Jump to content

Talk:Brazil–China relations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
JanHop (talk | contribs)
Line 25: Line 25:
*With reference to the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Brazil_%E2%80%93_People%27s_Republic_of_China_relations&action=historysubmit&diff=427769950&oldid=427755761 new source], the information is either (i) not contained in this source or (ii) a [[WP:COPYVIO]] cut-and-paste of this source. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
*With reference to the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Brazil_%E2%80%93_People%27s_Republic_of_China_relations&action=historysubmit&diff=427769950&oldid=427755761 new source], the information is either (i) not contained in this source or (ii) a [[WP:COPYVIO]] cut-and-paste of this source. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
**(The current timeline in the article appears to be merely the ''unsourced'' material previously in the article, combined with a ''verbatim'' replication of the cited source's timeline. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) )
**(The current timeline in the article appears to be merely the ''unsourced'' material previously in the article, combined with a ''verbatim'' replication of the cited source's timeline. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) )

== Developments on Brazil-China relations ==

Nice to see the page growing due to constructive contributions by many!

I re-incorporated the timeline of diplomacy, because I'm convinced by the crucial information provided in the timeline. And the source could not be more current and authentic![[User:JanHop|JanHop]] ([[User talk:JanHop|talk]]) 13:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:23, 17 May 2011

Timeline

  1. The 'Timeline' section has been tagged as 'Trivia' for some months.
  2. The attempt to turn it into a table was malformed & put the See also, References & External links sections into part of the table.
  3. I did not initially see the reference due to the botched table, but anyway neither it, nor the pdf document it links to appear to support this information.

I have therefore removed this section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dear Hrafn, historical diplomatic activities are vital to understand contemporary relations. The source diverts towards the site of the Brazilian government, in the PDF, at the bottom, is this table, i took the effort to put it into wikipedia, because it is vital information! From the government! This must be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanHop (talkcontribs) 14:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. No, neither the initial URL nor the linked pdf contains this information. The PDF contains the following headings: BASIC DATA, ECONOMY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, POLITICAL SYSTEM. No information on diplomatic relations at all, let alone with China, let alone a timeline.
  2. No, it is not "vital" information, it is a verbatim regurgitation of diplomatic trivia, including all sorts of minor agreement and visits.
  3. The publication you are claiming contains it is explicitly a "Press" release, so covered by WP:QS and thus WP:ABOUTSELF -- meaning that "the article is [can]not based primarily on such sources."

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developments on Brazil-China relations

Nice to see the page growing due to constructive contributions by many!

I re-incorporated the timeline of diplomacy, because I'm convinced by the crucial information provided in the timeline. And the source could not be more current and authentic!JanHop (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]