Talk:Brazil

Italian Brazilians

I think this article should be more democratic. It should describe the real brazilian population, composed by indigenous people, brown, black, asians, middle east and europeans (mainly portuguese). We can´t ignore that Brazil has the one of the largest italian settlement of the world, but we should show pictures that reflect the diversity of the brazilian population.

Edit request

I would like to include the ranking next to the GDP in the "Infobox country".

GDP_nominal_rank = 7th (or 8th depending on the source)

Edit request on 3 june 2012

The ethnic diversity board is strange because its not ethnic diverse at all. You have 3 whites and 5 blacks. Why not one japanese and one arab? To put Ronaldo and Marina Silva, or Pele and Daiane do Santos is completely redundant because they look absolutely the same. Ayrton Senna represents a southern european and Gisele Bundchen represents a northern european. So it' ok to have them there. This board should have 1 southern european (Senna), 1 northern european (Bundchen), 1 japanese (Hugo Hoyama), 1 black (Pele), 1 amerindian, 1 mixed (Ronaldo) and 1 arab (Tony Kanaan).Soulflytribe (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

brazilian Literature and culture !

I read only 6 lines about brazilian literature...?? brazilian culture is one of most rich culture in the world with portuguese,african,italian,german,arab roots, many books well know world wide!Paulo coelho one of most famous brazilians that sold more than 100 million books well know world wide and noboby put one pic of him ?? an about carlos drummond de andrade?olavo bilac,mario de andrade?not pics?brazilian culture? none pic??we have oktorbefest in southern part,we have winter festivals ,we have festas juninas(saints parties)brazilian movies, theather,brazilian Museum Masp.MAC,MAM?? hey who is wrinting this article?this guy don´t know nothing about brazil??i saw four times more pics in others countries article than i saw about brazil!where is brazilian wars?we have many wars,we have the military years (60 and 70s),brazilian empire with bourbon royal family ,habsbourg royal family,bragança royal family and nobody studied about this??what about united kingdom of Brazil portugal and Algarves??nobody know??hey ??lets do it better wikipédia most improve to be more useful and democratic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.13.154 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

More pics like others Countries articles

where is pics of São Paulo?the largest city in southern hemisphere and the first in Brazil ??for exemple ...the page of United kingdom i saw 8 pics of London!that is the most important city of United Kindom and about Brazil only one about São paulo a city with 11 million people and is very important economic city in western hemisphere and alpha city !hey when u say something about brazlian transport u put a highway in fortaleza??where is brazilian subway system ?urban trains like we have in São paulo 200 km of trains ! and 74 km of subway !do you know MASP,PINACOTECA,Latin American memorial??do you know BOVESPA?brazilian stock exchange that is bigger than milan,paris,madrid stock exchange??do you know Embraer??the 4th airplane factory of the world??i think this article want to show to the world a Brazil from the XIX century!sorry to say but we need more pics of a Brazil that represent what we are in the XXI century !more pics and articles about brazilians cities Brazil is a country with 85 per cent of urban population!I hope that u improve this Brazilian page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.13.154 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Very poor article!this article show Brazil like 500 years ago!!!!

not complete !!!!please more pics of the very important region of Brazil!! Sâo Paulo that is the 4th city in the world by area and population and the 10th by gdp!more pics of brazilian cities like Curitiba,São Paulo,recife,Porto Alegre cities that is very important in Brazil this article show things that not represent what is more important to know!! more about brazilian companies like Petrobras,Itau,Vale,Bradesco,brazilian stock exchange ,brazilian airlines that are growing up very fast like ,latam,gol,azul, brazilian airplanes factory embraer !what about São Paulo fashion week ??what about FLIP ??what about brazilian modernism?what about brazilian stadiums?brazilian music festivals?brazilian universities?? when i saw this article i thought i was born in 1500!!!!very outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.216.203 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Reading Section

Hi folks! I think the "Further Reading" section needs some updating. One third of the books were written before redemocratization. I added some academic selections here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=494661230, but my revision was promptly reverted. The new ones don't have to be the ones that I added, but they should be relevant today. The current list seems to be a historian's selection. That's good for historians, but not everyone is interested in that.

In my opinion, these should definitely go, as they are of limited value today:

Costa, João Cruz (1964). A History of Ideas in Brazil. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Wagley, Charles (1963). An Introduction to Brazil. New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Prado Júnior, Caio (1967). The Colonial Background of Modern Brazil. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press (maybe... I honestly haven't read it, but historical interpretations have changed since it was written).

Furtado, Celso. The Economic Growth of Brazil: A Survey from Colonial to Modern Times

"Background Note: Brazil". US Department of State. Retrieved 2011-06-16.

The World Almanac and Book of Facts: Brazil. New York, NY: World Almanac Books. 2006.

In my opinion, these should definitely stay on the list:

Fausto, Boris (1999). A Concise History of Brazil. Cambridge: CUP.

Skidmore, Thomas E. (1974). Black Into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Any thoughts? You can click the link above to see the ones that I think are list worthy. I'm not dead-set on which ones should be added, but I firmly believe that the list should be of interest for a wider variety of readers.--Lacarids (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil is now a FAC, share your thoughts

Pedro I of Brazil is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please share your thoughts about it here. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tag added

"About 95% to 99% of Brazilians descend from the country's indigenous peoples and Portuguese settlers, while 85% to 95% also have African slave ancestors..." says the article on "Race and ethnicity" section. The interesting things is that the source given is "Enciclopédia Barsa vol. 4, p. 230". Well, that's not what it says. I know that, because it was I the one who added this reference a long time ago and it meant something else completely different. The title off the section itself looks like a bad joke since as far as I know there is only one human species. But perhaps Black people do not belong to the same race as White people, I don't know... (yes, I'm being very sarcastic here)

These are just one of the problems about this section, which should be something simple asn straightfoward, with basic information, not ridiculous DNA tests all around. I toyed with the idea of bringing the article to FA standard some time ago but everytime I try to do it, there an editor who sincerely believes knows more about the subject than the people who trully know it. It's hard and does not help. --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as an English-speaking Brazilian, you probably know that people outside our culture confuse the pardo thing everytime (something people of the Movimento Mestiço is concerned about). People in major world news sources say that Brazil 'divides in white and black', that 'Brazil is now 51% black', blablabla, and this is actually of worse factual accuracy than claiming some disputed but widely accepted number that most of us (including myself, grandson of a man who had a sarará mother and a juçara father, thus that would be identified as "Latino" despite being way lighter than an average Brazilian as my color is milked away by recent European forefathers [more appropriately, foremothers] – as natural in Southeastern Brazil) know;

...to say, that this nation started in Portuguese men mixing with coastal Tupi-speaking Amerindian women, then having increasingly whiter children while more Portuguese married the mixed-race caboclas, thus forming our old colonial elite, while the marginalized lower class groups, also mixed-race (and mostly caboclo), absorved the mulattoes (the average Afro-Brazilian is way mixed, while the average pardo is dominantly European and has high Amerindian contributions), children of relations between Portuguese masters and African slave females, sometimes institutionally oppressive ones – while mixed-race relations were very little frowned upon compared to other slavery-based colonial societies in the Western world –, thus that everyone who does not live in some isolated immigrant communities (not really more than 5%, as we know by genetic testing and demographic research; perhaps, depending on what you can describe as "unmixed" Brazilian, less than 2%) makes part of this same ethnicity of mixed-race people with looks from the most European-like to the most African-like complexions.

So it doesn't helps saying that it is racist (yes, there are minor genetic differences between world populations from different heritages [or ethnicities], as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza surely knows – just as you can do a parentage test ~remembers about heehaws while watching the most adult program of my childhood, Programa do Ratinho~). I know that for some people, it may sound like eugenics (but there's no policy in Wikipedia saying this topic is taboo, and I think you assume good faith from me), but it is just scientific proof of a way attested part of our history, that people from other cultures are likely to be unused to (as our historical definitions of race were constructed in a way different environment, in a great extent of time before the widespread racism in industrial and post-industrial Western societies). Despite writing it "like my cara" (face) or "making it as if on my coxas" (thighs), this section, weird as it seems, is the most close I could get to representing an interesting, albeit obviously not most important, part of the knowledge about our people.

Sorry if I am making something detrimental to the quality of something in Wikipedia, but the article Race in Brazil is way less revised, and even considering its size, of inferior text quality than the brief I did here. Be welcome if you try to improve it with a language that you find more encyclopedic, but without deleting my old contributions here (that you are the first to question if my idea that studying our genetics has a knowledge-friendly purpose, or at least it is not generally negative). Cheers. Lguipontes (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lguipontes. The section is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and is not factually correct, a lot of what you said regards your own family, good for you that you have mixed race background, be proud of what you are, just don't come here and say that everyone is the same, it is an offence to me and millions of other Brazilians with different backgrounds. The article should be simple and direct, we should have only the official IBGE data here, and only it. DNA research should be in their specific articles, some should not even be here since they have doubtful sources. Just remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a place to try to promote your ideas and personal experience about something, we have to maintain a NPOV. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not an offense as, except for the immigrants themselves and most probably their children, people with "pure" European, Middle Eastern or Asian decent are really kind of a little minority (and please, no claims that this is disputed, you can say that I don't have sources but NOT that it is so doubtful), albeit not in the cases of their ethnic communities where they don't mix because they don't have much contact with outsiders (as the forefathers of most "unmixed" Brazilians were already here until 1940) – but they seem to be limited to 3/4 states and to be shrinking as middle and upper class Brazilian birth rates are really very likely way below replacement levels (since we got around 2 kids per women, what is weird in a Third World country).

Ugh, whatever, I just mentioned the fact that I am mixed-race because the other guy seemed to try to pretend with his "kind" irony – that you seem to sport too, by your tone of "aww, there's no such thing as science or encyclopedic content in genetic testing, this is just ethnocentric mixed-race nationalist propaganda, you can go now" – that I was a white nationalist or something of the like, pretending I do take "ethnic genetic differences" seriously (amazingly, I do have mixed-race "friends" who like white supremacist people in the Black Metal scene as Varg Vikernes, but I abhor this kind of ideology, you can see in my page that I am "progressist/socialist" and sorta starting to be an anarchist). Irony is not the best way to deal with conflicts. I don't understand why after all these months, there is so much concern about it just now. Can you please explain?

BTW, you seem to be involved in the same projects with Lecen, and to be a friend of him. I am not being hostile, but I insist that it has to be a consensus, and ask for the opinion of outsiders. And as was the case of Lecen who removed constructive things unnecessarily, your unaware reverts made parts of the text nonsense. I am curious, what is the reason of all this abuzz? Oh, and please, I just hate when people get the NPOV argument to push their views too – assuming you are also a Brazilian, that pertains to a certain minority that in the text according to your views got underrepresented or is friend of another editor that has a problem with my text, despite absence of clear evidence or arguments that my claims are in some way untrue, or generally problematic. Lguipontes (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware how Wikipedia works, Lguipontes. However, it doesn't mean that you can talk to us in an ironic way. If you want to be taken serious by others, than you should behave accordingly. Have manners. You should really pay attention to what two experienced editors are saying. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not fully aware how Wikipedia policies are supposed to be used despite being an experienced editor: everyone in this world has viewpoints, and yours are not greater than mine because you're more productive or are here for a greater extent of time. I complained about your irony and that of Paulista01, I was not being ironic myself. Maybe "have manners" is valid for all of us (and it is), including the manner you treat me as if I was a stubborn child. Now, evidence/arguments please. Lguipontes (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I will not respond to your personal offences, they are a disgrace, but since you are teenager and still learning I will let this one pass, Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG! What personal offenses? Where did I insult you, or namecalled you? I speak in a general way, I would speak that way to anyone I thought misusing Wikipedia policy. If I wanted to broke some barraco with you guys because I felt supposed to, I wouldn't fear nothing, because I am sincere, open and direct in the way I conduct things and resolve conflicts. You are the one unnecessarily annoying me doing exactly what I am asking you to not (speaking to me as your rebel and newbie subordinate), and not answering what I requested. But since we lose too many valuable contributors in this silly POV disputes I will let this one pass, and I will no longer revert that edit of yours. I will wait persons neutral to the subject, as you seemingly neither want to discuss in a civilizated manner as an equal nor deal with me the way someone experient, supposedly higher in hierarchy, is intended to – you just ignore me, so I will ignore your apparent lack of seriousness with this subject. Cheers. Lguipontes (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior & reversions

Since User Lecen, who since past week without dialogue, has simple and steadily revert editions to his own old ones, referring aggressively to other editors in the box justification, treating the whole article as his own property, returning so to a form of behavior which he apparently had healed a little over one year ago, I come here remind the reasons that led to my current issue, as well as remember the incongruity of his "justifications":

Without making a storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, among other Lecer's behaviours as stifling the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia, when people try to fix some glaring flaws of an article, in this case more specifically about the Early Republic section.

And what are Now these flawns which I fixed? (Summarized in three points - A B C) Here we go again:

A) Purge spurious quotations; The reference nr. 83 (of early june, 2011) in the Early Republic section of the Brazil article
While that edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article said "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence",
The original found in the book used as reference says: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence."

The citations and consequentely their meanings are different.

To Check it, Go Here in the Google Books website, in the search box type any word used in the citation, eg. "Incompetence", or go rightly to page 403 of the book, in the last paragraph can be seen the original phrase.

Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:

One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.

Thus, spurious quotation aside, was also a spurious correlation.

Others may argue that even the original statement of the book that blames the naval revolt of 1893 (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country and is known in Brazil as "Segunda Revolta da Armada", as there had been another minor one in 1891) for having alone triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market. But at this point (be the author of the book used as reference, right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here), it must be remembered that an error on another error can not make a right.

Anyway, added to this the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government for 1894, much before 1893's events. In addition, when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes and the majors consequences of the 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference did not wrote it.

B) My 2nd point about to edit "Early Republic" section was: Since in this historical period only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, the issue of anexation of the state of Acre (which occurred between the late 1890s and early 1900s) And the 1st world war (despite the country has had an insignificant role on it, had however repercussions and importance in domestic politics), there is no technical reason (although a political one could be another story) for don't mention it using book references (by the way, Not spurious and in English) in 1-2 lines, if that much, specially when...

C) (which lead us to the last, but not least, mentioned flawn), the section has another spurious correlation - in the 2nd paragraph is write "In the 1920s the country was plagued by several rebellions caused by young military officers. By 1930 the regime was weakened and demoralized, which allowed the defeated presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas to lead a coup d'état and assume the presidency."
Well, skipping those parts related to the differences between what the references (in Portuguese) states and what appears edited and going rightly to the correlation established about that (citting) only the mutinies of the 1920s (which moreover were defeated in the same decade years before the regime change) would have led to the downfall of the Early Republic; it must be remembered that not only the military rebellions of 1920's but since the 1890s, numerous revolts, both civilian (as Canudos and Contestado, among others) as military (such as the aforementioned 1893's naval revolt and Lash Revolt, also among others) have occurred, and that added to other factors (such as the 1930's election and the economic effects of the 1929 Crisis ), weakened the regime over time, weighing in events that led to change.
Purge the spuriousness of the section contained in the quotation and correlations exposed above in my points A and C;

Since in this historical period before 1930 only 2 events stand out in the Brazilian foreign policy, add a mention about them within 1 sentence and Although the style now be little different (no concessions to who are intransigent), at least to get an good glance of how would its size, look at my latest editions, I'm using the tinkering feature of the Wikipedia; trying to improve it, keeping the content meaning, but don't making Or let anyone make storm in a teacup reverting new edits disruptively, neither insulting the newcomers, potential new users to maintain incomplete versions, locking the development and improvement of an article.

Concluding for today :
I also remind that his double standard uses, when referring to the summary character of the article, without respecting it, since he elongates other text sections to fit his monarchist and ethnic bias about Brazil and Brazilian History (what I'll pleasantly develop and show in details, in the wake of the present discussion).
Cybershore (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea how hard you make for anyone to come here and support you. Writing one huge block of text won't make anyone say you are correct. In fact, no one will bother to read it. --Lecen (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well Lecen,

as I have already explained earlier (see on my talk page, 03:24, 14 June 2011)

"...if the person has been unwilling to really join the discussion, will not have "patience" or tolerance to read and, if she/he think it's the case, counterargument point to point the other side, mainly if she/he thinks don't need do that 'cause imagine that "owns the space" ...so long being accustomed to depart collaboration of anyone who doesn't fit into his/her world view, editing disruptively...

------> Debate takes work my friends, if the person doesn't really want all that work, simply don't start it or stay alway from it. It's better than pretending that it cares...

...you can rest assured, I'll keep holding it (this section) a minimum size, as usual,

but without spuriousness or historical (gaps and) inconsistency... "

Cybershore (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And again, one more time, repeating myself...:

"Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those incomplete or flawed (with spuriousness - be quotations or inferences) ones. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war".

But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can (keep) be enhanced and fitted when appropriate" (03:32, 3 May 2011)

So, have a good day

Cybershore (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cybershore, Lecen has a point: please tell, short and to the point, what do you want to add or change, and the reasons. That will make it easier for others to understand the issue and take part in it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I am also trying to understand what is going on here. Paulista01 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"what do you want to add or change(?)"
I - What I changed in relation to the previous version:
The content of the text, especially related to the concatenation of events (with their links and/or references), as can be seen analyzing the 2 versions.

II - What I added: links and references to respective events, some of which were not in the previous version, eg. the 1st naval revolt, Encilhamento, sequential references to the main civilian and military uprisings of that period, as well as the only issues of foreign policy.

The reasons ", the" Why ":
I - The prior narration was not only truncated due to serious gaps related to some of the key events of that time (both internal and external);
II - but also contained partial references and biased inferences regarding the cause of the events , having even spurious bibliographic citations "justifying" such inferences.

And all this with the difference, between the 2 versions, of only 3 lines... (difference that can always be reduced without adding the mentioned vices of the previous edition)

Note: Curious, as some do and undo articles at their whim, without anyone even check the sources, the plausibility or the neutrality of the statements contained in such articles, while others have to justify and re_justify fundamental changes, with the increas of only few lines in some sections...
Cybershore (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You won't win the support of others by attacking me. Trust me. I've seen that before. I'll explain to you for the last time: the "History" section on every country article is supposed to be simple and straightfoward. It has to explain the history of a country that might be 2,000 years old or one that is just a few decades old. Regardless, the section must be short. There were events far, far more important then the 1st naval revolt and the Encilhamento that were not mentioned. There is no mention, for example, of the Questão Religiosa (the crisis between the government and bishops), nor of the Law that abolished slavery traffic in 1850, nor of the Law of Free Birth, not even of serious rebellions like the War of the Ragamuffins. People who played a key role in our history, like the Viscount of Rio Branco en José Bonifácio are not mentioned! Is there any mention of the Araguaia guerrilla of the early 1970s? No. What about the Paulista rebellion of 1932? Not heard either. Why is that? Because the history section must be simple. --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Again;

Don't try to manipulate people in a so primary way, Lecen. Stick to the arguments in question.

Editions substantiated in facts must not be confused with personal attacks, btw a thing that you do routinely...

And Simple doesn't mean spurious or intellectual dishonesty Ok

Cybershore (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to stop insulting me. If you keep up with that behavior I will have no other option than to report. Another editor [1] has removed your additions and you still insist. --Lecen (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No surprise that you instead of counter-argument, use (again) of your network to enforce your biased view.

Now, answer me, since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts above, which you did not refute (even because on the evidence presented above, there is no way), is to insult someone?

Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions,

because in your case, it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence,

Anyway, again I suggest those interested in the discussion (that already lasts for 1 year and a half, and will not end so soon...) that follow it, also via my talk page

Cybershore (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)