Talk:Xingu River
| WikiProject Rivers | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Brazil | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] Talk
Didn't you mix meters and kilometers ?? The distances and sizes you indicate all seem weird ...
Ummm. The article uses imperial measurements, not SI ones. Some translation is apparently in order. :-) --Anders Törlind
Feel free. I'll keep splitting up the ludicrously big Amazon article. --Pinkunicorn
I noticed. It sure needs doing, thanx for taking the time! --Anders Törlind
There was a reference removed on this subject (Xingu River) but there was no explanation given as to why it was removed. There really isn't a lot of information on this topic and to remove a viable citation is in my opinion an abuse of editing power.-- Gordon Marsden
I think I spotted the problem. Whoever deleted the article "Brazilian Indians: What FUNAI Won't Tell You" evidently did not read the article he/she deleted. The article actually gives a good account of the Xingu River and contemporary issues on Indigenous issues on tributaries of the Xingu River but the Xingu is not mentioned in the title of the article. If I remember correctly, there is a show on the History Channel named "I Shouldn't Be Alive" that did an episode on the events described in this article. Before deleting material editors really should take the time to examine what they are removing!-- Gordon Marsden
[edit] Plagiarism
Deleted content was taken from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which is in the public domain and widely used verbatim in Wikipedia articles, for what it is worth. Pfly (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the removed text was acceptable for use or not, but here's the page about it: Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Pfly (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The article has a problem with neutrality when it comes to the writer's style and the word choices of the writer. A more balanced view needs to be done with the comments about the native americans and the dam project perhaps needing to be separate sections within the article but with a more balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackknight28 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, I cut some excess about the dam the other day but didn't get to look much at the rest.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that fixes it, left all of the info but NPOV'ed it. 64.64.161.72 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
