Talk:Brazil

Social issues - many problems to fix

Main article: Social issues in Brazil

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

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

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

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

Timezone changes

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

Time Zones

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

environmental NGO's in Brazil

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

o brasil

o brasil e um pais de todos

o brasil

o brasil e um pais de todos

ethnic groups

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

Non-Spoken Languages

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

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

New GINI of 2009

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

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

Derivation of the name Brazil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't do original research here. Provide reliable sources or put it on your blog. --TS 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I say let's put the personal attacks aside here for a moment and just say that Mopcwiki, if you can give us a reliable source for this claim we can include it in the article. Simple. --Phil5329 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After the dictionary Michaelis, the word "brasil" derivates from the word brasa plus the suffix il meaning the colour red which some women used for adorn and also mean a synonym of pau-brasil http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=brasil

and after the dictionary aulete the word "brasil" means the same thing http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital&op=loadVerbete&pesquisa=1&palavra=brasil Luizdl (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazilwood was named after the original 'Brazil' name used in Ireland centuries before. There are Brazil surname in England and Ireland dated from ancient ages. The origin is probably from that region. I think Michaelis is Brazil country-focused and just lack of deep research. In 2000, when the country celebrated 500 years I read an article citing that the name is of Irish origin. --201.78.23.171 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is good to notice, that it may be just a coincident, and the term in Portuguese it is written with "s" instead "z" like that other term, and always was written so, even in some other romances languages like the Spanish, the French (which it is Brésil) and the own Latin (which it is "Brasilia"), and when they named the Brazil to the actual term they already knew they aren't in an island, because Brazil had several other names before like "Santa Cruz" for example.

Other thing that is also good to notice is that the Wikcionário (Wiktionary in Portuguese), they also gave this etymology using as reliable source this book about the Medieval Portuguese on Google Books, but unhappily the Google only sell this book, and does not offer for on line reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizdl (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the etymology definition at this dictionary in French cnrtl, I think if it is a Brazilian tradition, this definition should not be present on this dictionary of the France right? Well, I suggest the term Brazil with "z" is which was originated in a British-Irish legends.Luizdl (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikcionário actually has two articles: wikt:pt:brasil and wikt:pt:Brasil. The etymology of the latter article, which is about the country, says:

Da árvore de pau-brasil (Caesalpinia echinata), chamada pelos índios de pernambuco (daí se deu o nome a um dos estados brasileiros, o Pernambuco), abundante na mata atlântica no período colonial português e extraída até quase a extinção, que por sua vez foi assim chamado por causa da sua madeira avermelhada, da cor de brasa (brasil em Portugal).

I don't speak Portuguese, but it's obviously the brazilwood etymology. --TS 04:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Brazilian biggest cities - 2009 data

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

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

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

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

Why can't one edit this article?

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

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

New racial data from the Brazilian Census

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

Semiprotection review

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

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

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

Major nations' articles are routinely semiprotected. United States has been semiprotected for a month longer. And it's not like I can unprotect it now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• We actually reviewed this at AN a while back coincident with some other protections... I think there was a general feeling that Brazil be left in place, and I was kindof on the fence. If you're willing to watch it though, Tony, I'll give it a shot. –xeno^talk 12:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonintervention?

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

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

I think that statement is fair since it has the "generally" caveat. Off the top of my head WW2 was the only example of Brazilian foreign adventuring. For example they weren't involved (I believe) in the Balkan wars, Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor have they tended lately to send their troops into any regional countries.--Phil5329 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the scores of conflicts Brazil has started or participated in regionally? Post WW2 Brazil may generally believe in peaceful nonintervention, but it has an incredibly bloody interventionist history. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to "Postwar Brazilian foreign policy..." --NEMT (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Phil5329 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Better, but I suppose it may need to be changed again as they appear to be taking a meddling/confrontational and extremist position with regards to the current situation in Honduras. --NEMT (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.--Phil5329 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oil production in Brazil

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

2009 Population Estimate

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

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

Empire of Brazil

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

I have completly reworked the text about the Empire. I think is quite good. Any opinions about it, please say so. I will try to work on the text about the Independence and later on in the one about the republic. - --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am doing quite a few important changes in the history text. Anyone has opinions about it, please say so. - --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ended writing the sections "Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers", "Independence and Empire" and "Emperor Pedro II reign". No more additions are necessary, unless to correct grammar or spelling mistakes. I am going to work on the remaining sections. - --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am working now on the text about the territorial expansion of Brazil. Once I finish it, I will begin writing the text about the republican Era. I have removed sourced material indeed, but for two main reasons: or because it was controversial information or even because it was not correct, or because it was based on internet websites, that are not thrustworth. I am using as sources books written by the most famous Brazilian historian such as Oliveira Lima, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, José Murilo de Carvalho and Francisco Doratioto. - --Lecen (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph that explains the Portuguese expansion that resulted in the current national borders. I am working on the remaining text for the section now. - --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done working on all sections about the colonial and imperial period of Brazilian history. I´ll move towards the republican era now. - --Lecen (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks biased to me

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

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

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

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

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

Pedro I not being a tyrant and always respecting the constitution was taking from two famous Brazilians writers. I do not understand why you say that "we cannot affirm if he was or not". Yes, we can. Simply you have to read a history book. The reasons that made him abdicate are all written in the text, didn´t you read it? I erased the text that or had mistakes (such as saying that Emperor Pedro I obliged Brazilians to accept the constitution when in reality the Municipal Councils voted in favor of its acceptance) or was sourced by websites. And between a website and a book written by a famous historian, we have to stay with the latter one. It is oodd to be full of citations?! What?! That does not make sense! It must have citations! And once and for all: I still did NOT begin to write the text about the Republican era. Let me finish it first. - --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your texts only talk about good points of the Empire, and ommits the negative points. And they only talk about negative points of the Republic, and ommits the positive points. It says, for example, that Pedro II did not own slaves, but it ommits that during his government Brazil imported more slaves than any other period of Brazilian History, for example. And the slave trade was only abolished because England forced Brazil to stop it, because if it was not English pression, the slave trade would continue. Your text tries to sell the idea that Pedro II was some kind of god, and that Republic was a negative change to Brazil, when in fact for most Brazilians, who were starving to death or living under slavery, the change from Empire to Republic did not change their lives in any way, because the same elite of the Empire remained on power (and you ommited that too). The only notable difference was that the Emperor was replaced by a President. The rest, did not change in any way (even though your texts try to sell the idea that when the Republic was proclaimed, Brazil lost a wonderful government led by Pedro II, which was far from being a wonderful government to poors or slaves, who made up the bulk of the Brazilian population).

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

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

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

Biased parts

• Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”. And also of rapid slavery progress. During this period Brazil imported more slaves than any other country in the world.[1] Material progress did not seem to be compatible with human progress in Brazil at that time.

Wrong. The United States had a larger slave population and was richer then Brazil. Having more slaves does not mean that a country could not be rich. And that is a direct quotation from a history book.

• From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government. The economy of the Empire may have grown and the small elite may have enriched, but for the mass of poors and slaves the economic situation did not emprove, but it became even worse. See Darcy Ribeiro] for more details.

Another direct quotation. For example: “In a general way, the 1870s were prosperous for the nation and its monarch. It was a period of social and political progress where the distribution of national wealth began to benefit a greater part of the population”. (Olivieri, p.37) And stop taking in account the slave population. It didn´t matter for a country to be considered rich or not if slaves had or not a good standard of living.

• 1850 there were 50 factories in the country and in 1889 it grew to 636.. It sells the false idea that Brazil became a industrialized nation in the 19th century, when in fact Brazil remained mostly rural and industrialization of Brazil only happened in the 1940s, many decades after the end of the Empire and the Emperor's death. In fact, the Empire wanted to remain agragarin and it prevented the early industrialization of Brazil[2] which is one of the main reasons for Brazil's undervelopment (see Darcy Ribeiro for more details).

I will not discuss as long as you use websites as sources. Between a website information ad another granted by Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Boris Fausto, José Murilo de Carvalho, Hélio Vianna and other famous Brazilian historians, I will keep with the latter. Unless you tell me that they are monarchists! See the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil for more info. And stop usind only Darcy Ribeiro as source. It is the only author you use it as source! The same as in the article Brazilian people. You can not use only one author as source, this is why I have added quotations and citations by several different authors.

• While its neighbors fell into anarchy and dictatorships in Brazil civil liberties were respected along “with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press. I wonder if the millions of slaves had any civil liberty at that time.

Neither they did in any other country at that time as they were considered property and not human beings and even less citizens. You are losing your point.

• The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888.. The Emperor never owned slaves, but he allowed the massive importation of slaves from Africa and Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery, as late as 1888.

He could not hinder importation. There was free market in Brazil, if someone wanted to import slaves, he could do it freely. I can see clearly now t hat you simply dislike the emperor and the monarchical era in Brazil and that´s the only reason you keep complaining. Brazil was not the last country to end slavery. Slavery was still ongoing in african and middle-eastern countries up to the end of the 20th century. You don´t even know history and use only websites as sources, it makes really hard to discuss with you.

• Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country. Maybe the economy was prosperous for the ruling elite of the country, but the mass of poors did not see all that prosperity.

Any country that evolves its economy allows an improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens. But that not the point. That´s simply your opinion, and your opinion does not matter in the article.

• There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.. It tries to sell the false idea that all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule, when in fact the Emperor was forced to leave Brazil when the elite of the country stopped feeding him and decided that the Republic should be proclaimed.

Yes, all Brazilians loved the Emperor and wanted him to rule. Read the article Pedro II of Brazil. You will find all sources and books you need about it. That does not mean, of course, that the Brazilians are nowadays monarchists, which they aren´t.

• Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”. Actually, his overthrown was due to his inability to add the elite of the country, which decided to overthrown him.

That´s your opinion and once again: it does not matter in the article. The quotation comes from the British historian Roderich J. Barman, a famous "Brazilianist".

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

Nonsense. You have something againt monarchy or republic, that´s your problem. Just don´t come into wikipedia and try to ruin an article for personnal motives, ok? Thank you. - --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't talk about the Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship part because it's not even a historic text, but a text dedicated to point the negative views of the Republic, contrasting with the part about the Emperor, which is also not historic, but enterely dedicated to point the positive views of that Monarchy. Opinoso (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."[3]

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

Foreign Relations

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

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

Biased information by user Opinoso

A couple of days ago user Opinoso complained of a supposed partiality in the text written by me in the section “History” (Sections: Native Brazilians and early Portuguese settlers; Territorial expansion; Independence and Empire; and Emperor Pedro II reign were done by me. I was going to start working on the sections about the Republican Era when this issue appeared). Yesterday night I decided to erase or transfer (to other articles) the controversial passages and thus prevent a greater problem among us. I also considerably diminished the size of the text, leaving it simpler, direct and straightforward. However, user Opinoso added informations that in my opinion are incorrect and are unnecessary. Below I transcribe them followed by my opinion:

1) “but against the uneven social structure that it imposed”

The above phrase would indicate that the rebellions in the regency were caused by unequal social structure imposed by the monarchy. Forms of government cannot be guilty for Brazilian social issues, or else, we should blame the republic for problems that still exist today, which would be unfair. Or we could also blame the republic for many popular rebellions that occurred in the Spanish American countries. None of them would be correct. The Latin American society, no matter under what form of government, has the same social issues, caused by other motives. To blame the monarchy reveals partiality by user Opinoso in simplifying the rebellions causes, that in reality occurred disputes over power between the liberals and conservatives in the provinces. Conclusion: partial passage.

2) “from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed)”

The above phrase of will make the unwarned reader that around 30% or 40% of the population of the province were killed by the government troops in repression for the rebellion. In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse. Conclusion: partial and incorrect passage.

3) War of the Triple Alliance,[120] which left more than 300,000 dead)

This is wrong. 300,000 civilians and military Paraguayans died in the war, not Brazilians. 50,000 Brazilian soldiers died in the war. This information shouldn´t be in here. No reason to add war casualties to this section. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

4) “During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy.”

The above phrase contradicts the remaining of the section that indicates that there was a great prosperity in the country after 1840. The correct information is missing. In the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil there is a highly detailed text about that period. All the regions of the country had a great economic growth, as it can be seen in exports table to the right:

Year	Cacao (tons exported)
1820s	11,000 tons
1880	73,500 tons
Year	Rubber (tons exported)
1827	81 tons
1852	1,632 tons
1900	24,301,452 tons
Year	Coffe (tons exported)
1821-60	3,377,000 tons
1861-89	6,804,000 tons
Year	Sugar (tons exported)
1821-25	41,174 tons
1881-85	238,074 tons

The income per capita in Brazil in 1880, just 9 years before the end of the Empire was similar to the one of the United States. The economy grew to such level that in the 1950s Brazil would have a similar income per capita to Germany, which cannot be described as a stagnated country with a miserable population. Again, read the article about the economy of the Empire. Conclusion: incorrect passage.

5) “Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

6) “The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa”

Slaves were imported during the reign of Pedro II from 1831 up to 1850, when traffic was abolished. Hard to believe that in 19 years more slaves were imported than in 331 years.

According to historian Thomas Skidmore, in his book A history of Brazil (Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do Brasil. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.93) around 50,000 slaves were imported to Brazil between 1500 and 1600. Between 1601 and 1700 more than 560,000 were imported. Between 1701 and 1810 more than 1,891,400 were imported. Total so far: 2,501,400 slaves. Now between 1811 and 1850 around 1,145,400 slaves were imported. Let’s say that half of them were brought between 1831 and 1850, that is, 572,700 slaves. In the period between 1500 and 1831 more than 3,074,100 slaves were imported thus. Still thus, let’s say that it was during the reign of Pedro II the biggest amount of slaves were brought per year (I don´t know, the book doesn’t say anything about it). Even so, it is redundant information in here that should be in the article about slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

7) “and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil.”

In the United States there were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. So what? Why is such information is in here if not even the population is cited at all? Ok, it could be in the demographics or slavery in Brazil articles or in something similar, but not in here. The impression that it gives is that Pedro II was a “bad guy keeping so many in slavery”. That is completely unnecessary, in my opinion. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

8) “Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

I erased information that was much more important, such as the fact that Brazil was the fifth country in the world to have sewers and the amount of factories that were opened. This information is unnecessary, and its true reason is only to create a negative view toward the emperor. If someone considers it important, it could be transferred to the article regarding the slavery in Brazil but it shouldn’t be in here. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

9) “because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

That is a naive simplification of the political issues of that time. It would be the same as to say that Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery because he did want to displease slave owners. The impression that it gives is that the Emperor was against the end of slavery. Just take a look at the link provided by the citation and we can see that the complete passage is “Pedro II was opposed to slavery, but he did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners; accordingly, he felt that the nation should abolish it by degrees.” In the article on Pedro II, in the section Racial thoughts and abolitionism, it can be clearly understood Pedro II’s role on the abolitionist movement. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

10) “By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent.”

Another information that is wrong. Take a look in link in the citation: there were 6 million whites, 2 million blacks and almost 6 million pardos. User Opinoso simply added pardos with blacks and concluded that they were descendants of Africans. That is not correct. The category “pardo” includes mulattoes (descendants of Africans and Europeans) and caboclos (descendants of Indians and Europeans, the vast majority of Brazilian population in the north and northeast). And even if such information was correct (which it is not, at least in the ways he put it), there is no reason to be included in the history section, but instead in an article on demography of Brazil or slavery in Brazil. Conclusion: Incorrect and redundant passage.

Conclusion: All passages should be erased or transferred to other more appropriate articles. And if, it is ok to everyone, I would like to continue writing the text about the history of the republican era (I already finished the colonial and imperial era as you can see). --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Debresser

1. POV language.
2. Rephrase to "was killed in the war or feel to famine and illnesses".
3. Should not be here.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept.
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.
10. Incorrect.

Debresser (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After Lecen posted a reply on my talkpage, I'd like to add the following:

2) If this is too detailed for a relatively unimportant war the remove.

4) This is the correct course of action unless Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would disqualify the source used by Opinoso.

6) Might be of minor importance, but 8) should definitely stay. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Eusourei

Some comments of the things you wrote there, lets see:

“Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.”

Slavery is already mentioned previously and also its need in Brazilian farms. There is reason to be so accurately specific in this section to where this kind of man power was used. And that fact is already told in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Conclusion: redundant passage.

Wouldn't it be important to also cite the very important European mão-de-obra in the Western São Paulo? (damn, forgot the english word for it :~ thankfully you're brazilian)

“Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery”

This part in my opinion is important, it shows how long it actually did take for the processos to happen here, showing, also, how deeply rooted it was in the society. Maybe American countris, instead of Western countries, would be better.

“because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country”

This part isn't so wrong, I'd say. With some extra information it is very important to, once again, show how slavery was an important part of the society. Maybe state that Pedro II did want to abolish, but thought it should be done gradually, so that there weren't any anthagonisms with slave owners. --eusourei^(talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by User:Opinoso

It's funny how the negative points of the Empire (large-scale use of slavery, poverty of the majority of the Brazilianm population, Brazilian economy remained agragarian and dependent on coffee exports while the "civilized" countries were going under a process of industrialization) are being removed from the article, while only the supposed positive points are still there.

1)Cabanos war was against the social structure imposed by the Monarchy, which was the same structure imposed in colonial Brazil or in the early Republic: a small minority of the country manipulating its richness, while the vast majority of Brazilians were living under poverty. Darcy Ribeiro described it as "a genocide with the goal of slaughtering the caboclo population". Caboclo were the native inhabitantd of the Amazon. It was against the "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed". Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

2)The deaths were caused directly by the war. The sentence by Lence "In reality, the deaths were caused by famine and illnesses that were resulted from the provincial anarchy and economical collapse" is his unsouced personal opinion. Even if the people died because of illnesses or famine, the deaths were brought by the war. Many Jews died of famine in concentration camps during World War II, but the causes of the death does not erase the fact that it was brought by the war, nothing else caused the deaths. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

3)It does not say that only Brazilians died in the war. During this war, the majority of the Paraguayan population (mostly civilians) was smashed by the Brazilian troops. Some sources claim that 90% of the male population of Paraguay died, another horrible aspect of the Empire as well as thousands of Argentines and Brazilians, which is ommited here (what a surprise). Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

4)Original resources conducted by user Lecen. The fact that the economy of Brazil had a great growth during the Empire was natural, since the population of the Empire increased by millions, and its capacity to produce more and more also grew. This is natural. However, the growth of the economy does not mean anything. The richness remained concentrated in the three richest provinces of the country, due to coffee exports, while the rest of the country had a decadent economy and great poverty. According to Darcy Ribeiro, in the 1890s coffee exports represented 61.5% of Brazilian economy, and all the production was centered in Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The other productions represented together only less than 40% of Brazilian economy. Then, Brazilian economy was based on coffee, since over half of it came from this product. Other products, such as sugar, cacau or cotton had a minor importance in Brazilian economy. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

5) Very important information. This part of the article only talks about the Emperor or the elite of the country. The Emperor was a single person, and the elite were a few thousands. Old conception of History. The modern History talks about the life of ordinary people. The history of the Africans in Brazil, and their importance, is trying to be ommited there. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

6)Yes, it was. The Brazilian History is divided in different periods, such as Capitanias do Mar (1516-1532), Capitanias hereditárias (1532-1549), Governo-Geral (1549-1580) and many others. The period of reign of Pedro II was the period, in all Brazilian History, that imported the largest numbers of slaves and the period that more people were used as slaves in Brazil. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

7) We're talking about Brazil, not the United States. If there were 4 million slaves in the USA this is their problem. The USA is not a model to be followed, and no other country is. We're talking about Brazil, and the figure about the slaves is very important. If there are figures about economy, figures about human being being used as slaves are even more importants. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

8)Brazil was the last Western country. User Lecen replaced "Western" by "American", probably trying to diminish the how latecomer Emperor Pedro II was to abolish slavery. Correct passage changed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

9)The information is sourced (Enciclopedia Britannica), and you cannot make original sources and erase sourced informations. The Emperor was afraid of abolishing slavery, because he did not want to lose the support of the elite of slave owners that fed him and his luxurious way of life, while the majority of Brazilians were starving to death. He could abolish slavery as soon as possible, but he waited until 1888 to abolish it, the last country in the Wester world. Pedro II even decided to take a trip to Europe and sent his daughter, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, to abolish slavery, because he was afraid to do so for fear of reprisals from the elite.

10)Another original resource conducted by Lecen. Where is your resourced to claim the Caboclos are the majority in Northeastern Brazil? The main mixture in Brazil was between Whites and Blacks, and most Pardos were Mulatos (African and European mixture). Caboclos are only found in significant numbers in Northern Brazil, not in Northeastern Brazil. Most people in Northeastern Brazil are either Black or Mulato (where may have some Amerindian mixture). Caboclos in Northeastern Brazil are mostly found in the Sertão, which is not as populate as the coastal region, where the African element in predominant. Why is Lecen trying to remove informations about the history of Black Brazilians? The history of the ordinary people, which includes Black Brazilians, are much more important than details about the personal life of Emperor Pedro II, which was a single person. Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason.

Conclusion: user Lecen is doing original resource with books that are not avaible for us to read. Then, he is choosing to post only the positive points of the Monarchy from these books, while the negative points, which may be listed on those books as well, he choose not to post. Lecen is removing my sourced contributions, because they show that the Monarchy was not so wonderful as he is trying to sell and he is trying, in this talk page, to demoralize my contributions. However, he does not use sources to demoralize my contributions, but his personal opinions and original resourced about History (which is not allowed at all).

It's obvious that user Lecen has some kind of obssession with the Empire of Brazil and with Emperor Pedro II, since all his contributions in Wikipedia are dedicated to talk about the Monarchy of Brazil and his positive points. From this perspective, his contributions are biased, since he has a personal admiration for the monarchy. He should use his knowledge about the subjetc, which he claims to be huge, to post neutral informations about it. However, he choose to post biased informations about the Monarchy (only citing the positive points, and trying to remove the negative ones). On the other, when it comes about the Republic, Lecen choose to list only the negative points of it, and ommited the positive points. This is quite obvious when you read the part about the Emperor (good things only) and when you read the part about Republic (negative points only).

All my contributions are sourced, and I do not use sources from books people cannot read, making it possible to manipulate informations to feed a personal point of view. I won't let user Lecen remove my contributions because he "does not like them". If Lecen wants to remove informations, he is free to remove his own contributions, not from others. In fact, he erased the entire History part of the article, which was already here for months, and replaced them with all these biased changes. I still think that the original History part should come back, and these biased and controversial changes should be removed. Opinoso (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New change on the text

Taking in consideration the suggestions found in here, and also Opinoso's, I have made new changes on the text on the section about Pedro II reign. Here goes the changes:

• "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" (Opinoso's) - removed.
• "from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed" (Opinoso's) - removed
• "with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.” (mine) - removed
• "Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries" (mine) - removed
• "The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America" (mine) - removed
• "and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end" (mine) - removed
• "which left more than 300,000 dead" (Opinoso's) - removed

Added:

• "However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles" - mention to Pedro II conflict with the pro-slavery farmers.
• "and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery" - just changed the website source for an author.
• "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." - Opinoso's original mentioned only 1864. Now the information regarding the slave population in Brazil is more complete as it goes from the independence up to the slavery abolition.

Well, now the text is more simple and direct. I hope it can stay that way and please everyone. I'll begin working on the text about the republican era tomorrow. - --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)