Talk:Brazil/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Demographics

Population increased strongly between 1940 and 1970, due to the decline of mortality rates (even though natality rates also underwent a slight decline). In the 40's the anual growth rate was of 2.4%, rising to 3.0% in the 50's and remaining at 2.9% in the 60's, as life at birth expectancy rose from 44 to 54 years[198]. During the 70's, natality rates also declined strongly, bringing the anual growth rate down to 2.4%. This process continued during the 80', when the anual growth rate further fell to 1.9%, completing the demographic transition

Is it really important to tell population growth in the 1940s up to 1980s? isn't that too specific? One thing is to tell in this article the growth in the last 10 years, another one is to give a whole view from the last 70 years. Because if we do that, other editors will want to write about literacy rate in the past 60 years, etc... Not only that, but the article has returned to grow again, from 108 kb to 111kb. --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think yes, it is important to describe the process of demographic transition in Brazil, among other reasons because there is a common conception that third world countries don't undergo such process. Literacy rates in the past 60 years aren't that important, because as they approach 100%, it is obvious that the process of erradicating illiteracy is close to its end. Contrarywise, the populational rate growth of today doesn't make too much sence unless compared to its history: a small populational is typical of modern societies, but also of pre-industrial societies. Also I don't see how a section about "demography" can do without such analysis. And, concerning the growth of the article, I have also taken out a lot of things in the "demography" section - including some completely displaced information about graduated studies, comparisons of uncomparable data, and fantasies about "ethnicities" in Brazil. I hope this gives us some space for including actual demographic data about the country. Ninguém (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We could also take away the photograph of the Cristo Redentor, which I don't think has a much significant relation to the subject of "demography"...

The statue is an iconic representation of Brazil and is related to the paragraph about religion in the country in the demographics section. About the "demographic transition" paragraph: you have to improve it, and a lot. The way it reads someone will think that Brazilian life expectancy is 54 years when it is at this moment (or until the IBGE makes the new study this year) at 72 years. I don't know if the English term for "taxa de natalidade" is "natality", I would suggest changing it for "birh rate". Also, the term "demographic transition" is too much specific, not everyone knows what it means. So, unless you explain it what it is, it should be avoided. Those are my thoughts, --Lecen (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When I look at a photo showing Cristo Redentor, I think less of Christianity than I do of tourism and postcards. (Perhaps a tourism section should also have a [GFDL/CC, of course!] answer to this [click the postcard for a possibly "NSFW" large version]; although of course this would reflect my ignorance and stereotypes of Brazil, or anyway my ignorance and stereotypes about its stereotypes.) ¶ In the section immediately below, an editor at first seemed to me merely to be blowing off steam. But as I looked more closely, I realized that he has a point: all mention of literature has been expunged from the article. Even if "nobody reads literature any more" -- and I don't know if this is said in Brazil, but it certainly is elsewhere -- they certainly used to. I do wonder whether the article is getting lopsided if it finds room for photos of "iconic representations" of this or that aspect of Brazil but doesn't even mention other significant aspects. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to remove it. However, I believe that the section should have a picture. Which one, I leave up to you, guys. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A more poor article

When this article was a little more complete, some editors argued that the editions of User Auréola were greatly exaggerated; they forgot that Argentina and other articles about countries, relied on an even more words than this article ... What a pity!! Too bad you editors delete all sub-sections of section Culture (there were so many references!!! ... This seems dictatorship) and, further, the introduction of this article is really ridiculous and poor and limited... Auréola (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article at one point on 30 December and at or close to its peak in length. Here is a comparison between that version of the article and the version that happens to exist as I write this. Unfortunately it's difficult to use the comparison because of altered paragraph breaks, but it's the best thing we have.

The section on culture has indeed been cut drastically. Perhaps most dramatically cut within it has been the subsection on literature. However, the earlier, longer version about literature looks to me like a breathless list: A wrote W, and B wrote X, and C wrote Y, etc: very little of it says enough to make much sense, and all in all it looks less like a summary of Brazilian literature and much more like a crib-sheet that a high-school student might attempt to conceal for use in an examination. I don't know why there is now (as far as I can see) no mention whatever of literature. Perhaps you would like to write a short paragraph on the subject.

The introduction to any article is necessarily limited. That's because it's merely an introduction. You get more detail after the introduction. Please explain concretely how the introduction is not merely limited but "really ridiculous and poor". -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No wonder that the article about Argentina is class B. This article now is more similar to featured articles like Canada, Japan, Peru and others. Although I'm used to your poor manner, Opn., there is always room to get impressed by your behavior. About the literature, that was my fault. I was going to leave a paragraphy just like all the other sub-sections, but there was nothing to save. As you said your self, Hoary, the section mentioned books and authors, but nothing really about Brazilian literature. I removed believing that we could add a small paragraph about it once we have a good sorce and a good text. Opn., just don't forget that at least six editors have approved the new version of this article. Regards (not to you, only for the other editors), --Lecen (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone noticed this user unnecessarily called Auréola of to be a suck puppet of Opn. (Opinoso)? and certainly the phrase Regards (not to you, only for the other editors) was not friendly --62.209.137.106 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I also noticed that you know who Opinoso is, that this was your very first edit in Wikipedia, and that you were logged from Uzbekistan when you did it. Ninguém (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can do the test and will see that I am not User:Opinoso. He lives far from where I live, I Think. (And his editions are very different from my editions). Auréola (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, is: I volunteered myself to edit this article and improve it, and I really thought my edits were good - reliable sources and information from many international scholars writing about Brazilian literature, for example. When I said the introduction was ridiculous, were not an exaggeration. Missing more information. This article was ridiculously packed and contains only text on the monarchy (I see it contains partial information about it), sports, and little things (missing a deepening - although subsections ...). We are still in Pedro Alvares Cabral? Hehehe. And what happened after him? There is much to be written. OR BETTER: there is much to be undo/reversed/ (for my edits, which were dramatically deleted while say things extremely important.) What surprises me most is that, comparing the article now with my edits, this version is much worse. If it were a matter of searching for books or images... but no, I've done all this, and was deleted. :( Not even the censorship of the remote Brazilian dictatorship was so crual, because it has warned about what would be censored... If you are willing to think about it, I thank you. Auréola (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking the sources

Well, I believe anyone who like to keep an eye in this article has noticed that Richerman has been doing a great job by fixing all grammar and spelling mistakes in it. Once he has finished it I'll begin checking each source to verify if it's or not reliable. The ones that aren't, I'll change for another that can be considered reliable. The ones that I don't find a better replacement I'll put in here and ask for your help. Thank you all, --Lecen (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Lecen. I read on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page that you wanted to try for FA status but the article needed copy editing by a native English speaker so I thought I'd help out. I've completed the copyedit for now - although I'm sure I'll find things I'm still not happy with (including things I've rewritten myself) when I read through it again. I hope you're happy with the changes. As well as correcting the English I've changed some other things that didn't seem right as I went along, but there were some I didn't fix as it was taking too long, so I'll list them here as suggestions for change:

• The lead doesn't need citations if the facts are already cited in the body of the article, so those that are repeated later should be removed. I've not checked them all but reference 4 and 12 are two that should definitely go.

• There should be only one wikilink to each other article that is mentioned and that should be on the first instance of the term - I found quite a few multiple links to the same articles.

• I applaud your attempts to improve the citation of facts in the article, but in a number of places you've been a little over-enthusiastic. For example under "Economy" it says: "Brazil's economy is diverse,[171] encompassing agriculture, industry, and many services.[161][172][173][174]"

There only needs to be one citation for each fact unless it is particularly contentious, and I don't think anyone would argue with any of the above sentence as long as each fact is cited once.

• Breaking up a sentence with an number of citations makes it difficult to read and it's quite acceptable to group the citations at the end of most sentences to improve readability.

• The same tense should be kept in each section. I found quite a few cases where the paragraph begins with what "was" found in a census but then goes on to say that the population "is" XXXX. If the information is all from the same source it should be all be what "was" found.

• In the section on literacy the text changes from the rate of literacy to the rate of illiteracy all in the same paragraph. This makes it very confusing as the percentages refer two opposites. I would suggest that it's changed so that the percentages refer to one or the other, but not both.

Richerman (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Richerman, you've helped a lot. I'll try to deal with all the matters raised by you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Richerman. Ninguém (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In normal situations I'd agree with much or all of the points that you list above, Richerman. But if I may explain a little ... despite my impression (from thousands of kilometres away) that South America has been, since the fall of most of its autocrats, a rather peaceful continent, many of these articles about South American nations and peoples have been bedeviled by editing of the kind that one might (sadly) expect to see in articles about the Balkans. So there has I think been a certain degree of sourcing as buttressing: "If I double-source every clause, then even my worst enemy won't be able to delete this paragraph or screw it up." -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A Fair point - I see there has been a lot of acrimony on the talk page. Richerman (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to erase part of the text of sections "Military" and "Transports"

Military

Recently, Brazil has began to emerge as a major world power and a potential superpower; thus Brazil has begun to develop as a major military power. In 2008, Brazil has signed a strategic partnership with France and Russia to trade military technology. Brazil has also begun negotiations with France to have Brazil build 120 Rafale aircraft locally by Embraer. Also in 2008 the Brazilian company Embraer showcased the Brazilian transport aircraft, Embraer KC-390, and some countries already have shown interest in the aircraft, with France even placing orders.

Reason to be erased: The FX-2 program carried by the Brazilian Air Force has plans to buy 36 fighters, not 120. The program is still ongoing and the Rafale, Gripen NG and F-18 Super Hornet are on the dispute. The final decision will perhaps be made in the beginning of the next year.

The KC-390 is a project that still has not received green light. Embraer is still looking for potential partners to develop the cargo airplane.

So, not only the Rafale was not chosen as the Brazilian fighter, but also there are no 120 fighters to be bought, but 36. The KC-390 is a project, it's not being developed yet. So, we can not keep information about two airplanes that, for all the efects, do not exist in Brazilian territory yet.

The US has plans to build over 3,000 F-35 airplanes. However, that´s a plan. There are not even a single F-35 on the US Air Force right now. There isn't in the United States article anything saying that there are, or it will be bought, 3,000 F-35.

In 2009 Brazil purchased 4 Scorpène submarines for US $9.9 billion with a massive technology transfer agreement. In a second agreement, France will provide technical assistance to Brazil so that Brazil can design and produce indigenous nuclear powered submarines, to be completely built in Brazil. The Brazilian government has announced that a Helibras factory in Itajubá, Minas Gerais, will initially produce 50 units of the EC 725 and up to 1,300 new helicopters for the Brazilian military. Helibras will now also produce Eurocopter's full line of products, with the first units to be operational in 2010.

Reason to be erased: The Brazilian government has closed the deal to build 4 French submarines. It's true. However, the shipyard that will build them in Brazilian territory does not exist yet and the terrain that the Brazilian govenrment plans to buy to build it it's in the middle of a judicial dispute.

It has closed the deal to buy 50 EC 725, none of them have been delivered so far. If they plan to buy other 1,300, that's only that: a plan, a desire, a wish, an intention.

So, not only there are no 4 submarine, even less there is a shipyard to build them. There isn't also any helicopter and 1,300 is nothing more than an intention. No reason to be in here, but in their respective articles.

The Department of Defense of Brazil, in 2009 also asked the Brazilian Navy to develop a plan for the next 30 years. To carry out the plans of power projection that Brazil wants to run, the expenditure will cost more than $138 billion US dollars, within the Navy alone. The program is called PEAMB. The strategy is to buy or build 2 aircraft carriers (40 000 tonnes), 4 Amphibious assault ships (20 000 tonnes), 30 escort ships, 15 submarines, 5 nuclear submarines and 62 (patrol ships).

Reason to be erased: Anyone who reads the paragraphy above will wonder how spetacular will be to see Brazil build two 40,000 t aircraft carriers plus four 20,000 t assault ships. The PEAMB is nothing more than a plan of intentions. That is, the Brazilian Ministry of Defense would like, wish that it could, buy or build those ships in the next decades. But that's it: a wish, a desire, an intention. There is no contract to buy them now, no procurement, nothing. Something that does not exist and will probably not exist for the next decades can not be in here.

China has plans to build 3 aircraft carriers. Plans. There a strong hints that it might begin building them anytime soon. However, that doesn't mean that in China article there is the mention of a plan of building 3 aircraft carriers. And unlike Brazil, China is trully seeking to build them. They are not simply an intention, a but a true project being sought and even so they are not mentioned in the article about China.

In July 2009, the minister of defense, Nelson Jobim, said that Brazil will expend about 0.7% ($13 billion USD) of the GDP per year to modernize the forces in addition to the 2.6% yearly defense budget. He stated, "We are raising a study to make the financial schedule of the entire project. It will be a 20 year plan, including modernization and expansion of the elements for defense of the Brazilian territory."

Reason to be erased: Check the link to the source. it says that the Minister has plans, has a desire, wish that, Brazil expends 0.7% of its GDP in military investments. That's all: a desire, a wish. Brazil is not expeding 0.7% nor there is any bill right now on the National Congress asking for it. Plus: the quotation says that that all of it its a "study". That's not even a project. That's not development. That's even less 0.7% of GDP being expended on Military investments.

For all the reasons above, I will erase them. If anyone thinks I am mistaken, please say it so in here. But I must warn you all that if we are going to write plans with intentions and cite them as facts, something is deply wrong in Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Transports

The Rio–São Paulo High-speed rail (Portuguese: Trem de Alta Velocidade Rio-São Paulo; Abbreviation: TAV RJ-SP) is a high-speed rail project connecting Brazil's two largest metropolises: São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.[248][249] The high-speed line is expected to be operational by 2014, in time for the 20th FIFA World Cup to be held in Brazil.[250], at a cost of $9 billion[251].The proposed bullet train project has been presented to the city by Helio de Oliveira Santos (PDT), mayor of Campinas, in Brasília, in full by the Japanese consortium that will build the railway in 5 years (ready for the World Cup in 2014).he Japanese consortium presented its proposal modelling on the Shinkansen, which carried 340 million passengers the previous year on 2100 km of trackage at home. It is composed of the Japanese companies Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Toshiba. The consortium has already submitted a preliminary proposal in Brasilia and São Paulo and Rio for interested entrepreneurs. The preliminary proposal provides for five different types of transactions in which the trains travel at a speed up to 320 km/h. Three lines expressed and two stops, with three of them come in Campinas, with two stopping in Viracopos. Each of these five operations on every hour, with up to three thousand passengers. The first stretch of high-speed train line in Brazil will be between its main cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. A distance of 412 kms between the two city terminals: Campo de Marte in São Paulo and Station Central do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro will be covered in one hour and 25 minutes at a maximum speed of 360 km / h. It is tentatively planned that the trains will have a capacity of 855 passengers at a headway of 15 minutes. The fare will be around R$150 to R$250 per passenger in the off-peak hours. There are several projects presented to the Brazilian government. One is the Italian design company's Italplan Engineering Environment & Transport Srl, which presented that the high-speed train is estimated to start operating in 2015. If this target date is met it will serve as a quick and vital link to São Paulo in time for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Reason to be erased: This gigantic paragraphy about a bullet train project that might or not be build has words such as "a high-speed rail project", "is expected to be operational by 2014", "The proposed bullet train project", "presented its proposal modelling on the Shinkansen", "consortium has already submitted a preliminary proposal in Brasilia and São Paulo and Rio for interested entrepreneurs", "The first stretch of high-speed train line in Brazil will be between its main cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo" and "presented that the high-speed train is estimated to start operating in 2015".

As you all can see, it's a proposal plan for a train bullet. No deal was signed. Nothing is being developed. Nothing is being build. Those are nothing more than plans that might or not happen. There is aboslutely no reason to be in here, then. --Lecen (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The plan for the FX-2 program is for an intial order of only 36 planes but Lula himself has stated that the contract includes the total acquision of 120 fighters which are to be built locally by embraer. All of the informatio in the military section is sourced and it is worded that these are only proposals, seeing how this has profound effects on the nation i see no reason why this should be out right removed it does not fall under undue weight and is pertinent to the article so i belive that it should be included. If these projects turn out to not happen we can easily immedietly delete them. Just because something is not yet built it does not mean that it is not relevant. I do agree that most of the bullet train section of the Tansportation section should be removed but i still believe there should be at least a mention of it as an upcoming plan. Rahlgd (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted what I did for a third time. That is a motive to be blocked. However, I will not request that because I believe what you did, although wrong, was not with any bad intention. You have insisted on adding information about projects that didn't begin to be developed yet. I will request to an Administrator to deal with the present matter. Also, because it is sourced does not mean that it should be in here. One thing is to mention a plan of intentions (it's not a project, even less something being developed and for sure it doesn't exist yet!) of the Brazilian Armed Forces to equip them for the next 50 years in its article. Brazil is not developing 2 aircraft carriers or 4 assault ships. That's nothing more than an intention, a desire. The president said that he would like to buy 120 fighters, but so what? It's just that: an intention he has, a desire. There is nothing being signed about that. It doesn't make sense at all to be in here. Also, your behavior by keeping reverting any change on the text seems like article ownership. Although I have opened this discussion to explain why I removed what you wrote, you reverted what I did without bothering to discuss first. P.S.: Now an image with the tank Osorio, an 1980s prototype has been added with the caption that it's one of the most advanced tanks in the world! It seems like the intention is to make pure propaganda about an hypothetical Brazilian prowess. --Lecen (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just put the the info in a sub-article and add the links to the subarticle with a brief summary of that section? The article is long enough already and the load time is also a bit long. Adding more sections in my opinion is hurting the readability of the article. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections, Transport and Military is suggested or may be found in a country article but is not necessary (not all country articles have all the sections). A good question to ask is that is it really that important to add to the main article. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but while i do know (or hope,anyway) that you did do this with any bad intentions (atleast if i wanted to be a vandal i wouldnt spend so much effor...) but you are batantly wrong at alot of your statements.if not all.My english is "broked" but im pretty sure i understood what you wrote and you should understand what i write for the most part.

First,what exactly is the problem with stating plans at wikipedia,as far as i am corcened that is a very common pratctice around here.But ok ok you can argue forever and ever and yes it is discussable blbablabla so yeah il skip to arguments.

According to the media, brazil already has decided and is to purchase ten ships,it being frigates (FREMM),patrol ships and a multiuse logistics ship (lets remmber we are nowhere near the 30 years yet and parts of , er the, "desires";"wishes" are already being executed and not being "wishes"/"desires" anymore!).Also, some claim that the joint operations between the brazilian and italian navy at the cavour was also funded (?yes,i know its confusing and my english doesnt really help) by the companies involved in the building of the cavour so that operation served as advertising.That is just one example i could remmember im sure some of your others arguments can also be kinda defeated by correctly updating the information which was stated..and furthermore,not sure if it is known to you but all three branches of the armed forces were,as per the Estrategia Nacional De Defesa (National Defense Strategy at a very lousy translation) were,as the brazilian navy to draw their own , er, as you called , "wishes".The problem is, unlike you said, they are no wishes and indeed it looks like it really,really is going to be executed.The brazilian army , er , wishes as you said ; Estrategia Braço Forte ("Strong Arm Strategy" at a even more lousy translation than the one in the Estrategia Nacional De Defesa) is also being executed with a very early announcement of the development of brazil's own apc/ifv/etc ,the VBTP-MR, which received 16 + 2044 orders from the brazilian army.And that was what was announced very early,pretty much as soon as the "Strong Arm Strategy" was out.There are other important points at the "Strong Arm Strategy"? Yes,there probably are ,but the vbtp-mr was also the one of the very main objects of the ,as you said, "wishes".I dont think the brazilian air force plan was divulged by the media/etc but one would guess that the buying of either 36 Rafales or Super Hornets or Gripens NGS,The KC-390 Programme are one of their main points and both are going forward.

I think that, what i have exposed above (or tried to anyway) even with my very poor english is enough to defeat many of your statements and imho you should put it up,if not at a subsection in this article, at the brazilian military article.

You can view sources for what i have said about the VBTP-MR at the linked article.about the FREMM/the other ship can be seen here

Also,when finishing this i read about the bullet train and i might come here to defeat your arguments about that later as well...i have however expired my daily quota for writing wall of "broked" texts in english which are barely understandable.

BTW,there is no need to spread "propaganda" around,brazil is a prowess,with or without your agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.204.160 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

in the mean time i might ask you to go to this website.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.204.160 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Language

The article says,

There are significant communities of German (mostly the High German language, Hunsrückisch,) and Italian (mostly the Talian dialect, of Venetian origin) speakers in the south of the country, both of which, are influenced by the Portuguese language.

The folowing website is given as a source for this information: As Línguas da América Latina, by Antonio Luiz Monteiro Coelho da Costa.

Unhappily, the site does not mention speakers of Italian (or Talian, or Venetian) in Brazil, nor does it distinguish among dialects of German origin; also it doesn't discuss the influence of Portuguese on those languages. So I am afraid it cannot be used as a source here, and am restoring the "fact" tag after this sentence.

Another problem is that the text is ambiguous: reading it, it is difficult to decide whether "High German Language" and "Hunsrückisch" are two different dialects, the same language, or Hunsrueckisch one of several High German Languages. This should be made more clear. As far as I understand, Hochdeutsch (High German) in practice means two different things: first, the official language of Germany, or standard German; second, a whole set of dialects (including but not limited to standard German) that present a series of sound changes absent from "Low German" or Plattdeutsch (Plattdüüstch for their own speakers) dialects.

As for the facts regarding these languages, Hunsrueckisch is not the same as Standard German; I am unsure whether it classifies as a High German dialect, as the sound changes characteristical of High German are present in Hunsrueckisch, but in an incomplete form. Standard German, anyway, is not spoken in Brazil at all. Ninguém (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I got two sources to it from the Portuguese Wikipedia.Luizdl (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Luiz; these seem good.

I still have some problems with the text; it somehow implies that the languages spoken in Southern Brazil by descendants of Italian and German immigrants are in fact Italian and German, respectively. Which is far from true; I don't think they aren even mutually intelligible with those languages.

Here is, for instance, a small piece of Luke's Gospel (Chapter 23, verses 1-5) in Riograndenser Hunsrueckisch:

23 Too sin ti kanse layt uf kextii, hon Yeesus pis Pilatos kenom un hon aan kefang aan se këwe un saare: 2 Mëyer hon too te man aan ketrof unser folek am uf hëtse. Tee is te keeche em khayser xtayer petsaale un saat wëyer te Mësiias un Kheenich. 3 Too hot te Pilatos kefroot: Pixt tu te Yute sayne Kheenich? Is woer, hot Yeesus keantwort. 4 Too hot Pilatos fer te hooche priister un tsum folek kesaat: Ich khan khee xult an tëm man fine! 5 Awer tii hon aan kehal un hon kesaat: Tee tuut unortnung aan richte unich em folek mit sayn untricht iweraal in Yuteeya. In Kalileeya hot er aan kefang, un yëts is er too pay uns.

To me at least, it doesn't even look like German; but perhaps someone who knows Goethe's language can help us?

(To compare, here is the same text as above, in standard German:

23,1 Und die ganze Menge derselben stand auf, und sie führten ihn zu Pilatus. 23,2 Sie fingen aber an, ihn zu verklagen, und sagten: Diesen haben wir befunden als einen, der unsere Nation verführt und wehrt, dem Kaiser Steuer zu geben, indem er sagt, daß er selbst Christus, ein König, sei. 23,3 Pilatus aber fragte ihn und sprach: Bist du der König der Juden? Er aber antwortete ihm und sprach: Du sagst es. 23,4 Pilatus aber sprach zu den Hohenpriestern und den Volksmengen: Ich finde keine Schuld an diesem Menschen. 23,5 Sie aber bestanden darauf und sagten: Er wiegelt das Volk auf und lehrt durch ganz Judäa hin, angefangen von Galiläa bis hierher.) Ninguém (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely these dialects have distanced very much from each other over 180 years without any kind of contact with them, I don't speak nothing of German, but I noticed that in these biblical texts have also two other issues, one of them is that they are two different translations, each translator translated with some different words, for example, in the first verse of Riograndenser version we can see the name Yeesus (Certainly it is Jesus), but in standard German this name doesn't appear, Google translated this verse to And the whole multitude of them arose, and they led him to Pilate. it seems that the translator of standard German used the word "him" in where Riograndenser uses Yeesus, similarly where Riograndenser version uses the Hebraic word Mësiias, the standard uses the Greek word Christus, and these are just two examples, it's possible to find more, and the other issue is that surely there were some orthographic reforms in Germany, for example, the word Cesar in Riograndenser is being spelled as khayser while in standard is being spelled as kaiser, it seems that the Riograndenser spelling indicates a phonemic or former phonemic aspirated /k/, and the Google couldn't translate nothing of the Riograndenser version because of his spelling. Luizdl (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand there are words that are clearly equivalent but have evolved in different ways, such as xtayer = Steuer (yes, obviously the initial "x" in the Hunsruekisch text is the same sound as the German "s", but "ay" and "eu" (oi) seem to be different sounds), kefroot = fragte, keantwort = antwortet, khee = keine, tëm = diesem, awer = aber, etc. Besides, there are quite probably differences in syntax, that, not knowing German, I am unable to perceive. And there are lexical differences that could be attributed to those being different translations (for instance, "layt" instead of "Menge"), but could also be due to actual differences between the vocabularies of each language. In short, they look like two different languages to me, but I would have to defer to the opinion of someone who actually reads and understands German, Hunsrueckisch, or both.

This text (in Portuguese) explains the Hunsrueckisch ortography. The author seems to consider Hunsrueckish a different language from German.

Regarding Talian and Italian, they seem more close to each other, at least in written form. But Portuguese and Castillian are two different languages, and in their written form they look very similar... Ninguém (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardo or brown

Reverted one edit made by Ninguém. IBGE translate "pardo" as brown in English as can be seen in here, here and here. --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• pardo not is "brown"; brown = mulatoe and zambo; pardos not are only mulatos and zambos..!!mamelucos/mestizos not are brown and are pardos too..!!mamelucos/mestizos(=/= zambos) have a clear skin, because with very mongoloid feactures too..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.73.113 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but there is no word in English "Federative." The correct translation of the Portugese "Federativa" is "Federal." (See: Larousse, "Concise Dictionary of Portugese/English, p. 171 (2003). Please correct. (And yes, I speak Portugese!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisles (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harrisles, I have found many instances in different dictionaries of the word 'Federative' being in the dictionary.

Here are the first three instances I found: [1], [2] and [3]

The text on the Brazil article referring to Federative Republic of Brazil is referenced to The Brazilian Government official website which clearly also says Federative.

Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is rather odd. In other dictionaries such as Cambridge and Oxford, federative is not listed as a word. This could be a regional English thing. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can cite another dictionary which lists this term,[4] , and another interesting things is that this word is also used by North American organizations, like the CIA [5], and the word Federal also exists in Portuguese. Just the fact the own Brazilian government website uses the term Federative in English is enough.--Luizdl (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess as Elockid states, it's probably due to different varieties of English.

However I have one little point, if Federative is not a word in the regional variety of English the article is written in, should it then be changed for article internal consistency (as per WP:ENGVAR)? -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this word is really a regional variety of English, I've already cited an very known North American organization using this term, and now I m citing a very know British company using this term http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1227110.stm

This word exists in both American and British English. --Luizdl (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the term I was long for. Different varieties of English. The government refers the country as federative rather than federal, it does seem more proper to leave it as federative. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica does also refer the full name as the Federative Republic of Brazil as well as Columbia Encyclopedia. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brock.enns, 29 March 2010 - adding the word "the"

{{editsemiprotected}} Foreign relations and military Main articles: Foreign relations of Brazil and Brazilian Armed Forces

States hosting a diplomatic mission of Brazil. Brazil is a political and economic leader in Latin America,[134][135] however, social and economic problems prevent it from becoming an effective global power.[136] 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. More recently, the country has aimed to strengthen ties with other South American countries, and engage in multilateral diplomacy through the United Nations and the Organization of American States.[137]

Aircraft carrier NAE São Paulo of the Brazilian Navy. Brazil's current foreign policy is based on the country's position as: a regional power in Latin America, a leader among developing countries, and an emerging world power.[138] In general, current Brazilian foreign policy reflects multilateralism, peaceful dispute settlement, and nonintervention in the affairs of other countries.[139] The Brazilian Constitution also determines that the country shall seek the economic, political, social and cultural integration of the nations of Latin America.[11][140][141][142] The armed forces of Brazil consist of the Brazilian Army, the Brazilian Navy, and the Brazilian Air Force. With a total of 371,199 active personnel,[143] they comprise [the] largest armed force in Latin America.[citation needed] The Army is responsible for land-based military operations and has 235,978 active personnel.[144] The Military Police (States' Military Police) is described as an ancillary force of the Army by the constitution, but is under the control of each state's governor.[11] The Navy is responsible for naval operations and for guarding Brazilian territorial waters. It is the oldest of the Brazilian armed forces and the only navy in Latin America to operate an aircraft carrier, the NAe São Paulo (formerly FS Foch of the French Navy).[145] The Air Force is the aerial warfare branch of the Brazilian armed forces, and the largest air force in Latin America, with about 700 manned aircraft in service.[146]

Brock (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. Next time, please save time and simply say: please change "...they comprise largest armed force..." to "...they comprise the largest armed force...." Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictatorship misleading information

Dear Wikipedia readers,

after reading this article I found these paragraphs misleading:

"The new regime was intended to be transitory[103] but it gradually closed in on itself and became a full dictatorship with the promulgation of the Fifth Institutional Act in 1968.[104] The repression of the dictatorship's opponents, including urban guerrillas,[105] was harsh, but not as brutal as in other Latin American countries.[106] Due to the extraordinary economic growth, known as an "economic miracle", the regime reached its highest level of popularity in the years of repression.[107]

General Ernesto Geisel became president in 1974 and began his project of re-democratization through a process that he said would be "slow, gradual and safe."[108][109] Geisel ended the military indiscipline that had plagued the country since 1889,[110] as well as the torture of political prisoners, censorship of the press,[111] and finally, the dictatorship itself, after he extinguished the Fifth Institutional Act.[104] However, the military regime continued, under his chosen successor General João Figueiredo, to complete the transition to full democracy.[112]"

It gives the impression that: (i) the Brazilian dictatorship wasn't "as brutal as in other Latin American countries", whereas it was as brutal as in any other country. If this Thomas Skidmore's stance on the issue, it seems rather biased or too personal to be taken into account. (ii) "Geisel ended the military indiscipline ... as well as the torture of political prisoners, censorship of the press,[111] and finally, the dictatorship itself,". This information is utterly inaccurate since censorship and practices of torture loosened only after 1979, when the Amnesty Law was passed and Geisel was no longe ruling.

All in all, I recommend that both paragraphs are deleted from the article so as to make it more accurate and with no harm done to the text. Than you very much, Vitor.

Vitor, dealing with the issue of the brutality of the Brazilian dictatorship is a difficult thing. It is true, on one hand, that measuring brutality is abhorrent. What sence does it make to way that a regime that impaled people (Mário Alves), killed them in jail (Bacuri) (or, as it also happened, in combat (Maria Luís Petit)) and denied any knowledge of their fate, systematically tortured arrested opponents, censored press and arts, and protected terrorists (such as the Riocentro wannabe mass murderers) was in any way "less brutal"? On the other hand, it is also true that the latest Argentinian military dictatorship reached genocidal levels, with extra-judicial executions of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people, while the Brazilian dictatorship didn't. So while I agree with you that the paragraph is ill written, I don't think deleting it is the better solution; it would have to be rewritten instead.

Considering Geisel, the paragraph contains many half-truths and at least one complete falsety: Geisel never "ended the dictatorship"; his term ended in 1979 and democracy was only restablished in 1985. It is true, on the other hand, that he reigned on military indiscipline, and liquidated a military faction that pushed for a more stern dictatorship (Sílvio Frota). As with most things, however, to "end" indiscipline is more difficult than trying to do so, and smaller and less organised military groups continued to carry out, or inspire, illegal actions against the opposition and even the populace in general, notably the terrorist attacks against newspaper selling points and civil society organisations (such as the bomb letter against the OAB), culminating in the failed terrorist attempt against a popular music show in the Riocentro (designed to kill hundreds of people), already under Figueiredo's "government". Geisel also reigned on some torture practices at least; he certainly thought episodes such as the deaths of Wladimir Herzog and Manoel Fiel Filho under torture were unnaceptable, either morally or pragmatically; but to believe he was able, or even willing, to put and end to all torture of political prisoners is naïve. The infamous seven day period of "incomunicabilidade", during which people could be kept under arrest without notice or lawyer assistance - the legal instrument that made torture possible - was not ended. He put an end to deaths under torture, not to torture itself. Press censorship was certainly loosened under Geisel, but not "ended" as the article puts it. Overall, Geisel's term was a period of détente compared to the extremely brutal years under Médici; it was still a dictatorial regime though. It was under Geisel that the Central Committee of the PCdoB was trapped in São Paulo and exterminated by gunfire, an action that hardly raised the general-President's eyebrows. I think those things should be expressed in the article in a complete way as possible, instead of being completely omitted. Would you agree? Ninguém (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

When the text says that the Brazilian military government was not as brutal as other Military regime around Latin America nowhere it means that it was nice and easy. What it means is that around 450 people (counting from communist terrorists to Araguaia Guerrilla fighters to inocent journalists such as Herzog) were killed while in Argentina 20,000, in Chile 5,000 and Cuba, 15,000 were murdered. This is why it says that it was not nearly as brutal. It does not mean that it was a happy democracy or something like that.

The Military government last for 21 years. Not all those years were a dictatorship. It was Geisel, during the crisis of 1976-77 that ended torture once and for all. There is a source, taken from Elio Gaspari's acclaimed book. Press censorship ended on Geisel presidency. Médici's harsh government was, ironically, the period were Brazilian were the most happy with the military government. It is odd? Yes, it is. But Brazilians never cared if their ruler was a populist dictator like Vargas or a president-general such as Médici as long as the economy was growing and there was food on the dish. There are several books written that deal with Brazilians's lack of political engangement. Anyway, the text is sourced and I had a very long discussion with Opinoso until all the other editors stood by my side. Anyone is free to check the archives. --Lecen (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what one calls dictatorship. Until 1985, we had an unelected president, imposed unto us by the military, and incomplete protection against State abuse (which was only really resolved by the 1988 Constitution). To me, that is what dictatorship is; and I suppose to Gaspari too, as his acclaimed books are all entitled "Dictatorship". It is true that this dictatorship was popular, as under Médici - but dictatorships often are, even worse dictatorships. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Salazar, the Argentine gorillas, all enjoyed high levels of popular support for a long time, even though the level of political engagement of Germans, Italians, and Russians, at least, has traditionally been higher than that of Brazilians (in fact, I fear that the idea that Brazilians are particularly apolitical is part of our self-deprecating tradition).

We should research and place in the article the relevant dates for the end of torture and press censorship. If they ended under Geisel, his merit in this would only be underlined by clearly placing a date that was during his term. The same goes for the restablishment of freedom of partidary organisation, the restablishment of habeas corpus, the end of "incomunicabilidade", the restablishment of union freedom, etc. On what torture is concerned, it is still, unhappily, used by the Brazilian police (as the recent fiasco of the Distrito Federal police shows), so Geisel cannot have ended it once and for all. He certainly signaled, very clearly, that he would no longer admit incidents like those of Herzog and Fiel Filho, but this is a different thing.

Opinoso was a different problem - an editor who, intentionally or not, misinterpreted sources in the most arbitrary ways, often reporting them as saying exactly what they were denying. He didn't seem politically motivated, though; not a least in any coherent or even recongnisable way. His idol was Darcy Ribeiro, whose misinterpreted texts he was always imposing unto us as revealed truth. But Ribeiro was a populist, a Varguista to be precise, while Opinoso apparently hated Vargas - whom he absurdly accused of imposing a "torture penalty" against the public use of the German language - without even noticing the contradiction. Opinoso made impossible to actually improve this article (and many others), because he wanted it to be his way, whatever way was that (including which pictures of Giselle Bündchen were acceptable or not, and removing the umlaut on her name), and was unable to understand the consequences of his "reasonings". Without his iron grip over this article, we should strive to improve the article. Ninguém (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: The European Prototype

In a century, the demographics of Europe will reflect the demographics of Brazil (only, in place of Christianity insert Islam). France is already nearly 50% non ethnic French, so it is hard to imagine that, if trends continue, the diversity present in certain areas of Latin America will not mirror the course of multiculturalism in the future of the European Union: Germany may soon adopt Turkish as its official language, etc. Should Wikipedia reflect Brazil’s prototype in this article? I think this subject would be interesting and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany may soon adopt Turkish as an official language? That's a new one- fear mongering is getting creative. And the 'nearly 50% non ethnic french' would have to include anyone with even one drop of non-french blood to be true. Zazaban (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Airplane Photo Caption In "Economy" Section

No need to reply; only a suggestion:

Please change "worlds" to the possessive "world's" in "An Embraer ERJ-135 commercial jet. Brazil is the worlds third largest aircraft producer."

Nicholsonadam (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian Federation an other issues - please edit!

I tried to edit, but i`m not allowed. So here comes the suggestions:

The brazilian federation is formed by the union, the states and the municipalities. The federal district is just a special "blend" of state and municipality. Could someone please change that? What the article says is plain wrong.

Also, i would say the part about Brazil capturing land from the french in the 16th century is overemphasized, and leads to the idea that they founded both Rio and Sao Luis. The portuguese made war against (and together with) the indians mainly. Maybe the tupinambas should be quoted instead of the french, who played a relatively small part on the formation of brazil. The dutch colonization is far more important.

Since i`m writing, let me also point out that most historians now put much less emphasis on the "sugar cycle". The sugar production actually rose throughout the 18th century. The gold rush actually became possible because of the infrastructure already in place for the supply of the sugar plantations.

Ok, let me also say that explaining the proclamation of the republic based on the personality of the emperor and resentment is by far the worst explanation i`ve ever read. Why not just say that the slave owners were the political and economical backbone of the empire or something like that? I also find the whole historical section that goes after that too centered on the personalities of presidents, specially vargas.

Continuing... this whole thing about concentration camps for germans, italians and the japanese is very new to me, and i`ve read about that stuff, besides talking to germans and italians that were in brazil during WW II. The most important thing about that period is the prohibition of german and italian classes in school. The magazine cited, historia viva, is a bad source by the way.

Plano real = real plan, not royal plan. The idea was that the new currency was real, not that it was noble or something like that. The highly successful status of the plan is disputed, since we had a major economic crisis in 98, when we finally decided we couldn`t define the value of the currency. I would say it was successful, not highly.

PRB is a major political party in terms of seats in congress and should be cited. The infamous democrats are no longer as powerful as before and shouldn`t be compared with PT PSDB and PMDB. I think it would be nice to point out that PMDB comes from the official opposition during the dictatorship, MDB; that PP comes from the regime official party, Arena. That the democrats was also part of the Arena, but that they aligned with MDB during the re-democratization. That PSDB was formed inside PMDB during the making of the new constitution, as a result of the right-leaning direction PMDB was taking. And that PT was formed by trade unionists, leftist catholic church community leaders and intellectuals.

The whole part on air carriers is out of place, i think. About our foreign relations policy, it has been based for almost a century on respect for international treaties, peaceful resolution of conflicts and national self-determination. That is our doctrine, in a nutshell. Deviations from this core are not particularly common.

Caboclos do not form the majority of the population on the cetral west and northeastern regions! That is plan wrong. Comparing the immigration from portugal, spain and italy with germany, japan and lebanon is misleading in terms of magnitude.

Maybe it should be pointed out that the number of protestants now are above 20%? Although we don`t have the new census data yet, no one disputes that this is a fact. The question is how much above 20%.

The numbers on crime are relevant, but the existence of a whole section with one sentence is weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Manuelmsd, 7 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} while others were enslaved or exterminated in long wars or by old world diseases to which they had no immunity.[22][23]

Manuelmsd (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC) while others were enslaved or exterminated in long wars or by European diseases to which they had no immunity.[22][23]

Question: Why? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing wrong with current wording. Perhaps undue weight on European. SpigotMap 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the problem lies in "old world" (both "worlds", of course, have the same age). But it is an accepted phrase, and "European" disregards the fact that some of these diseases were in fact brought from Africa, together with enslaved workers. Ninguém (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Comparison" of dictatorships

There's a line at "Military regime and contemporary era" that says the following: "The repression of the dictatorship's opponents, including urban guerrillas, was harsh, but not as brutal as in other Latin American countries". It is referenced, but that's not the problem: the problem is that whenever a dictatorship was more or less brutal than another is someone's opinion, not a matter of fact. A reference grants this is the opinion of some author, and not the opinion of the article writer, but that's not enough. There is no system to "measure" the brutatily of governments and state if if this or that one is more brutal or are kept at equal levels. An opinion does not turn into a fact by having a footnote.

There are 3 alternatives to manage this sentence

• Replace it with some other fact that is measurable.
• Attribute the opinion to someone else, within the prose (not just with a footnote). "Someone says" that X government was more or less brutal than Y. But it should be someone noteworthy to make opinions in this, a mere book author may not be enough, even if reliable. It should be some international body, or someone from the UN, or someone like that.
• Remove the comparison completely.

I would suggest doing it the easiest way, removing the comparison completely. To give more detail to it would turn off-topic, and it isn't anyway a noteworthy opinion in the topic described. As far as I know, the level of brutality achieved by those dictatorships was influenced by either local reasons or higher level international reasons (Cold war, anticommunism and related topics); it wasn't part of their agendas to do things more or less harsh than neighbours. MBelgrano (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is American historian Thomas Skidmore, one of the most respected experts in the field nowadays. The claim is not based on opinion, but on numbers:

Deaths caused by repression in Latin American dictatorships:

Brazil - 380 dead. (1970 population est.: c.90,000,000)

Chile - 3,000 dead. (1970 population est.: c.9,000,000)

Cuba - 7,038 dead. (1970 population est.: c.8,000,000)

Argentina - 30,000 dead. (1970 population est.: c.20,000,000)

The numbers speak for themselves. --Lecen (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still an opinion, as described at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You can replace Skidmore's opinion with the facts he cites to justify his opinion (the number of dead people), but it doesn't answer yet the other point I raised: why is it important to make such a comparison? How did the 1970 political contexts of Argentina, Chile or Cuba actually influenced the Brazilian one? Had they done it at all? MBelgrano (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is is not an opinion, it is a fact. Brazilian historian Boris Fausto and Argentine historian Fernando J. Devoto algo expressed the same thought in their book "Brazil e Argentina: Um ensaio de história comparada (1850-2002)". If in Brazil only 380 died (in a popuplation of 90 million inhabitants) and in Argentina 20,000 died (in a population of 20,000,000) that is not an opinion, but math. Just make the count. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: The Brazilian military regime lasted from 1864 to 1985. The Argentine lasted from 1976 to 1982. In 21 years 380 were killed and in 6 years 20,000 were killed. Math. --Lecen (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion in the way Wikipedia sets apart facts and opinions, as described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As described in the policy, verifiability and neutral point of view do not replace each other but work in conjuction. By citing many authors who share the opinion you don't turn into a fact, you merely state it to be a verifiable opinion, which I haven't denied it to be.

To cite an example from the policy, "That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion". Even so, we can easily find reliable sources that state so, or even provide reasons to justify it; but no, it wouldn't be accepted anyway. Notice, however, that avoiding to state that "The Beatles were the greatest band in history" does not mean taking the position that they were not.

And I notice you haven't answered the other question. MBelgrano (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Belgrano asked: "How did the 1970 political contexts of Argentina, Chile or Cuba actually influenced the Brazilian one? Had they done it at all?"

Answer: Operation Condor. 'nuff said. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well, that's better. Replace the useless comparison with an overview of the Brazilian involvement in the Operation Condor, and we're done MBelgrano (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't. Unless you bring figures that says that more people died in Brazil than in Argentina, Cuba, Chile, etc... there is no reason to chance a single word. And please, I know you love dictators and all that. If you plan on saying that in Argentina only 80 were killed, spare me, ok? --Lecen (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So soon resorting to falacies? Very well, I will do it myself later. By the way, the number of deaths is not the only way to "measure" dictatorships, it may be done from other angles and reach different conclusions (such as, for example... time length). But as pointed, it's not like comparing distances or sizes, so it would be better to simply avoid it. We may point that the Brazilian dictatorship caused less deaths than those of Argentina or Chile, we may point as well that it was longer than the ones of its neighbours... but in the end, such comparisons only serve to feed national rivalries and provide little real context for the reader, if compared with something more specific as it would be an explanation of which cooperation or common goals (or lack thereof) was there between the dictatorships.

And if you despise "dictator love", you should have a closer look to this article, which is the one we talk about. Less deaths than in other latin american dictatorships, extraordinary economic growth, peak of popularity, re-democratization process... everything sounds so nice and positive. Even the "Fifth Institutional Act" is mentioned but without saying what was it about, for the non-Brazilian reader (and perhaps even for the young or uninformed brazilians) it would read simply as a meaningless name. Even if the comparison stays, was it really all so positive, isn't there any negative thing worth mentioning about the Brazilian dictatorship? MBelgrano (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The name "dictatorship" by itself already has a very negative connotation. I can't, however, write in an article that the dictatorship was "evil" or something similar. The years between 1968 and 1974 were certainly the most brutal in the military dictatorship. Quite interesting, it were also the years when the country developed and grew economicaly in a way never seen before (or after). Those were also the years when the regime acchieved its peak of popularity among Brazilians. Weird? Yep. But Perón in Argentina also had a brutal dictatorship and was a very popular man (in fact, politicians to this day call themselves "peronistas").

I should warn you that the present version of the history section was long debated and supoorted by several editors. Just chek the archives. If you want to change something in it, you should first ask their opinions.

And one last and important thing: the history section is small for a good reason: because it has to. Very important historical characters, such as Princess Isabel, José Bonifácio, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Baron of Rio Branco, Tancredo Neves and many, many others were not mentioned in it. Many important historical moments, such were also not mentioned. They can be found in more appropriate and focused articles. The Operation Condor is hardly one of the key moments in the Brazilian dictatorship and being mentioned in here makes no sense.

What I could support, at most, is to change the sentence from "less harsh than other Latin American dictatorships" to "less deaths by repression than in other Latin American dictatorships". Unlike in the Platine War article, where I made the grave mistake of removing very important information to please your will, this time I will not let you ruin another article. You want to change the text? Start bringing sources, text, etc... Debate the matter. But remember that I am very, very, very good in Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New version

I apologize for my bad English. But I think it's absurd to keep a tiny and incomplete version of an article about a complex country such as Brazil. All other Wikipedias are larger versions and more complete and well illustrated that the English version, in addition, 138 kb not leave the article slowly. I await the opinion of other editors on the subject. Here are the two versions (my and the current version). Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User Heitor C. Jorge has added content that has been long removed or shortened back to the article. That was a matter debated over and over in this very talk page (I believe it can be found in archives). The article was gigantic and too slow and heavy. It was shortened so it could be easier to read it. And this is certainly not the first time he does that. Once and a while he appears and add deleted content and change pictures as he please not caring at least to tell why. Once they are reverted he disappears for a few months until he reappears to do it all over again.

Once more: the changes were debated over and over. The article is now over 118 KB. He wants to add content that will raise it to 138 KB. --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous you attack my edits to keep your perspective. Your version is very bad in many respects, there is nothing to justify. Yours attacks against me should be of the block. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be more polite. Assume good faith. That is not my version. I do not own this article. The present version (although it has suffered some changes as time passed) was debated by several editors who believed that a shorter version was better for readability. --Lecen (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am polite with who is polite to me. Of course you do not own the article, community work is the essence of the project (I think that you can understand). However, despite this knowledge, you behave as absolute owner of the page, giving no chance to edit any other user, even if that issue is just a replacement image. I'm glad you do not edit Lusophone Wikipedia any more, the last thing we need there is user like you. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind. Anyway, are you saying that Grafen, L Kensington, Twsx, Silivrenion, SamEV, Dynamicknowledge28 and Zap Rowsdower - to name a few of the editors that have edited this article as seen in the history log - all own it? Or just me? Anyway, until you keep continuing attacking me for no reason witout discussing something, I won't bother to be in here. --Lecen (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be absurd to keep a tiny article about Brazil. At the end of December last year, the article was fastidiously cleared of bloat to a point where the result had shrunk to ... well over a hundred kilobytes. This is not tiny. The revisions were discussed in Talk:Brazil/Archive 11.

Your version, writes Heitor C. Jorge to Lecen, is very bad in many respects[.] I am sorry to read this. Please specify the most salient two or three of these respects.

Yours attacks against me, he continues, should be of the block. Do you mean that Lecen has committed some block-worthy offense? If so, please describe this at "WP:AN/I", and somebody will block Lecen. Perhaps I'll even do so myself.

According to Heitor C. Jorge, Lecen behave[s] as absolute owner of the page, giving no chance to edit any other user, even if that issue is just a replacement image. Rubbish. Or anyway I hope so. Would you like to replace an image? If so, please make your proposal in a fresh section below. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are all made of the same mass. All are partial, accomplices, and covered with a kind of mutual ignorance. Unfortunately, the article of Brazil in the Anglophone version of Wikipedia is still steeped in mediocrity of his editors. I quit! Victory of authoritarianism! Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As Hoary said: if you believe that something is wrong, just create a section and debate the matter. So far all you've done was be very rude with us, if you haven't notice it. --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the changes within Heitor C. Jorge's blind reversal is the suppression of the IPA pronunciations of the word "Brazil" both in English and in Portuguese. Why would anyone remove the IPA pronunciations? Don't you know what IPA is, and what is it for? And then you accuse others of 'mutual ignorance'? And what authoritarianism, Heitor? You made an unexplained reversal, which was in turn reversed. You made it again a few other times, including one without being logged in. Nobody blocked you, nobody reported you in AN/I, nobody called you a vandal. Exactly the opposite of what happened when the article was effectively owned, a few months ago, when no good faith edits could be made without stupid accusations of 'vandalism', 'ignorance', 'sockpuppetry', etc. Ninguém (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Links

Uh, where did the links go under the flag and coat of arms to their respective articles?????? Fry1989 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The word "vandalism" has been overused hereabouts, but this time I mean it. Consider this. Some IP changed clearly sourced figures to very different figures, without changing the cited source.

I've warned him, but IPs tend to change IP number. Please keep a watch on this article. (Meanwhile, I'm sleepy.) And please think thrice before using the term "vandalism" for edits that, unlike this, are merely retrograde. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian literature

Heitor C. Jorge adds this to the section on Brazilian culture:

Brazilian literature dates back to the 16th century, to the writings of the first Portuguese explorers in Brazil, such as Pêro Vaz de Caminha, filled with descriptions of fauna, flora and natives that amazed Europeans that arrived in Brazil.^[242] Brazil produced significant works in Romanticism — novelists like Joaquim Manuel de Macedo and José de Alencar wrote novels about love and pain. Alencar, in his long career, also treated Indigenous people as heroes in the Indigenist novels O Guarany, Iracema, Ubirajara.^[243]

I would agree that it is odd that the section on culture makes no reference to Brazilian literature. However, the above paragraph is excedingly poor, even to Wikipedia standards. First of all, it cites two sources; one is the Encarta online encyclopaedia (source 243 above), which was discontinued, and, as such, no longer available online (by the way, it is the main source for the whole culture section). I have flagged all citations of Encarta in this section as "citation broken", and I hope these flags aren't removed, and especially that I am not (again) called a vandal for questioning obviously inadequate sourcing.

Then we have the content. It starts by saying that Caminha's letter is actually Brazilian literature. But Caminha was not Brazilian, nor was Brazil even called by such name (it would be Ilha de Vera Cruz) when he wrote his letter. His contact with Brazil lasted about ten days. Half of the paragraph purported to describe Brazilian literature is wasted in such way, talking about "literature" (in fact non-fictional reports) about Brazil produced at a time where no Brazilian identity even existed, by Portuguese explorers (why not the French, such as Thevet or Léry? Why not the Dutch, such as Caspar Barlaeus?).

After that we jump directly into Romantism - i.e., to the 19th century (again we have this strange aversion to the 17th and 18th century - to some editors, it is like they never existed in Brazil). In such way, the first buds of Brazilian literature (as opposed to Portuguese, or otherwise European, literature), in the Baroque, are ommitted. Among them the remarkable satyrical and religious poet Gregório de Mattos. The first actually Brazilian literature - the Neoclassic school in Minas Gerais, Cláudio Manuel da Costa, Tomás Antônio Gonzaga, etc - is also ignored, though at least Gonzaga was a poet of actual talent. This can't even be blamed on the source, that expands considerably on these subjects.

Besides what the paragraph ignores, there are problems with what it says. It mentions only novelists Joaquim Manuel de Macedo and José de Alencar as Romantic writers. This fails to address the most important Brazilian Romantic contributions, which were in the field of poetry, not prose. At least two outstanding poets (Gonçalves Dias and Castro Alves), and arguably others (for instance, Álvares de Azevedo, Casimiro de Abreu) are thus ignored.

Then the whole Symbolist, Parnasian, and Realist/Naturalist movements are ignored, and with them poets such as Cruz e Souza (remarkable Symbolist poet), Olavo Bilac (Parnasian poet of great fame), Augusto dos Anjos (idiossincratic and, in his own way, extraordinary naturalist poet); but the astonishing ommission is of Brazil's undisputed greatest writer of all times, Machado de Assis, whose picture illustrates the section but doesn't deserve a line in the text.

And finally there is no mention at all of Modernist and Pre-Modernist Brazilian literature. Where are Monteiro Lobato, greatest writer of literature for children, Cecília Meireles, Carlos Drummond de Andrade or João Cabral de Melo Neto, outstanding poets, Nelson Rodrigues, arguably Brazilian greatest playwright, famous novelists Jorge Amado or Érico Veríssimo, Clarice Lispector, Guimarães Rosa? Where are Oswald de Andrade and Mário de Andrade? Lima Barreto, Manuel Bandeira, Graciliano Ramos?

All these missing writers are by far more important than Joaquim Manuel de Macedo, and most of them are at least arguably more important than José de Alencar. It is better not to have a paragraph on Brazilian literature than a paragraph that only cites non-Brazilians and two writers reported as Romantics, one of them clearly minor.

But what do I know? I'm just a vandal, isn't it? Ninguém (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The relation between modern Brazil and the portuguese colonies in South America may be compared, in broad terms, with the Thirteen Colonies and the United States. For topics related with history or politics it's important to make the distinction, but with others like culture (little or no affected by the political changes) it would be acceptable to consider it all as Brazilian, same as nobody really rejects such things from the Thirteen Colonies to be treated as part of the cultural heritage of the United States. MBelgrano (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The culture section is a true fruit salad. In other words: a mess. I don't approve the way it is written now (and I am not only talking about the recent edits), since it wants to talk a little about everything but in the end, does not tell anything useful. Taking a look at other articles about countries which are featured, their culture section does not lose time with a paragraph for cinema, arts, literature, etc... It just gives a general view on the country's subject. What I do recommend is someone to take a look at google books and find books about it. I can help on anything related to history, but I would never dare to do something for real on anything else. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But Ninguém, your talk above refers to this addition of one short paragraph, removal of one photo, and addition of one photo. It came with a polite edit summary. It does not imply to me any "strange aversion to the 17th and 18th century" (etc), merely an omission. If you don't like it, improve it. Or better here, replace it with something entirely different. Until it's been improved, yes, you are entitled to splatter it with warning flags (about the nonexistence of Encarta, etc), but I wonder if even this is likely to help. Really, you could have made significant improvements to it in less time than you spent lamenting it above. And of course replacing a recently added paragraph with another whose content is entirely different always brings a risk of a tiresome dispute in a talk page; with this subject, where tiresome Wikipedia disputes are the norm, lamenting the alleged awfulness of a paragraph before essaying a superior replacement is a sure-fire way to stir up resentment and yet more tiresome conflict.

Can there be a better section on the culture of Brazil? Probably. So write one, or at least help create an atmosphere conducive to writing one.

Incidentally, I like Lecen's suggestion. Having short paragraphs that drop the names of cultural stars reminds me of the "culture" parts of introductions to mindless guidebooks, in which the editors feel obliged to pay lip-service to culture, industry, agriculture and so forth before getting down to the serious business of explaining how to pay less for more fawning service, how to irradiate your skin without being interrupted by the naturally dark-skinned inhabitants, and how to go shopping. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not me. I'm done with this. Wikipedia can do well without me, and I can do even better without Wikipedia. Enough. Ninguém (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém doesn't like to contribute for Wikipedia. He likes to complain about other people contributions, because he wants to manipulate articles according to his personal points of view, so he attacks anybody else who is trying to improve articles. What a troublemaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.47.10 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that Ninguém tried to ruin that article named Portuguese Brazilian, but it seems a serious user appeared and stopped him. I hope other users come out and stop this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.47.10 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sqweezer, 20 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} please let me I am an english teacher at kings house school

Sqweezer (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You should explain exactly what do you want to modify in the article. Point where does the article says something, and you consider it should say something else; then your request will be considered.

By the way, if you are an English teacher you should know about commas, capital letters, or the point at the end of a sentence. MBelgrano (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And after this edit, I seriously doubt you are a teacher or are requesting to make a productive edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Caboclos being majority

This articles claims that Caboclos (white and Indian mix) are a majority in North, Northeastern and Central-Western Brazil. There's no historic or genetic evidence that this is true. Brazilian censuses does not count "Caboclos" as a separate group, so I wonder how can someone claim that this group is a majority, because there are no studies about this subject.

By the way, several genetic studies in Brazil show that, from North to South, Brazilians have a small contribution of Amerindian ancestry. Even in Northern Brazil, where Amerindian ancestry was expected to be very high, it is not.

I found this study [6], page 6 (six) there are genetic studies in several places of Latin America. Notice that in Northeastern Brazilian cities, Amerindian ancestry is very small. In the city of Natal, Amerindian ancestry is only 8% of the genetic make up. In Aracaju, a mere 4%. Even in Northern Brazil, in Belém, Amerindian ancestry reaches only 20% (compared to 27% of African!). Anothern Northern Brazilian city, Manaus, Amerindian ancestry is 27% (compared to 61% European and 12% African!).

I wonder where this Caboclo majority comes from. Does it come from any official census or genetic study? Because those genetic studies show that Brazilians are predominantly European, followed by African ancestry. Amerindian ancestry is a minor contribution there. I propose to remove this information, because the census do not count Caboclos and genetic studies show that Brazilians from all regions are more likely to be Europeans and Mulattoes, rather than Caboclos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.43 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bing34, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} please change population from 192,272,890 to 198,739,269 as according to http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/population.html Bing34 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Though instead of that link specifically I used the CIA Factbook, which that site had in fact copied from. elektrikSHOOS 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. The CIA World Factbook is one of the lesser reliable sources for population estimates out there. From their site: Brazil conducted a census in August 2000, which reported a population of 169,872,855; that figure was about 3.8% lower than projections by the US Census Bureau, and is close to the implied underenumeration of 4.6% for the 1991 census. This already shows that their data is inaccurate because they are using outdated data to project population estimates. This is the same story for some other country estimates like Indonesia. Furthermore, other reliable sources such as IGBE, the statistics bureau of Brazil or the the UN have lower estimates than of the CIA. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Other sources such as the IMF, Britannica or The World Bank have amich lower estimate than of the CIA and are closer to those of the UN or IGBE. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mr1265, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you explain how much texture the food contains and how large the country is

Mr1265 (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: If you would like some text to be added, simply WP:be bold and write it yourself, then post it here for an editor to add to the article. This system is not for requesting people to write content for you, just copy already written content/changes. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Population to be changed to 185.7 million (according to the new Census)

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/825279-populacao-brasileira-e-de-1857-milhoes-diz-censo-2010-sp-atinge-10-mi-de-habitantes.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Higher income per head (GDP per capita) As the population is lower than estimated, income per head should be higher.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Hey, the census is not even over yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.213.97 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the source, that figure (185.7 million) is an initial data from the 2010 census. The final results have not been published yet and therefore, are subject to change. We should wait for the final data before making changes to the population number. Limongi (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Seems like there is yet another edit war. So I have protected the page for 5 days (I will move back down to semi after 5 days). Elockid ^(Talk) 12:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for changes made by me

In the infobox

In the main infobox of the article, the percentages of the Brazilian ethnic groups were all on the same line. I will put them one on each line. It is more organized and easier to read.

Those are skin colours, or races, not "ethnic groups". Ninguém (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the "Demographics" section

In "Demography", I disregarded the two Christian denominations presented as separate, and put Christianity as a single religion. This is already the standard in similar tables in articles about various countries. The specific Christian denominations are listed in the text of the section. The colors were changed to follow a pattern. Usually we put like this:

• Christianity - Blue
• Irreligion - Gray
• "Other" - black

There is also a standard for other religions:

• Islam - Green
• Buddhism - gold

There is no "reason" for their changes. As I have already told us the summary, the IBGE does not classify the different religious groups in Brazil that way, we must follow the source!

Also, I think its important to warn users of Anglophone Wikipedia that user has been blocked several times in the Lusophone Wikipedia, completing one year of block. Among the reasons for blocking the user is: using sockpuppets, vandalism in articles and serious harm of other editors. Beware! Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And who said I should follow the source? Far better that conforms to the pattern of several articles. And nothing is wrong. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Heitor C Jorge. Plus, Eduardo has added figures without sources. --Lecen (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Heitor C. Jorge. It's important to understand that the content should reflect the source given. That's the essence of WP:V. If an editor disagrees with a source, they should find another credible source and replace it. Limongi (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no information without sources added by me. And I have not added anything at odds with the source. Only standardized according to several other articles. The information passed is the same, only differently. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The information passed is the same, only differently - Is there any sense in that? If the content is different from that presented in the source, then it is different from the source! Finally, two have already agreed with me, I believe the issue can now be closed. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason that Catholics and Protestants should be lumped together. They are different religions, understood by Brazilians as different religions. Indeed, if we want to be precise, we should divide Protestants, at the very least, between Tradional Protestants and Pentecostals. Ninguém (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we should follow what the source says. By the way, three have already agreed with me, so I think this discussion should be closed and the editions of Eduardo Sellan III rejected. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you look at the IBGE page, you will see that it does count Traditional and Pentecostal Protestants separately. Indeed, it disagregates the data even further, so that we can know how many Lutherans or adepts of Assembléia de Deus there are in Brazil. See here. And so, following your own reasoning, we should present the data exactly like that, isn't it? Ninguém (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge, please have more knowledge of the language. I said "differently" and not "different". What I meant was that more information is the same but is passed in a different way. There is nothing at odds with the source. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And if we were wanting to divide Christianity, we would have split into many denominations, not just Catholics and Protestants. I do not think all my editions should be rejected because it did not opine on them all. I have divided this section into three sub-sections to discuss the three sections of the article that I changed. Only one was discussed. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One question: The source has nearly 50 faiths and religions. We only have 6 in the article. And you think we are following the source? - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Eduardo, I think it is you who should have more knowledge of English. "Differently" and "different" have the same meaning, just check a dictionary. By the way, if you had read my answer carefully, you would see that I understood the meaning of your argument. Anyway, I have no time nor patience to argue with people like you. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ninguém, do not you think absurd to divide Protestants in all subgroups are there? We're talking about a template that lists the major religious groups in Brazil. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is absurd, but it is the way the IBGE presents the data. And the argument that we can absolutely not modify the way the source presentes the data is yours, not mine. Now, if you want to convince us that we should show all the Protestant denominations summed up as "Protestantism", but not all the Christian denominations summed up as Christianism, you should come up with a rational argument (aka "useless discussion"), instead of shouts and insults. If you want some help, I can give some arguments about why Catholicism and Protestantism should be considered different religions in Brazil, and not lumped together. Otherwise, let's make as you tell us it should be made: present the data exactly in the same way as the source. Ninguém (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, discuss it with you and Eduardo (aka trolls) will not do anything. I give up. Do what you want with the article. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor, both the table and the section talks about "religion" and not "major religions". But as you do not care anymore, that's not the case. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém, any religion with less than 1% of followers, the color will not appear on the table, then we put all the divisions that fall in more than 1%. The less than 1% must then join the group they belong to. The following religions (according the source) fill more than 1%:

• Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana (Roman Catholic Church)
• Evangélicas (Protestant)
  • Evangélicas de missão (Traditional Protestant)
  • Evangélicas de origem pentecostal (pentecostal protestant)
    • Igreja Assembléia de Deus (Church Assembly of God)
    • Igreja Congregacional Cristã do Brasil (Congregacional Christian Church of Brazil)
    • Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus (Universal Church of Kingdom of God)
    • Outras igrejas de origem pentecostal (Other Pentecostal churchs)
• Espiritismo (Spiritism)
• Sem religião (No religion)
• Other

How should we divide them, then? - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Spiritism is not part of Christianity? Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "Christianity". If it means any mentioning of Jesus ben Joseph, then certainly Kardekist Spiritism is part of it (and perhaps so is Islam). If you define it by a precise belief that Jesus ben Joseph was in fact the Son of God, the third person of the Holy Trinity, who died in order to atone for our sins, then I fear it isn't. Ninguém (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All religions that use the Bible can be considered Christian. This is the case of Spiritism, and not Islam. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In what sence, "use the Bible"? Their main tenet, that of successive reincarnations, is by no means based on the Bible. Christians believe the Bible is "inspired by God" - do Spiritists believe in that, or just that it is an important book of ancient and venerable wisdom? And what about Judaism, is it a part of Christianity too? Ninguém (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian religions are those who consider Jesus as the son of God. This is the case of spiritism. But not Islam or Judaism. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Except Spiritists don't consider Jesus as the son of God: Jesus Cristo, o filho de Deus:

Jesus é Filho de Deus como todas as criaturas. Ele o chama de Pai, como nos ensinou a chamá-lo de nosso Pai.

Or, translating,

Jesus is Son of God just like all criatures. He calls Him Father, just like he taught all of us to call Him Father.

So, by your criterium, Spiritism is not a Christian religion. Ninguém (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me. I agree to separate Spiritism of Christianity. What about other religions that I said (more than 1% of practitioners)? - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The lack of respect with Wikipedia rules still amazes me. Even though there is a present ongoing discussion, there are editors who keep editing the page nonetheless. It is very simple: catholicism, protestantism, no religion and others. Simple like that. More detailed info anyone should look upon "Religion in Brazil" or a similar article. Spiritism is not even a religion by itself. You people don't like the definitions? Wonderful, go do that in the proper article, not in here. This one gives an overall view, that's all. Three editos voted against Eduardo Sellan III's edits. They should have been reverted. I don't even know why we are having this discussion. At most, you should wait for IBGE 2010 census. --Lecen (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the nice thing about "useless discussions": we can eventually change our minds, we can learn, convince each others, we can *gasp* reach consensus. "Useful namecalling", on the other way, only generates more namecalling.

The next thing, I think, is to discuss whether we should merge Protestantism and Catholicism into a single "Christianism" entry.

I would argue the following:

• They are very different both theologically and sociologically. It is difficult to maintain that the are one and the same religion, when they differ so much between them.

• Both have considerable followings in Brazil, so there in no need to lump them together (if each represented some 0.5% of the population, it might be necessary to ignore their differences in order to make them viewable to the reader, but here we are talking about the first and second numerically most important religious groups in Brazil - or the first, third, and fourth, if we take the two subdivisions of Protestants separately).

• In comparing different countries, this becomes confusing. The proportion of "Christians" both in the United States in Brazil is probably similar, but this in fact hide the huge differences in the religious make up of these countries.

• Both "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" are easier to define than "Christianism". Spiritists would easily agree that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant, but they might take exception to not being classified as "Christian". And so we would probably avoid some edit warring by classifying these groups separately, instead of joining them in a single category. Ninguém (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You agree to divide the Pentecostal Protestantism in their respective churches? If we do so, instead of "Pentecostal Protestantism" would the three largest Petencostal churches in Brazil (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus, Igreja Assembléia de Deus and Igreja Congregacional Cristã do Brasil) and the group of "other churches".

I also believe that "Roman Catholicism" excludes the Brazilian Catholic Church, with a significant (but minority) of followers. Therefore, we should substitute "Roman Catholicism" by simply "Catholicism".

That all I have proposed would leave the table with nine divisions, instead of the current five. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What?! Brazilian Cahtolic Church? What part did you not understand? Three editors opposed your edits. They will be reverted. --Lecen (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, I'm not defending my first editions, you should read the comments above. And you do not know the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church? Please read the entire thread before responding again. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Eduardo, I don't think the ICAB should be summed up with Roman Catholics. The latter, alone, are already the clear majority of the Brazilian population. Why would we sum other denominations with them? This would make their figures seem bigger than they actually are, and on the other hand would make their majority seem less clear than it is. If it is impossible to have the ICAB on its own entry in the graphic, then it should be grouped in "Other" or in "Other Christian", if we opt for including such category.

I would have no problem with mentioning Assembléia de Deus, IURD, or the Christian Congregationals apart. But then the Baptists have bigger numbers than the latter two. What I think however is that summing up all Protestants as a single denomination is confusing, because the dynamics and sociology of Pentecostals is clearly different from the others. The non-Pentecostal, especially the Lutherans, resemble more the Catholics (more important in the rural areas, aging, and declining in numbers), while the Pentecostals are mostly urban, young, and soaring in numbers.

I also have a problem with not mentioning Afro-Brazilian religions. While their figures are comparatively small, and well below 1%, their influence goes much beyond their numbers. And besides, they are a characteristically Brazilian phenomenon; you can imagine Brazil without the IURD, and it would still be Brazil as we understand it. But without Umbanda and Candomblé, this would be a different country... Ninguém (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You agree to create a group of "other Christian religions," where we group together the Brazilian Catholic Church and other groups(less than 1%)?

Thus, we also would create the group "Others" comprises the non-Christian religions. Goes like, the reader can identify the Christian religions and non-Christian. If you put everything into a generic group "Others", would be somewhat confusing.

As the Protestant churches, let us consider the traditional evangelical church with more than 1% (Baptist, and the group "other traditional Protestant churches") And we will also consider the Pentecostal churches with more than 1% (Assembléia de Deus, Universal do Reino de Deus and Congregacional Cristã) and the "Others" group.

Speaking of african-Brazilian religions, I agree that they have a considerable cultural importance in Brazil. But we put the color to represent it on the table would not appear as it would be well represented in less than 1%. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could have more or less this:

• Roman Catholic
• Non religious
• Protestant

• Traditional

• Baptist
• Other Traditional Protestants

• Pentecostal

• Assembleia de Deus
• IURD
• Christian Congregational
• Other Pentecostal

• Other Protestant

• Spiritists (including "Spiritualists")
• Other Christian (ICAB, Orthodox, LDS, JW, Other Christians)
• Afro-Brazilian (Umbanda, Candomblé)
• Other (Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Other Oriental Religions, New Oriental Religions, Esoteric, Indigenous, Other)
• Undetermined and Undeclared

I don't think mentioning the Baptists, AD, IURD, and Christian Congregationals separately is really necessary, but I also don't have anything against it.

I understand your problem with the 1% threshold, but anyway the "Other" group will have less than 1% even if Umbanda and Candomblé are summed with it (and so will the sum of undetermined and undeclared). Ninguém (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

After some thought, I concluded to put all the Protestant churches in the table would be very confusing. Then concludes that we should include in the table only the basics and the complete information in the text of the section. So let's put it this way in the table:

• Roman Catholic (74%)
• Traditional Protestant (4%)
• Pentecostal Protestant (10%)
• Other Christian religions (2%)
• Others religions (2%)
• Undeclared or undetermined (0.4%) (Less than 1%. I do not know where to attach.)
• No religion (7%)

And on the writing section will pass more detailed information, showing all (or almost everything) that the source presents. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the Spiritists should have their own entry. And that the figures should be given with at least one decimal digit. Ninguém (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the spiritists, they represent 1%. We do not need decimal digits. The reader will understand and the data will be correct. More detailed information in the text of the section. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In "Culture" section

Actually I did nothing in this section. Another user has corrected a reference. The user then Heitor C. Jorge inexplicably reverted the edit, which can be considered vandalism. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)