCLUDING BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT...
IS IT NOT IMPORTNAT ???

:Brazilian eh? Right... Who are you? Fernandinho Beira-Mar? --[[User:Pinnecco|Pinnecco]] 12:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
:... give a reference/resource and write it down... if you have any... [[User:Sitenl|Sitenl]] 17:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC) . BTW YOU SHOULDN'T WRITE ALL CAPS SENTECES IN THE INTERNET. It is rude to do it.

Brazilian ...yes sir!!!...I know pretty well this country and unfortunatetly that is the way many Brazilians face civil rights ...as a joke!!...Sorry for caps sentences...I refer to the constant assassinations of American nuns, for the usual habit óf the Government and affiliated divisions - such as the Judiciary - and their poor educated judges - to authorize bugged telephones. This is the subject..Brazil is, in many ways, still a policial state...
Brazilians do not like to face this situation, because, in many ways , they are still immature.
When you talk about civil rights, we still think of freeing convicted murderers - such as Fernandinho Beira ar-...Give me a break !!!!..Try to be serious about this subject. Guys...do not be fool to think Brazil is such a wonderful country...there are many...many ugly faces.
[[User:200.160.104.250|200.160.104.250]] 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

:At least I don't believe that Brazil is the "Worst country in the face of the World"... but this isn't the point. The point is: you need references, resources! (I am not saying that you are wrong... in some parts I agree on you, but this is an encyclopedia) [[User:Sitenl|Sitenl]] 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok...

Here comes some references:

http://www.correiodabahia.com.br/2003/04/17/noticia.asp?link=not000074411.xml (unfortunatly in Portuguese about the abuse of use of telephones bugged by Federal Police...belive me..it is usual now in Brazil any perosnality or common people to have bugged telephobes by Federal Police...and we think just George Bush does this stuff?!...and we did not have a September 11 downn here.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/bra-021205-action-eng
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/32-04.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20385590.htm
[[User:200.160.104.250|200.160.104.250]] 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

:Even ACM Neto has a bugged telephone, by his granpa. [[User:Sitenl|Sitenl]] 13:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::Civil right violations are an issue almost everywhere, and telephone bugs on politicians is one of the last things one should be concerned about if the topic is going to be discussed seriously. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (as per [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not]]) and the topic can hardly be discussed without serious POV and bias issues. As such, the article is good as it is and there is no need to mention particular cases. [[User:Fbergo|Fbergo]] 15:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::"Civil right violations are an issue almost everywhere"...This kind of sentence really surprises me. In all developed countries, a civil/individual right violation is a scandal. Anyway, the comment citing that "bugs on politicians is not a serious issue" also scares me. But , in addition to that, I must say that ordinary people, companies and press/media institutions have been recently threatened by this tool. Violation rights is not o POV issue -what really shows how Brazilians are immature when dealing with this subjetc. It is an important issue to be commented in the article. Agree with Fbergo when he says that is a current event - but that for undevelopded countries. Nobody wants "specific cases". What I want is a clear sentence indicating constant lack of respect individuals rights. I was asked some reference, and I mentioned them. The article is really uncomplete. Again I say, Wikipedia is not place for nationalisms...forget your proud. Let's focus on reality. That is the objetive of an encyclopedia. [[User:Cloretti|Cloretti]] 14:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

:::In my view, a bug on a politician telephone is much less important than a massacre like Corumbiara's (the umn.edu link above posted by 200.160.104.250), but I sounded like it was "normal" and "acceptable", and I apologize for that. Cases like Corumbiara aren't "common" (they don't happen everyday). Urban violence (as depicted by the web.amnesty.org link provided by 200.160.104.250 above) is more common in Brazil. Its causes and reasoning are complex (the amnesty makes it look like the police is the only wrong party, there are wrongs on every side - the police using unnecessary violence, the favela people who help the drug traffickers and cover up for them, and the traffickers). If anyone can find a link with yearly stats on rights abuse, go on and add a paragraph based on citeable sources. I've done a quick check on the wikipedia articles of several African countries (Namibia, Angola, Ethiopia...) and few of them cite human rights abuse. See [[Uganda]] for an example of citation (a deeper article can be found in [[Human_rights_in_Uganda]]). A section like that would be reasonable for the Brazil article, but sources are definetely needed. [[User:Fbergo|Fbergo]] 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think you are right...I will look for stats..
Concerning bugs, I ve read that around 60,000 telephones (it sounds like a joke or craziness!!!) are bugged. Do you understand why I've been so demanding about this point ? regards
[[User:200.189.84.200|200.189.84.200]] 11:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Please, source it, it is important. Just remember that the most of these bugs are legal and made by the police in order to investigate criminals and it is not a human rights violation. There are much worse things. Torture is not uncommon and Brazilian prisional system is kind of a hell. Can someone source it a bit? Perhaps with some International Amnesty docs. [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 15:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I agree with San Martin about bugs being, im most cases, legal. But think a little bit...Not just because a legal system of a country approves, it does not characterize a violation (in international standards). Many times it DOES characterize a clear violation. I have heard that judges in Brazil authorize bugs on unconscientious basis.A really scary thing. It is like a George Orwell system. What is legal is not, many times, fair or right. Regards[[User:201.1.154.113|201.1.154.113]] 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but I think you are too obsessed with telephone bugs. Have you been bugged, recently? Plese, [[WP:CITE|cite your sources]]. This "I have heard" stuff work in this talk, but not in the article itself. You will have to give us a link to some (realible) site that say about these judges. (by the way, I don't think we can blame judges for bugs that were wrongly asked by the police) But the bugging itself (used for crime investigation) cannot be characterized as a civil rights violation. If it did, you should say that being in prision for a crime is a violation of one's rights of freedom and liberty. [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the guy about bugs...PT turn the Brazilian Government into a political left wing agency..


::Please source about bugs...[[User:Cloretti|Cloretti]] 13:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::Good source: Carta Capital, last edition (24/12), ''Bahia de Todos os grampos'' (pg 12). About ACM (PFL-BA) bugging Correio da Bahia phones. [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

=== More on human rights ===
I've split this topic. We must also discuss about other human rights violations. Prisional system, slavery (not only in farms in Amazonia, but also in textile factories in São Paulo city), racism and etc. etc. Can some expert help us? [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

:I believe that ''if'' this go anywhere... it should go to a new article... like the Brazilian Civil and Individual Rights Profile... or something like that. [[User:Sitenl|Sitenl]] 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== Art in Brasil ==

I have been to Brasil and I understand the complexity of its social and economic problems and I know that while some are trying to solve these problems, others block their way. What I would like to draw attention to is the political and social impact of art in Brasil. This goes way back to the military dictatorship (which it challenged at some cost) but now continues to thrive in a fairly spartan economic climate (in terms of public funding. Private funding is there, but is very limited). I am surprised that nothing on this section refers to the great work going on in art in Brasil. I know the country has a lot of problems but actually, in spite of all the economic and political hardships (or maybe because of these) the fine arts in Brasil are some of the most interesting, dynamic and accessible in the world of art today. Artists use everyday materials (because they mostly lack the funds to do otherwise) and they have a richness in concepts and ideas that the northern hemisphere and the west apparently lack, which results in really challenging but engaging art that not only involves critics but also the public. Brasil is a model that the tired old west should be referring to, not feeling superior to, in its ignorance. There are many artists in Brasil who are producing work that needs (and would benefit) a wider audience. Antonio Manuel, Cildo Meireles, the late Helio Oiticica to name but seventeen. Give Brasilian artists a chance to change their world and the world.... What is art for, other than this?[[User:81.159.61.198|81.159.61.198]] 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

==www.rio-online.com==
Cesar, years ago I studied at the UFF and my Portuguese might be better than your German, so a) how is it possible that you treat my site as spam (do you understand the content?) and b) others like www.rioforpartiers.com are not spam?????

(My login name: ck3001)


OK, I am a newcomer in this net and I do not know the rules! My real name is Carsten Kotas, (Via Google you will find me and my CV) Years ago I studied in Rio and I thought it is a good idea to create a website on Rio de Janeiro mainly for German speaking travellers. The site will be translated to English within the next months and contains a lot of information about Rio de Janeiro and it is sponsored like other sites via affiliate agreements with marketing partners (like others i.e. www.rioforpartiers). But the content is far far away to be spam. Please take 5 minutes and look at these pages.

May I suggest the following:

a) The site will not be placed on top of the list, but in alphabetical order in the menu "Brazil", so here you are right.

b) The site will not be being added several times to the same article (I will cancel the other link)

c) The site will not being added to several articles (only to the main article "Brazil", I will cancel the other link)

d) but I disagree your point with unrelated content !!!! This is definitely not true

Regards,

Carsten

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ck3001"

:Answered on user's talk page. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== 45 million people living in conditions of poverty ==

Forty-five million people are considered poor...by whom? What is the source for this? How does one define what 'living in conditions of poverty' means? Monetary measurements? Do foreign arbitrary measurements (e.g. "one dollar per capita a day") apply to Brazilian standards?
[[User:200.149.72.79|200.149.72.79]] 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I dont know how much this helps, but the CIA World Factbook [http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html] lists 22% of the brazilian population as below the poverty line in an estimate for the year of 1998. That would be close to 40 million at the time. This is a reliable source. Also, how do you plan to compare these statistics to other countries without using some sort of international standard? [[User:Starghost|PHF]] 03:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

== [[stress]] and [[borders]] ==

This is probably irrelevant to the article, but I still wonder if it really is.

[[Ecuador]] and [[Chile]], the only countries in South America with no boundaries with Brazil, seem to also have the less stressed politics relationship with Brazil. I wonder if this is a [[coincidence]] or not.

I know most of brazilians I've met would agree with me on that...

Am I too wrong on this comment?

Just to reinforce:

Just point to anyone in there the relationship with the most "hated" [[Argentina]] (we don't really hate them, except in [[soccer]]), or the war including [[Uruguay]] and [[Paraguay]] in the early XX century.

[[Bolivia]] and [[Colombia]] always with narcotrafic influences and I don't know much about [[Peru]].

[[Guyana]], [[Suriname]] also don't have too much [[stress]], but they don't have too much anything.

[[Venezuela]] might be the exception.

:The stress is caused because there are many more political and economic relations between the countries closest to us. Must I remind you of Mercosur and the attempts to broaden and improve economic and political relations between it's members?
:There is also considerable stress between Brazil and Chile due to Chile's allegiance and closeness to the United States when making economic contracts and it's refusal to be part of Mercosur. Besides, that's somewhat arbitrary to say it is a coincidence just because we are in the same continent, as I am sure Brazil doesn't have any stress with other countries outside of South America for the same reason it doesn't have with Ecuador. What I am saying is that it is most natural for "tension" to occur between neighbors and countries who practice constant relations, but overall I don't agree with the whole concept of stress in the region. The whole idea just seems a little poorly sustained and far-fetched to me, but do develop your point of view so there can be a better conclusion on this. [[User:Starghost|PHF]] 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

== Brazilian-Americans ==

there's an article listing famous [[Luso American|Luso-Americans]], there should be one for [[Brazilian-Americans]]. [[User:Streamless|Streamless]] 19:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

== Brazil Brasil ==

I noted the redirect from 'Brasil' to 'Brazil', so I wonder if some references to 'Brasil' are left-over, or are they intentional? Specifically towards the bottom of the article the section "Find more information on Brasil by searching one of Wikipedia's sister projects:" really does use 'Brasil' in the text and in the search strings. Should they instead be 'Brazil' ?

Also, should references/links in other articles to 'Brasil' be changed to 'Brazil'?
[[User:Shenme|Shenme]] 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== de Brasilien ==

the deutsch version of the brazil article is much much more complete than the english version - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasilien http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasilien] i hope someone can translate some texts from there to the english article would be very nice

Although deustche version is so long..rather to have subarticles[[User:Cloretti2|Cloretti2]] 11:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Mateuszica|Mateus Zica]] 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== Too much external links ==

there is too much external links

it is not needeed to have so much link

and a lot of information on these links you can find inside wikipedia

[[User:Mateuszica|Mateus Zica]] 00:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

==WHERE IS THE ECONOMY SECTION...USED TO HAVE A ECONOMIC SECTION ?????==
UMBELIVIABLE!!!!

I gave up[[User:Cloretti2|Cloretti2]] 11:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

==Fruit?==
With one of the most varied choices of fruit in all the world, it would be expected that, at least, the word "fruit" could be found in the article. [[User:Paulo Oliveira|Paulo Oliveira]] 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:28, 7 December 2024

Former good articleBrazil was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 16, 2005Good article nomineeListed
September 14, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 12, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 5, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 28, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 2, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 7, 2004, September 7, 2005, September 7, 2006, September 7, 2007, September 7, 2008, September 7, 2009, November 15, 2012, November 15, 2013, November 15, 2014, November 15, 2015, November 15, 2016, November 15, 2017, November 15, 2018, and November 15, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

Religion

[edit]
Catholic: 50%
Protestant: 31%
No religion: 11%
Spiritism: 3%
Other: 4,3%
Catholic: 51%
Protestant: 28%
No specific faith: 12%
Other religions: 5%
Catholic: 52.8%
Protestant: 26.7%
No religion: 14.2%
Other: 4.8%

The data on religion in the infobox needs to be corrected, the percentage of people without religion in Brazil does not reach 19%. As a Brazilian, I think the CIA's 2023 estimates are closer to reality. Mawer10 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to consider spiritism as 'other religions' since they believe fully in Jesus Christ, and therefore they are Christians. 2804:1E68:C201:5E94:435:455D:3B12:B756 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "Christians" at the comment. Only Protestants and Catholics. Do you believe that spiritism can be considered one of those? André Ishida (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

[edit]

Twice recently, an editor has changed the infobox of this article to use the "dark blue" coat of arms rather than the sky-blue one. However, Coat of arms of Brazil says that the dark blue version was only used until 1968, and since then, either sky blue or a very slightly darker version of sky blue has been used. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about their cusine and foods, diversity?

[edit]

A d d. S o m e t h i n g. 80.94.203.188 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is already present and of adequate length under Culture / Cuisine. Fbergo (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Form of government in Brazil

[edit]

Brazil's form of government is a representative democracy, with periodic and direct elections, where citizens elect their politicians and representatives in a direct, clean and fair manner.Brazil is a Federation composed of federative units (the states And the head of government and head of state is the President of the Republic, directly elected by popular vote. In other words, Brazil is a Democratic Presidential Federal Republic. I had added this to the page about Brazil but it ended up being undone by a colleague at Wikipedia I decided to write this to explain better. Poul Yoshida (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error in Demographics

[edit]

"Outside in the Arab world, Brazil also has the largest population of Arab ancestry in the world, with 15–20 million people." should be "Outside of the Arab world, Brazil also has the largest population of Arab ancestry in the world, with 15–20 million people."

I'd edit it myself but I don't have access yet. Bearfrost (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have edited the page with the suggested change. Thanks for noticing. G4B-XD-3l (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazil&oldid=1261630391"