Talk:Brazilian Expeditionary Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Brazil (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

It was Monte Castello -- not Monte Cassino![edit]

Hello Everyone,

There was a significant mistake in this page. The Brazilian "FEB" fought in "Monte Castello", and NOT "Monte Cassino".

All history books, websites and newspaper archives that I have ever came across that covers Brazil in the second World War mentions that Brazil fought in Monte Castello and NOT Monte Cassino. Also, having family in the Brazilian military, including a grandfather who was a youngster at the time, they confirmed me that it was indeed Monte Castello and not Monte Cassino.

So please -- PLEASE, if for some reason you believe they fought in Monte Cassino -- mention your sources here. If you still have doubts, check out the references in the article (end of the page).

Anyway, as a Brazilian, I'd like to thank everyone interested in contributing to this article. And if you need help with ANY dates, names, translations, etc. Please let me know and I will help you. I have access to some books and literature in portuguese that might be useful if you want to know more about Brazil in the Second World War (I also have articles about Brazil in the first).

It might also be interesting to add the Battle of Monte Castello as an article. --pinnecco

Nickname COBRAS FUMANTES[edit]

It is known that the nickname comes from a comment maade about Brazil being unlike to fighting Germany, but I am not sure one can confirm this comment was attributed to Hitler. Anyone care to comment? --Pinnecco 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It means that it was easier a snake smoke than Brazil go to war with the Germans. As you know, Brazil was forced to go to war and the army get this nickname Cobras Fumantes (Smoking Snakes). [Jean]

Yes, this article was different before, attributing the phrase to Hitler. Now it has been changed to " a tale". this however was no tale, the nickname of Cobras Fumantes came from the German side about Brazil not fighting in the war. If wiki does not want to attribute the comment to Hitler due to lack of sources, it should at least remove the word "tale" in reference to something which was actual and true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.245.150 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Section About the Airforce[edit]

Someone pasted an entired unformated chunck of text over the section about the Brazilian Airforce in WWII. Since then the text was never formated or carefully reviewed, and it really looks like some text plagiarised from another uncredited source. I wonder if we should revert it. --Pinnecco 18:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I managed to locate what seems to be the original source of the pasted text: it's at this site, more specifically this page. Note that the text mentions links, which aren't active here, but are active on the original site. MCBastos 01:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So, should we revert this section, since the text was clearly plagiarised? We should at least develop this section to clean/tidy it up, and to --Pinnecco 10:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

German units[edit]

The article says the 80th Panzer Division surrendered to the BEF. There was no 80 Panzer Division in Italy. There was a 90th Panzer-Grenadier Division and it was near Bologna, just opposite the US 10th Mountain Division.

Reference: http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/Units/GermanOrg.htm#UnitHistory

Main BEF victories are: Massarosa, Camaiore, Monte Prano, Monte Acuto, San Quirico, Gallicano, Barga, Monte Castelo, La Serra, Castelnuovo, Soprassasso, Montese, Paravento, Zocca, Marano Su Panaro, Colechio and Fornovo. Reference: http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ArmyOrg/BrazileOrg.htm

Steve www.custermen.com

Gustav Line[edit]

Quote: "The Brazilian soldiers, after that, were directed to the base of the Apennines, where they would spend the next months, facing the harsh winter and the resistance of the Bernhard and Gustav lines."

The combination BERNHARD & GUSTAV Line was at Cassino and Liri Valley front. It was breached in May 1944. The GOTHIC Line was located at the passes of the Apennine Mountains. It was attacked on Sept 13, 1944 and it was breached within a week but the fighting continued until October 24. The 5th Army spent the winter on the northern side of the Apennine Mtn range, which was past the GOTHIC Line.

Steve www.custermen.com

Just picked up on this. Totally agree that since this article says that Brazilians arrived in Italy in July 44 they could have had no part in Cassino / Gustav / Bernhardt which culminated in that May. I've removed that reference and will try to do some work on the Gothic fighting to see if we can clarify the rest. Stephen Kirrage 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

God Bless'um[edit]

This was never mentioned in US World History history class. We got the impression that only the US and the Canadians fought the bad guys in WW2. Totally surprising and informative. Edison 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... In Russia/USSR WW2 is called the Great Patriotic War, and until the "opening" (followed by the dissolution) of the USSR, virtually no one knew what D-Day was. I guess there are III Sides To Every Story after all ;) --Pinnecco 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Italian TOO there were also Polish, New Zealander, Free French and Indian forces. Monte Cassino was attacked by the Indians and the Kiwis before being taken by the Polish after a French breakthrough! [Bruno]

Excelent pictures[edit]

There are excelent pictures of the FEB on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Anyone care to publish them here? --Pinnecco 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend http://www.ww2incolor.com/brazil which has nice color pictures of the Brazilian military during World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.213.60 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

English Language[edit]

An anonymous user keeps converting sections of this into pigeon. I don't doubt that that he knows what he's talking about content-wise but it is clear that his first language is not English and this is the English Wikipedia.

Please stop. The tidyings that have been done do not change the sense - all they do is ensure that that meaning is conveyed to English readers. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation[edit]

Sorry but the changes did by Bagunceiro ( A WORD THAT IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE MEANS: DISORDERLY OR CARELESS PERSON, WHAT IT MEANS A LOT BY ITSELF ) in the 1st paragraph of Campaign section completely change the mean and contradict all writing before and bagunceiro it's obvious that English it's not yr 1st language too as well as the most of people who collaborate and usufruct the Wiki around the World so pleas, stop try to impress people with what you've learned in the school not in Street —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talkcontribs) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Revertion to non-English[edit]

201.81.234.213, please stop this persistent reverting. What you are changing the text to is not English - it does NOT have a similar sound to the Portuguese because it doesn't convey any meaning. In this coloquial context "mais fácil" does not translate as as the literal "easier", and the prepositions are essential in English.

I have assumed up to now that your edits are in good faith and that you genuinely believe that what you are writing is good English. But the persistence is starting to make it look like vandalism. I shall report it as such if it does not cease. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki's essential[edit]

"I have assumed up to now that your edits are in good faith and that you genuinely believe that what you are writing is good English."

Bagunceiro, I´m sure that other part think the same, but I also believe that is not efficient for this FREE AND DEMOCRATIC encyclopedia that anyone, no matter who are, try to impose her or his own personal vision Here, much less threatening or intimidating anyone who don't agree with your points ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talkcontribs) 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cybershore, No intimidation here, and no personal vision. This ENGLISH encyclopaedia should be written in English and constantly reverting it to pigeon for whatever motive is not acceptable. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you consider "Pigeon" are definitively a personal vision... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.234.213 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the case, the term isn't "pigeon," it's "pidgen." 65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pigeon" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to (and possibly the original of) pidgin. What most certainly is not correct is "pidgen". To be honest, though, it's not a very accurate here as pigeon is a respectable language in its own right. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As if pidgin is a single language 187.106.145.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

casualties[edit]

the first paragraph says 948 Brazilians were killed, but the section says over 1000 died. Perhaps 948 refers to Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.117.146 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

Come here to suggest the suppression of translation request in relation to the wikipedia version in Portuguese, since the differences between the two versions now, is related to the presence at Wikipedia in Portuguese, of sections that pertain only to the Brazilian specifications, as for example an section of Brazilian Expeditionary Force vets whom later became famous, for Brazilians... Another section that deals with the Brazilian military units that would have been derived from the FEB (but without references), and so on. Ie, the whole story regarding the main body (containing references) has been already translated to English. 187.38.105.235 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the present edit of the section on BEF veterans of Lusophone Wikipedia, besides being short, it seems really interesting. In relation to the other section, the fact that some of vets were famous only or mainly in Brazil also is no reason for not including this section, since I believe, one of the goals of this encyclopedia is to spread knowledge. However, the section on the Brazilian military units that claims would derive from BEF, really seems a dispensable section. That is, each section case is unique. 189.33.201.215 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The link posted in the "External links" today refers to photos related to the article (a randomly choosen website - among others on same subject - specialized on WWII photos). If someone thinks it is inappropriate, please explaining here in a clearly, civilized, and objective way, why it would be considered beyond doubt inappropriate.
Empty (without proofs) and personal accusations, as well as "arguments" like "because I say so" will not be taken into account. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's spam. Corresponding article on portuguese wikipedia was protected by syops for the same reason. Coltsfan (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not spam, and both there and here there was no presentation of any plausible justification to delete link. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's spam. A crappy website with no useful info. Please, talk here first before keep reverting. Coltsfan (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please, don't try to impute to others, your practices. Who has ignored discuss here first, before making disruptive revertions have been you. And repeat such practice doesn't justify it by itself.
Again: if you think that is inappropriate, please explaining here in a clearly, civilized, and objective way, why it would be considered beyond doubt inappropriate, before do disruptive revertions.
Please avoid empty (without proofs) and personal accusations, as well as "arguments" like "because I say so", thank you. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Trying to explain why I tried to remove those links:
  1. This one is a blog. (WP:LINKSTOAVOID: 11 and 16)
  2. This one is an amature website. Not so reliable (per WP:RS).
  3. This one here is the same explanation of the one above.

I hope I've explained everything clearly now. Coltsfan (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to 2nd one I agree, but to the 1st one the word is "avoided", not "prevented or prohibited from any and all costs", so we must to hear other opinions to arrive at a consensus, since as it was spoken "this is not 'Rocket Science' ".
Finally, related to the 3rd it would require you to be more explicit in relation to regulation, where it is unquestionably violated by this link. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The 3. it's also not a WP:RS (it's an amature website). And also falls on the #16 of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID. And if it's to be avoided we should, by all means, to avoid it. And remember: you are the one that needs to prove how or why those websites meet the policies of the WP:EL. I as just did, based on wikis' policies, you should do the same. Make your case. Coltsfan (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the term "avoid" has to do Also with "if possible" and not just with "by all means", rather not get into a semantic discussion here, I must to tell that my case isn't so much related to the links themselves, but the subjects of which they are about, which I believe would add to the article. In this case, stable online references about documentaries (not necessarily these ones, though interesting and diverse) and links that offered a relatively broad epoch photographic material on the subject. I'd appreciate you help, if possible. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You've just provided the exact reason why the links are not acceptable - any external links are typically related to the subject they're being added too. The quality and reliability of the links is what's important. Some person's personal collection of photos (which may or may not actually violate copyright) is never acceptable. A site that contains personal opinion is not acceptable. A blog is not acceptable (although a blog that is run by someone who is already considered to be a reliable source might be ... hence the wording of the EL policy). ES&L 08:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not link - as Coltsfan has pointed out, these are not reliable sources, at least one of them may house copyright violations, and in general these violate WP:EL, our guidance on what we should or should not have external links to. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No links - it doesn't matter what you claim the links show, non-reliable sources cannot be used. If you can't find academics, journalists, or other reliable sources generating content about the subject, don't write about the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not link - I am a little late (just got caught up with talk page messages), but I agree, these are not reliable and cannot be used. United States Man (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it appears that we have consensus. And it is unanimous, as far as I can see. Those links shouldn't be there. Coltsfan (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


I'll remove the links soon, if nobody objects. Coltsfan (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template[edit]

Subject line says it all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)