![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The right pronunciation for Brazil was presented as /brəˈzɪl/. It is correct, but it's the portuguese pronunciation. It'd be good to add the Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation: /bra'ziw/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.8.230 ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the entry on Auguste Comte
There seems to be no doubt about that point. I've heard and read (but have been unable to verify) that Amor was part of the original motto, and that love has (sadly:) been removed at some point of time. The Portuguese WP makes no such statement; could anyone elaborate? Maybe the question should be asked at the Reference Desk? Asav ( talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would include the following map link from "The Economist" magazine's Brazil Survey in April 2007. It highlights the great regional disparities of this continent-sized country. http://www.economist.com/images/20070414/CSU926.gif
Vivaldi4Stagioni 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Felipe, The difference between the Economist map and the one you refer to is that the former shows the figures according to Purchasing-Power Parity (PPP), a much better way of demonstrating the actual standard of living.
Vivaldi4Stagioni 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The talk page has been quiet for over a week and the past discussions were taking a lot of space, so I just sent them to "archive 5". If anyone one wants to debate the same topics again, please restart here. Sparks1979 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Brazilwood (pau brasil) grows mostly along the Atlantic coast and not along the Amazon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilwood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.127.10 ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Brazil-American Relations & Industrialization
Hello, I am a student at University of Toronto and one of my assignments was to make an article for Wikipedia. I chose Brazil-American relations and industrialization on which I wrote about. After writing the article however, I don’t think I posted it properly in congruence with the rest of the section in which I posted my article in: Brazilian Military and Foreign Relations. If anyone can please give me some feedback on the article itself or on the manner in which I can better fit my content, that would be great. Thanks.-- HoriaG ( talk) 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article need of some alterations for a possible Featured Article Nominee. These changes are mainly concentrated in the "Administrative divisions" and "Geography" sections.
In my opinion, this section is too short. Something needs to be changed. We eliminate it or expand it.
This section can be expanded. The section could be divided in two sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". However, regions aren't administrative divisions, them are geographic divisions promoted by the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States.
The current text was written of "geographic" form and occults the history of the political division of Brazil, the territorial levels (captainships, provinces, territories, states, cities, neutral cities, districts), the annexation and loss of territorial areas. The different divisions in the Colonial, Imperial and Republican periods, need to be shown.
An introduction showing the general history of the Brazilian territorial politics, and the "Regions" and "States" sub-sections detailing its subjects, would make an excellent section.
In my opnion, this section can be expanded. The content is very reduced and the introduction is minimum, the section needs alterations urgently.
The "Climate" sub-section can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities aren't so important how much the climatic differences of Brazil. The text could give more emphasis to the diversity, like the wet climate of the Amazonian Forest, the Northeast dry climate, the cold climate of the South… Citations of the registered records temperatures already would be excellent. This would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil.
The "Sports" subsection can be summarized.
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
I don't understand this last sports vote--are you proposing to replace both with only one?-- Dali-Llama 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This article only has pictures of constructions and politicians. What is this obssession with posting pictures of buildings and other constructions?
Give it up. Opinoso 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose a text change in this: "They have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002." To "Brazilians have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchico ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a
template for use with all
brazilian states. I followed the model used by
Template:Infobox Country. Some pages, like
States of USA,
Provinces and territories of Canada,
States and territories of Australia,
States of Malaysia and all
Regional blocs already use this model. So, I think that will be good if Brazil use to standardize. If the template is missing some information, there is no problem in add.
But,
Felipe C.S prefers use
the model adopt by Portuguese Wikipedia. In his opinion, the appearence is better. —
Guilherme (
t/
c) 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Option 1: Template:Infobox Brazilian State |
Option 2: Template talk:Infobox Brazilian State |
---|---|
{{Infobox Brazilian State |name = São Paulo |image_flag = Bandeira_do_Estado_de_São_Paulo.svg |image_coat = Brasao Estado SaoPaulo Brasil.svg |motto = ''Pro Brasilia Fiant Eximia'' <small>([[Latin language|Latin]])<br />"For Brazil Great Things Are Done"</small> |anthem = Bandeirantes Anthem |image_map = Brazil State SaoPaulo.svg |capital = [[São Paulo]] |latd=3 |latm=52 |latNS=N |longd=11 |longm=31 |longEW=E |largest_city = [[São Paulo]] |demonym = Paulista |leader_name1 = [[José Serra]] |leader_name2 = Alberto Goldman |area = 248.209,426 |area_magnitude = 1 E11 |area_rank = 12th |population_estimate = 41.055.734 |population_estimate_rank = 1st |population_estimate_year = 2006 |population_census = 40,442,795 |population_census_year = 2005 |population_density = 162.93 |population_density_rank = 3th |GDP = R$ 546,607,616 |GDP_rank = 1st |GDP_year = 2004 |GDP_per_capita = R$ 13.725 |GDP_per_capita_rank = 3th |HDI = 0.820 |HDI_rank = 3th |HDI_year = 2000 |abbreviation = BR-SP |time_zone = BRT |utc_offset = -3 |time_zone_DST = BRST |utc_offset_DST = -2 }} |
{{Template talk:Infobox Brazilian State <!----- Header -----> |name = Santa Catarina |image_flag = Bandeira Santa Catarina.svg |image_coat = Blason of Santa Catarina.svg |motto = |anthem = Hino de Santa Catarina |demonym = Catarinense <!----- Localization -----> |map_localization = Brazil State SantaCatarina.svg |map_divisions = SantaCatarina MesoMicroMunicip.svg |region = South |neighboring = [[Paraná (state)|PR]] and [[Rio Grande do Sul|RS]] <!----- Government -----> |capital = [[Florianópolis]] |latd=27 |latm=35 |latNS=S |longd=48 |longm=32 |longEW=W |governor = Luiz Henrique |party = PMDB |vice_governor = Leonel Pavan |vice_party = PSDB <!----- Area -----> |area_total = 95,346,181 |area_rank = 20th |water_pc = <!----- Population -----> |pop_estimate = 5,866,568 |pop_estimate_year = 2005 |pop_estimate_rank = 11th |pop_census = |pop_census_year = |pop_urban = |pop_density = 61,53 |pop_density_rank = 9th <!----- Economy -----> |GDP_total = 70,208 billion |GDP_year = 2004 |GDP_rank = 7th |GDP_per_capita = 12,159 |GDP_per_capita_rank = 5th <!----- HDI -----> |HDI = 0,822 |HDI_year = 2000 |HDI_rank = 2nd |HDI_category = <font color=#009900>high</font> |life_expect = 74,8 |life_expect_rank = 2nd |infant_mort = 15,2 |infant_mort_rank = 2nd |literacy = 95,2 |literacy_rank = 3th <!----- Time zone -----> |time_zone = [[Time in Brazil|BRT]] |utc_offset = -3 |time_zone_DST = [[Time in Brazil|BRST]] |utc_offset_DST = -2 <!----- Additional information -----> |abbreviation = BR-SC |climate = [[Subtropical]] |climate_class = Cfa/Cfb |website = [http://www.sc.gov.br www.sc.gov.br] }} |
Option 1
Option 2
Can't you see NOBODY wants to discuss with you here? Nobody here in interested in your horrible changes in Wikipedia.
Let the article the way it is. You had enough fun here, kid. The article is all done but, as you have nothing else to do here, you spend hours trying to find something to change.
What is your problem, child? Why can't you accept Brazil the way it is? Why do you keep erasing the picture of Ipanema beach in the article Rio de Janeiro and posting a dark image to hide the beach?
What do you have against Brazilian beaches, Black Brazilians, poor people and Brazil's carnival?
Why do you insist in creating a fake Brazil: blond supermodels, cold weather, high-tech cities, rich people??
Why do you try to paint Brazil as a copy of Europe?
I wonder, have you ever been out of your house? You need to travel more, kid. Ask your father to leave you go a little around. Because everybody here is laughing at you and at your non-sense.
All I have to say to you, João Felipe C.S: learn some English and...GIVE IT UP. Opinoso 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I added three more, as I saw a number of countries with a more complete list too, like Nigeria and USA. User Green Giant thought it made it confusing, but he agreed with me in the end. Then Opinoso undid it, giving no reason at all, so I undid his undo (!). I can see that he already did some other mistakes here in his mindless correcting berserk, hehe. Untouchable777, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
According to World Bank's International Comparison Program (ICP 2007), Brazil has already the 6th largest economy (PPP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabalhosgv ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
destroys areas the size of a small country each year
What is a "small country"? Can somebody improve this? -- Taraborn ( talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed some sentences in order to avoid ludicrous POV and the unencyclopedic "that wasn't our fault" and "Portuguese - bad; Brazilian - good (excelent)" feel which characterize this article and other related articles. Pularoid ( talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
is it just on my side or the links for articles with characters like "á" in the name are producing bogus links when clicked? (with what seems to be a random number of characters repeated, usually an upper-case version of the non-english character, but I thikn I've seen different a couple of times)-- TiagoTiago ( talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's too huge an introduction. Check Argentina or Guyana for instance. Janiovj ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.
Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).
If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
See also: Wikipedia:Lead section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhsb ( talk • contribs)
You used Brazil's stereotypes such as "carnival, beaches". I am from Brazil and where I live there are no beaches or carnival.
Stop trying to give stereotypes to a country. By the way, why did you erase the part about social issues? Are you trying to hide Brazil is a violent country with millions of poor people?
Stop this or I will ask some administrator to block you from wikipedia. Opinoso ( talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet it is still huge! Quit changing the subject, people. Janiovj ( talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference for the statement The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Well, there are several studies linking both factors, and it's fairly logical that a mid-income country with such a big amount of poverty must have big economic inequality as well. But enough talking; the most influential and respected studies on the subject are made by Ipea (Economic Applied Research Institute), which published "Desigualdade de Renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente" in 2 volumes. On the first volume, the 10th chapter discusses the importance of the recent drop on inequality rate (gini) to poverty. The title: A Importância da Queda Recente da Desigualdade para a Pobreza Authors: Ricardo Paes de Barros, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, Rosane Mendonça The link: http://www.ipea.gov.br/sites/000/2/livros/desigualdaderendanobrasil/Cap_10_AImportanciaDaQuedaRecente.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently removed a section on Social Issues, but if someone here is against this change, let's open a discussion here. It's widely understood that virtually every country in Latin America have the same issues with crime and social issues one of the main subjects. Nevertheless, only Brazil and Colombia articles contemplate those section on their pages. I struggled to insert a section about crime in Mexico, but it seems that the editors there are more patriotic than the editors of this article...-- Mhsb ( talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the discussion the topic about social issues. The reason why I removed the section, as I had already explained is that this section is tendentious, thus violating NPOV, it's not acurate. I am not proposing to hide social issues on Brazil, but I am proposing to re-edit the section to a more encyclopedic version with neutral point of view. I pasted below the section for further discussion:
Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in 2006 the rate of people living below the poverty line based on labour income was of 19.31% of the population [1] — a 33% reduction considering the previous three years. [2]
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards, [3] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. [4] The level of violence in some large urban centers is comparable to that of a war zone. [5] [6] Analysts generally suggest the alarming social inequality as the major reason behind this problem. Muggings, robberies, kidnappings [7] and gang violence [8] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread. [9] [10] Innefficient public services, [11] [12] [13] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s. [14]
The section has several inconsistencies, several statements are
unreferenced. The topic is about social issues, but it creates a link to crime as well without providing any reference to support that argument. Examples:
Several statements extracted from the text are not supported by references, for instance:
Tendentious argumentation:
And much more I would lik to discuss.-- Mhsb ( talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the user Opinoso didn't understand, literally, anything that I proposed. Let's discuss the section about social issues and them we can move to the introduction arena. I raised several concerns about this section but you did not answer a single one, you just expressed your opnion that this section is a perfect one. Where are the references for your argumentation:
Please Opinoso, respond my concerns and let's discuss this in a civil manner. You a calling the changes I made in the page of vandalism and threatening of blocking me. Please, bear in mind that this violates Wikimedia policies such as Wikipedia:NLT and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please, let's discuss it in a civil manner, be constructive and please, answer my concerns.-- Mhsb ( talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Several statements extracted from the text are not supported by references, for instance:
Tendentious argumentation:
I would like to pinpoint the tendentious arguments of that section, lack of references for some debatable statements and unencyclopedic look of that section. Notice that a section about social issues, we cannot for sure relate "social issues" with "crime", there is no proven relationship between the two and therefore this matter is highly debatable and disputable. I propose a total revision of that section to remove tendentious argumentation, add references to debatable statements and a more encyclopedic view for that section.
-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
References
Social issues section and Introduction
I am addressing to Opinoso because he/she is the first user to object to my recent edits. I think you misunderstood me. You even didn't read the discussion page, I kindly ask you to do so before making false acusations against me. I changed the article but I asked for the opnion of other users, please the page above. I don't think we should include a section on social issues since most of the countries in Latin America don't contemplate that very section. With regard to the size of introduction, I think it's too long, my edits suits the recomendations of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, that I will repeat here:
Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).
If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
See also: Wikipedia:Lead section
So, "by things that it is known for" what I meant is that Brazil is known overseas by its beaches, beautiful women and the carnival. If you have a personal opnion on the matter, you are violating the NPOV and this is not good argument. Please, I am trying to discuss the changes on the article pacifically, don't make false acusations, don't call my edits of vandalism. I kindly ask for your proposals here in the page. Cheers.-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you do an international reaserch to know what Brazil is know for? Where are you researches to say that "country is famous worldwide for its annual carnival celebrations, soccer players, beaches and its abundant wildlife".
Where are you reaserches?
By the way, this is an encyclopedia, and we should avoid stereotypes. We must focus in the truth, not what a country is known for.
Why are you trying to do stereotypes to Brazil such as "beautiful women?". Brazil has no more beautiful women than the rest of the world. Why are you trying to sell this idea? Where is your reaserch saying that Brazilian women are prettier than the other Human being?
I am from Brazil and where I live there are no beaches or carnival. Most Brazilians cities DO NOT have carnival celebrations
Millions of Brazilians live in the interior of the country and do not have any contact with "beaches".
I do not fit in your stereotypes and most Brazilians don't either.
How about "abundant wildlife". Are you talking about Brazil or just a few big towns like São Paulo or Rio?
Millions of Brazilians live in small and quiet towns, where this wildlife style does not fit.
Are you trying to sell the idea that Brazilians do not work and party all day?
Most Brazilians work hard and do not have time to party all day as you are trying to sell. Mhsb, if you don't work, party all day in the beach, play soccer, you are a minority.
Don't try to fit Brazilians in stereotypes.
By the way, why are you erasing the social issues information? Are you trying to hide the bad things of Brazil?
You argue that Latin American articles do not have social issue session. This is not an excuse.
You cannot erase entire sessions here without asking people's opinion.
Stop trying to impose your ideas. Stop giving stereotypes to Brazil.
By the way, if you want to write in Wikipedia, be sure you can write in an acceptable English:
"Brazil is the only portuguese speaking country in Latin America". You must write Portuguese.
It makes me sick to see people trying to sell the idea Brazil is a country where nobody works, everybody party all day naked in a carnival parade.
Most Brazilians don't do this and do not agree with this.
Mhsb, if you do not have the capacity to discern reality from fantasy, should be exempt from writing in Wikipédia.
Opinoso (
talk) 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Again Opinoso is making personal attacks, saying that I do not have the capacity to discern reality from fantasy, a clear violation of Wikipedia Policies. The modification I proposed for the Introduction complies with WikiProject Countries but it seems that you simply negleted my arguments. Please, I ask you again to remain civil! I think that the introduction page is too big and so does the User:Janiovj. I made some proposals to reduce the size of the topic but all you did was to revert my changes and correct my grammar. You didn't understand the meaning of the phrase "abundant wildlife", creating a strange link with "wild life", which has a different meaning. You asked me why am I erasing the social issues information, which evidences the fact you haven't read anything that I proposed. I kindly ask you to make a constructive discussion about the matter. BTW, stop editing my page. Cheers.-- Mhsb ( talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To his credit, when Mhsb said "abundant wildlife", that does not refer to a "wild life style", but to an abundance of plants and animals of many types and species, which I think you would agree that Brazil does have.
On the other hand, I think it was wrong of Mhsb to make significant changes (such as drastically shortening the introduction) without *first* discussing it. Major changes to format and content should not be done without discussion. Bishop^ ( talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is disturbing many articles. In Brazil he is erasing information, including non-sense stuff in the article and creating an edit-war.
Please, somebody stop him. Opinoso (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Some remarks from
User:Opinoso
I will catch that as (correct me if I am wrong):
This contradicts with several references that cleary state that Brazil's population is mostly concentrated alongside the coast. [1] [2]
Can you please indicate where did I say that???
Below are some references to support my arguments that Brazil is famous overseas by its annual carnival celebrations, its beautiful beaches and its wildlife (Flora and Fauna):
Famous Carnival celebrations:
Famous Beaches:
Abundant Wildlife:
Famous soccer players:
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a little problem with the phrase you've used. I never proposed to write to the introduction that "Brazil is famous overseas...", if you scroll up the page you'll notice that I actually wrote:
"Brazil is known overseas...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you had a chance to read the article but the article itself contemplates part of my statements:
Brazil's large area comprises different ecosystems, which together sustain some of the world's greatest biodiversity...
...There is a general consensus that Brazil has the highest number of both terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates of any single country in the world...
(futebol) is the most popular sport in Brazil.[145] The Brazilian national football team (Seleção) is currently ranked second in the world according to the FIFA World Rankings. They have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002. Basketball, volleyball, auto racing, and martial arts also attract large audiences...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you read the references I posted to support my arguments.... Please, read the references first and make a constructive discussion to the topic. Cheers. -- Mhsb ( talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The article below clearly express my statement about carnival in Brazil:
...In many parts of the world, where Catholic Europeans set up colonies and entered into the slave trade, carnival took root. Brazil, once a Portuguese colony, is famous for its carnival, as is Mardi Gras in Louisiana...
Note that now I am using the word famous...
link: http://www.allahwe.org/aboutus.html
-- Mhsb ( talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! That's why I am discussing it here, otherwise this would be an imposition of ideas right?-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is damn right, it is known overseas for all of that and there's no arguing over it. Carnival is not just a stereotype, but the most representative cultural festival in Brazil. We are also a common tourist destination because of our beaches, and there's no denying most people live close to the coastline. I don't see where's Opinoso trying to get. Janiovj ( talk) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
References
Latin America is one of the subdvisions of the american continent.Every time that i look to this articule i see Brazil is the biggest economy of latin america,the biggest... of latin america. But this is obviously, because it is the biggest country in Latin America , has the biggest population.So why don't put of The Americas instead of Latin America?Because the continent is only one!America.The USA is trying to sepate the things, HAVE YOU EVER SAW THINGS LIKE FRANCE IS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY OF THE LATIN EUROPE?No you hear things like France is the fourth largest economy in Europe. Continents are divided by geographic not language or some other thing.Like south asia , middle east. Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.99.243 ( talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First, "Latin America" is a recognized "grouping" of countries. It is as valid a criterion as geography for specifying a particular group of nations. The term has a great deal of historical weight and current usage, unlike your made-up "Latin Europe". It largely serves to differentiate the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries from "Anglo-America", the places where English is primarily spoken. Even as distinguished a publication as The Economist has a section on their web site for "Latin American Economies".
Please don't create controversy where none exists. Brazil may have the largest population in Latin America, but that doesn't mean it's the biggest of everything. Mexico has a higher GDP per capita, for example. Bishop^ ( talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi... Some people are getting wrong. Saying that most of Brazilian population lives alongside the coast does not mean that they live in coast cities. The statement (correct) means that, considering the dimension of the country, most of Brazilians are concentrated in an area between the coast and an imaginary line we could draw 1000 kilometres inside. This area is less than 50% of the territory, although it is bigger than many countries. But we are comparing areas of a single country.
I can't believe after the amount of effort it took to bring this article down to size, we're adding sections which were removed outright to conform to the GA review. It befuddles me that tables, whole sections have been added when this article has a chronic "stuff-itis" problem--that is, cramming as much information as possible into one article.
Measuring from this edit to the current one, one can see that the text gained 9Kb in prose, and a whopping 220Kb in file size, due to pictures and tables. I'm reverting the article back to Carlosguitar's last edit--before this spat with content, alignment and tables. That's the closest edit I've found that still maintains some modicum of reason regarding size and the GA requirements. The alternative, unfortunately, is to delist this article as a "Good Article". I hope you'll participate in discussing what changes need to be made prior to adding them.-- Dali-Llama ( talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dali-Llama, If we want this article Featured we must follow WP:SIZE and maintain around 85-90Kb. While tables are useful to show information in a organized matter, it is better to use them on sub-articles where there is no problem with WP:SIZE. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference for the statement The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Well, there are several studies linking both factors, and it's fairly logical that a mid-income country with such a big amount of poverty must have big economic inequality as well. But enough talking; the most influential and respected studies on the subject are made by Ipea (Economic Applied Research Institute), which published "Desigualdade de Renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente" in 2 volumes. On the first volume, the 10th chapter discusses the importance of the recent drop on inequality rate (gini) to poverty. The title: A Importância da Queda Recente da Desigualdade para a Pobreza Authors: Ricardo Paes de Barros, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, Rosane Mendonça The link: http://www.ipea.gov.br/sites/000/2/livros/desigualdaderendanobrasil/Cap_10_AImportanciaDaQuedaRecente.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you get the information about the percent of water in Brazil is just 0,65%? In other countries they have "more water" than Brazil like Argentina(1,1%) or even Estonia(4,6%), and we know, at least I know(hehe) this is not true. Or, better, someone can explain me what this indice counts? Tks! Leonardomio ( talk) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why has this been not submitted to FAC yet? Looks mighty promising. With very little push this might get through. Anyone hearing this? Aditya( talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This reference,
"The World Factbook: Brazil". Central Intelligence Agency., has a grotesque misinformation about Brazil. In its People section they mention that "estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2007 est.)". This sentence is used in that book for all countries with such a problem. I'm not a health expert, but, that sounds weird for Brazil. I couldn't find another source for that affirmation. There are no mention of such "excess mortality" in
HIV/AIDS in Brazil.
List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate doesn't show death, but give a good idea that HIV/AIDS in Brazil (0.7) is not that far from the United States (0.6).
This report (page 18) also shows that Brazil's numbers are not excessive, not far from the United States' numbers and much smaller than other countries that that book doesn't use that sentence. Even their
own number shows that Brazil's numbers (HIV/AIDS deaths/population 0.000088%) are not so far from the United States (0.000057%), and very far from South Africa (0.0082%).
So, until they fix that, it should be removed because it's not a good reference to readers of this article. --
ClaudioMB (
talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to do some work on standardizing proper name versions and translations, not only for Brasil, but throughout Wikipedia. Focusing on Brasil, the proper and official names should be listed in the Brazilian versions with clear English translations. Even though the article is in English, the country is not. So, even the "common" name for Brasil should be stated as "Brasil". Then, yes, there are official English versions of the names. These should be stated as such along with any reference that makes them so. (For example--to be researched and verified--the US Bureau of Standards specified English versions, the US Congress specified recognized English versions, the Mexican congress specified English versions, etc.)
The actual name of the article, however, can certainly be left in the English common version, "Brazil", because it is an English encyclopedia and the most commonly used version of the name. However, the name should be clearly disambiguated so that any proper spelling leads to--and is validated by--the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 ( talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an English page, so let's just write in English. I don't believe there is a need to write the name of the country in its native language. In Brazil they use the acronym EUA instead of USA. Should we require that they use USA? No, it's their language.
Prizerl (
talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The name of the president should be Luiz Inacio da Silva. "Lula" should be removed. It is a nickname. It'd be like writing William Bill Clinton or Ronald Ron Reagan. It is indeed common to informally write Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (like saying "Bush father" or "Bush son" ) but this is not his real name. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.233.136.118 (
talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not his real name, but it's the name he, as well as the entire rest of the country uses. References to "President Da Silva" sound ridiculous, and I'm not the only brazilian who took a while to notice what the hell people were talking about the first time I read it. The man is President Lula, at best; and I've never heard a single brazilian call him anything other than simply "Lula." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.90.39 ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am bringing that section into the discussion again because I noticed that this section has been under debate for a while. This section has several issues that I would like to address:
According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
which has nothing to do with how the Gini coefficient is calculated. Furthermore, the last sentence should be read: "...a 19.8% reduction from the previous four years."
"...remote upcountry regions that suffer from economic underdevelopment and low standards of living..."
"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards." It should read:
"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding standards of living."
Mhsb ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
=> I agree that crime is a social issue itself, however, what I disagree is the way the section is suggesting that the root cause of crime is social inequality. If the article wants to discuss crime issues, my suggestion is that this should be placed in another topic, not under "social issues".
=> I am not denying that all those problems you've listed have been solved. What I am questioning is the statement that there has been no social developments at all as a result of economic achievements because there has been, in fact, some social development landmarks. May be the word "reflect"here is misplaced or the statement lacks reference.
=> Sorry, but this statement is debatable and if you have any reference it would be great to add to it. For instance, Japan's gini index is higher than India, but India is poorer than Japan. If everyone is poor, economic inequality is lower and the country as a whole is poor. Furthermore, this kind of discussion goes well beyond the scope of the section and the article itself.
=> Agreed.
Mhsb ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides Brazil's recent economic achievements, the country faces serious social problems. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's
economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the
Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population
[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various
favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst
economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy
First World
socioeconomic standards,
[2] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.
[3] Muggings, robberies,
kidnappings
[4] and gang violence
[5] are common in the largest cities.
Police brutality and corruption are widespread.
[6]
[7] Innefficient public services,
[8]
[9]
[10] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the
Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s.
[11]
Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated high at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life. [12]
The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality.
=> It removes unreferenced and debatable statement.
According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
=> It keeps the text simple. Don't need to include more statistics on social issues if the first part of the sentence contemplates that.
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living.
=> I believe that the illustrated picture of that section already contemplates that information.
with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. [3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings[4] and gang violence[5] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread.[6][7]
=> It keeps the text simple. There is no need to list all types of crimes in the section. The main section will detail those issues. Furthermore, the section is about social issues, not crime issues.
Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800).
=> It keeps the section simple. There is no need to cite the article and section of the constitution. HDI index is discussed further ahead.
Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life in the recent years.[12]
=> Provides unbalanced information. -- Mhsb ( talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government.
The topic about social issues begin talking about economic inequality, poverty, then economic inequality between regions, it lists some types of crime, it talks about police brutality and corruption, then inefficient public services, low minimal wage, then about high HDI and finally, the social security system. Structurally, I must agree with you that this section needs organisation. Furthermore, we need to distribute the information avoiding undue weight on some of the issues, such as crime. We need to balance the information in order to comply with WP:NPOV. I agree that crime is a social issue, but we need to avoid undue weight, otherwise we run the risk to talk about another subject instead of social issues. I should list below some Brazilian social issues:
We need to distribute the information along the suggested issues and then we need to balance the information by talking about what has been done or have been achieved to address those issues, even if they haven't solved all the issues. This creates unbalanced opinion and keep the section neutral. Furthermore, we have to make the section short, keeping in mind that the article is about the country and that the article should size below 80K, current size is bearing 100KB. There are still lots of work to bring this article as a feature one and to me, this section is where we have multiple problems, starting with grammar and misspellings.
-- Mhsb ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that "third world" was a phrase that was self-labeled by developing nations during the Cold War between the US (and allies) and the Soviet Union (and allies). The Non-Aligned Nations took up this phrase to proudly indicate that they were unaligned with either side in this conflict. It originated with a French writer (Alfred Sauvy) who declared that the capitalist West was like the nobility (the French "First Estate"), the Communist East was like the clergy (the "Second Estate") and the rest of the world was the common man (the "Third Estate"). It was a term of praise, because in the French Revolution, the common man rose up and overthrew the clergy and nobility to declare a government managed by the masses, and Sauvy believed that the Third World would in time be the real power on Earth. It truly had nothing to do with "better or worse" as a ranking of countries, but was a reference to the French Revolution. Bishop^ ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb, feel free to remove this section. The unreferenced and tendentious argumentation which you brought were added by only one user, without any consensus or discussion, even with your very improved text, it does not fixes issues with undue weight and the section is still unbalanced. The WikiProject Countries also does not recommend a social issue section. As ClaudioMB said some information should be moved to Demographics section linking to Poverty in Brazil and Crime in Brazil with a balanced information about Brazil effort to combat crime and poverty, all the other details will be cited on these articles not here. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Mhsb ( talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is the information balanced now or there is still tedious argumentation? I merged some information and balanced with neutrality, it is better, but we can add a better response to crime in Brazil. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So, from my point of view, the section that I removed from this article didn't contemplate 30% of the issues above listed. Therefore, i propose to workout the article Social issues in Brazil before we proceed to include such a section here. Myself and Carlosguitar made some changes in the article but this is a big task and we need help from other editors...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We've always had many debates, discussions, and sometimes even fights in this page. However, in most cases we tried to find democratic solutions to resolve each problem. This time I'm surprised to see there was no "debate". There are three users supporting the "social issues" subsection - Sparks1979, Opinoso and the Dúnadan. That's three people or three votes. Then there are three editors who want to see the social issues subsection removed or revamped: ClaudioMB, Carlosguitar, -- Mhsb. That's clearly a 3x3 score. So far so good - the problem here is that for some reason the opinion of the first three users was completely ignored, and the subsection was removed without much of a debate. Is this how democracy works in Wikipedia? Even if there was a majority either way, it would have to be an overwhelming majority, or else changes should be put on hold until an agreement is reached. Quite frankly, I have a feeling something unfair was carried out over here.
I haven't been very interested in this page since the last big discussion occured some time at the end of last year, when people were fighting over the pictures in the sports section. I think that showed just how difficult it is to work on pages like Brazil or Mexico. People make everything here too personal. Wikipedia is meant to be a place where people have fun and share knowledge, not a fight arena. Why does this page have to be locked constantly? I guess we will never make it to Featured Article - not because the contents aren't good, but because this article will probably never be stable.
I see no problem at all if people want to make changes - that's what Wikipedia is all about. The problem is that changes should be made in a democratic way, and I don't see that happening here, at least not at the moment. Many people support the social issues section. If we look at the archives, we will find several users in the past were complaining about the page not mentioning violence, poverty and other major social problems in Brazil any Brazilian is well aware of. Any major city in Brazil has thousands of people living in favelas, and for some reason a few users think that's something that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I see only one motivation behind this - I think people want to hide dirt under the carpet.
Hey guys, I'm not one of these people that want to destroy the image of Brazil or anything like that. I just think information must be balanced, because that brings it closer to reality. We don't need to talk only about issues in Brazil - but we do need to talk about issues in Brazil. Brazil isn't Angola, but it's not England or USA either. People here got offended because I was talking about Brazil being a "developing" nation... some of you are being too sensitive. Even Brazilian authorities talk about Brazil being a "developing" nation, including our President and our Legislative and Judiciary highest ranking members. Our Geography and History books talk about the "developing" nation we know as Brazil. So what's happening here? Sincerely, I think some people(wether they are Brazilian or foreigners that like Brazil) are almost obsessed with the so-called touristic version of Brazil. I can undertand patriotism etc, but I've seen that harming the article ever since I started reading it almost two years ago. No wonder many good editors were slowly driven away. Some of you hold on to things in Wikipedia as if they were the most important thing of your lives or something. Guys, editing Wikipedia is only a way for us to spend our free time.
I see Carlosguitar constantly saying I added information without references, when each bit of information I added was based on sources such as BBC World, Amnesty International and studies carried out by Fundação Getúlio Vargas. I didn't invent expressions such as "war zone" - they came directly from the sources I mentioned. I think it's quite clear I'm not wrong in this case.
If you guys could take some time to review this posture, maybe we can get back on track with Brazil. I no longer have much time to edit Wikipedia, I'm mainly only a reader now. Albeit I know this may make some people happy - lol - until I have time to come back as an editor, I will keep to myself knowing I made good contributions to Wikipedia and helped with several improvements.
I've given up on this article since the sport section picture fight last year, when I noticed how people easily make things personal and are unwilling to let go of their own opinions even on the smallest little things such as a picture. I prefer to work on pages with few editors, where users don't stab each other over each suggestion someone makes.
Good luck to you guys. I will be back if I have the time and if people remember Wikipedia is a hobby, not a fight arena. Sparks1979 ( talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Reply to Bishop. First off, no one is talking about authority, and please do not put words in my mouth saying that I am the "final authority", for someone that wants a productive discussion, this is very unproductive. Second the only problem that I see in the current revision of article is with size, you have not explained what is wrong with current revision nor how a social issues section will improve this article or even how to reduce this article, it is your fault if you are understanding that putting all controversial aspects into a single section is inappropriate. Third, I have not misunderstand what consensus is, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other problems are fixed in the current revision, again what is wrong with current revision outside of its size? Fourth, it is strange that you only talking about a Social issues section, why do not you talk about a social improvements section? I am following the policies and guidelines, by the way WP:WPC does not recommend a social issues section. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with what Carlosguitar has been saying over here is not his opinion per se, but the fact he has been constantly disregarding other opinions and points of view, by claiming they are supposedly invalid and not adjusted to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in his own point of view of course).
1) There is no consensus over here. Many people have debated the contents of this section in the past, many defending it whilst others disputed it. The debate has always been a valid one, but a consensus was never reached. Now Carlosguitar is trying to artificially declare there is a “consensus” when it’s crystal clear there isn’t one. Several editors have defended the inclusion of the “social issues section”, and it has been a part of this article for many years. It has also always been under intense discussions. That means there’s no consensus. Actually, WP:Consensus does not clearly define what a “consensus” is, so it looks like Carlosguitar is exploring this small loophole in the rules to pass his own idea of a so-called "consensus" when we’re very far from one in Brazil. How can we talk about a consensus when there are at least 3 users defending the inclusion of the “social issues” subsection in the current discussion (myself, Opinoso and the Dúnadan) not to mention many others in past discussions? By the way, I had a quick look at the talkpage archives and apparently some material has mysteriously disappeared.
2) If I understood him correctly, Carlosguitar claims there’s a consensus because people who defend his view (the “no social issues” view) are allegedly basing their arguments on “Wikipedia policies and guidelines”, whereas all the other people are not - thus, according to him, the later shouldn't be listened to. I ask you Carlosguitar, who are you to ultimately determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t? Can’t you see this is also a debatable issue itself? I myself think you haven’t been following certain guidelines – I think you’ve been authoritative with your arguments, for instance. So who is to say who is following “policies and guidelines”? I’m sorry, but you don’t have the right to decide and determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t - you can have an opinion about it like everyone else, but that's it. An administrator should always be helping people and finding peaceful solutions to problems - an administrator should never be igniting quarrels by presuming bad-faith from editors who solely want to defend their points of view.
3) Carlosguitar has put forth authoritative arguments by saying whoever wants to “edit Brazil adding a social issues subsection without basing their criteria on policies and guidelines will be considered disruptive”. I have a feeling that could mean, “I may block whoever dares to add the social issues section into Brazil again, because I’m the one who determines if policies and guidelines were being followed or not”. Note Carlosguitar has also unilaterally declared “we will not have a social issues subsection”. I personally find it difficult to consider this the best stance an administrator should have on the matter. At the very least, if an administrator has involved himself in a debate, he should summon one or more neutral administrators (that is, not an administrator that's his fellow friend of course) to help appease the matters. Obviously it's a bit hard for an administrator to make a fair decision when he is one of the parties involved in whatever is going on.
4) Carlosguitar claims the section had no references, when in fact it had several hard sources such as BBC World and Amnesty International for crime and violence, FGV for the social security problems, etc. People can check an old version and see this for themselves. This also means there was no "original research".
5) Carlosguitar claims the social issues subsection violates “NPOV”, but he has never explained why – until now… he thinks we can’t have a “social issues” section without a “social developments” section. What he fails to understand is that the word “issues” is not necessarily a synonym of the word “problems” – “issues”, in this context, means “aspects” or “matters” – they are highlights of a certain topic, important things that should be mentioned. That being said, in a “social issues” subsection you can talk about negative and positive sides of social stuff related to Brazil.
6) “Social issues” are a complex topic, but so are “Law”, “Economy” and “Government”. If we can make a synthesis of “Law”, “Economy” and “Government” in two or three paragraphs, why can’t we make a synthesis of “Social issues”, expanding its details in a subpage?
7) Size is not the only problem in “Brazil”. Stability is also a great problem. Note this page has been “protected” for many months and there are endless debates filling the talk page.
8) I never opposed a revision of the subsection – in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about – editors trying to improve things. What I can’t agree with is the exclusion of relevant information. So we can talk about football but there’s no room in the article to mention social inequality in Brazil, which happens to be one of the largest in the world?
Sparks1979 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[ [9]]
WikiProject Countries do not specify such section. If "social issues" is not included under the main Project why should we include in here? I don't understand why you insist in creating such a section under the article of a country. I would recommend you to focus your energy in the main article about social issues in Brazil: Social issues in Brazil. I didn't see your name under the contribution list, so I quite don't understand what you want to achieve here...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The right pronunciation for Brazil was presented as /brəˈzɪl/. It is correct, but it's the portuguese pronunciation. It'd be good to add the Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation: /bra'ziw/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.8.230 ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the entry on Auguste Comte
There seems to be no doubt about that point. I've heard and read (but have been unable to verify) that Amor was part of the original motto, and that love has (sadly:) been removed at some point of time. The Portuguese WP makes no such statement; could anyone elaborate? Maybe the question should be asked at the Reference Desk? Asav ( talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would include the following map link from "The Economist" magazine's Brazil Survey in April 2007. It highlights the great regional disparities of this continent-sized country. http://www.economist.com/images/20070414/CSU926.gif
Vivaldi4Stagioni 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Felipe, The difference between the Economist map and the one you refer to is that the former shows the figures according to Purchasing-Power Parity (PPP), a much better way of demonstrating the actual standard of living.
Vivaldi4Stagioni 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The talk page has been quiet for over a week and the past discussions were taking a lot of space, so I just sent them to "archive 5". If anyone one wants to debate the same topics again, please restart here. Sparks1979 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Brazilwood (pau brasil) grows mostly along the Atlantic coast and not along the Amazon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilwood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.127.10 ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Brazil-American Relations & Industrialization
Hello, I am a student at University of Toronto and one of my assignments was to make an article for Wikipedia. I chose Brazil-American relations and industrialization on which I wrote about. After writing the article however, I don’t think I posted it properly in congruence with the rest of the section in which I posted my article in: Brazilian Military and Foreign Relations. If anyone can please give me some feedback on the article itself or on the manner in which I can better fit my content, that would be great. Thanks.-- HoriaG ( talk) 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article need of some alterations for a possible Featured Article Nominee. These changes are mainly concentrated in the "Administrative divisions" and "Geography" sections.
In my opinion, this section is too short. Something needs to be changed. We eliminate it or expand it.
This section can be expanded. The section could be divided in two sub-sections: "Regions" and "States". However, regions aren't administrative divisions, them are geographic divisions promoted by the IBGE for statistical ends, as the similarity of the States.
The current text was written of "geographic" form and occults the history of the political division of Brazil, the territorial levels (captainships, provinces, territories, states, cities, neutral cities, districts), the annexation and loss of territorial areas. The different divisions in the Colonial, Imperial and Republican periods, need to be shown.
An introduction showing the general history of the Brazilian territorial politics, and the "Regions" and "States" sub-sections detailing its subjects, would make an excellent section.
In my opnion, this section can be expanded. The content is very reduced and the introduction is minimum, the section needs alterations urgently.
The "Climate" sub-section can be summarized. Average temperatures of the cities aren't so important how much the climatic differences of Brazil. The text could give more emphasis to the diversity, like the wet climate of the Amazonian Forest, the Northeast dry climate, the cold climate of the South… Citations of the registered records temperatures already would be excellent. This would better demonstrate the climate of Brazil.
The "Sports" subsection can be summarized.
Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
I don't understand this last sports vote--are you proposing to replace both with only one?-- Dali-Llama 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This article only has pictures of constructions and politicians. What is this obssession with posting pictures of buildings and other constructions?
Give it up. Opinoso 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose a text change in this: "They have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002." To "Brazilians have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchico ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a
template for use with all
brazilian states. I followed the model used by
Template:Infobox Country. Some pages, like
States of USA,
Provinces and territories of Canada,
States and territories of Australia,
States of Malaysia and all
Regional blocs already use this model. So, I think that will be good if Brazil use to standardize. If the template is missing some information, there is no problem in add.
But,
Felipe C.S prefers use
the model adopt by Portuguese Wikipedia. In his opinion, the appearence is better. —
Guilherme (
t/
c) 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Option 1: Template:Infobox Brazilian State |
Option 2: Template talk:Infobox Brazilian State |
---|---|
{{Infobox Brazilian State |name = São Paulo |image_flag = Bandeira_do_Estado_de_São_Paulo.svg |image_coat = Brasao Estado SaoPaulo Brasil.svg |motto = ''Pro Brasilia Fiant Eximia'' <small>([[Latin language|Latin]])<br />"For Brazil Great Things Are Done"</small> |anthem = Bandeirantes Anthem |image_map = Brazil State SaoPaulo.svg |capital = [[São Paulo]] |latd=3 |latm=52 |latNS=N |longd=11 |longm=31 |longEW=E |largest_city = [[São Paulo]] |demonym = Paulista |leader_name1 = [[José Serra]] |leader_name2 = Alberto Goldman |area = 248.209,426 |area_magnitude = 1 E11 |area_rank = 12th |population_estimate = 41.055.734 |population_estimate_rank = 1st |population_estimate_year = 2006 |population_census = 40,442,795 |population_census_year = 2005 |population_density = 162.93 |population_density_rank = 3th |GDP = R$ 546,607,616 |GDP_rank = 1st |GDP_year = 2004 |GDP_per_capita = R$ 13.725 |GDP_per_capita_rank = 3th |HDI = 0.820 |HDI_rank = 3th |HDI_year = 2000 |abbreviation = BR-SP |time_zone = BRT |utc_offset = -3 |time_zone_DST = BRST |utc_offset_DST = -2 }} |
{{Template talk:Infobox Brazilian State <!----- Header -----> |name = Santa Catarina |image_flag = Bandeira Santa Catarina.svg |image_coat = Blason of Santa Catarina.svg |motto = |anthem = Hino de Santa Catarina |demonym = Catarinense <!----- Localization -----> |map_localization = Brazil State SantaCatarina.svg |map_divisions = SantaCatarina MesoMicroMunicip.svg |region = South |neighboring = [[Paraná (state)|PR]] and [[Rio Grande do Sul|RS]] <!----- Government -----> |capital = [[Florianópolis]] |latd=27 |latm=35 |latNS=S |longd=48 |longm=32 |longEW=W |governor = Luiz Henrique |party = PMDB |vice_governor = Leonel Pavan |vice_party = PSDB <!----- Area -----> |area_total = 95,346,181 |area_rank = 20th |water_pc = <!----- Population -----> |pop_estimate = 5,866,568 |pop_estimate_year = 2005 |pop_estimate_rank = 11th |pop_census = |pop_census_year = |pop_urban = |pop_density = 61,53 |pop_density_rank = 9th <!----- Economy -----> |GDP_total = 70,208 billion |GDP_year = 2004 |GDP_rank = 7th |GDP_per_capita = 12,159 |GDP_per_capita_rank = 5th <!----- HDI -----> |HDI = 0,822 |HDI_year = 2000 |HDI_rank = 2nd |HDI_category = <font color=#009900>high</font> |life_expect = 74,8 |life_expect_rank = 2nd |infant_mort = 15,2 |infant_mort_rank = 2nd |literacy = 95,2 |literacy_rank = 3th <!----- Time zone -----> |time_zone = [[Time in Brazil|BRT]] |utc_offset = -3 |time_zone_DST = [[Time in Brazil|BRST]] |utc_offset_DST = -2 <!----- Additional information -----> |abbreviation = BR-SC |climate = [[Subtropical]] |climate_class = Cfa/Cfb |website = [http://www.sc.gov.br www.sc.gov.br] }} |
Option 1
Option 2
Can't you see NOBODY wants to discuss with you here? Nobody here in interested in your horrible changes in Wikipedia.
Let the article the way it is. You had enough fun here, kid. The article is all done but, as you have nothing else to do here, you spend hours trying to find something to change.
What is your problem, child? Why can't you accept Brazil the way it is? Why do you keep erasing the picture of Ipanema beach in the article Rio de Janeiro and posting a dark image to hide the beach?
What do you have against Brazilian beaches, Black Brazilians, poor people and Brazil's carnival?
Why do you insist in creating a fake Brazil: blond supermodels, cold weather, high-tech cities, rich people??
Why do you try to paint Brazil as a copy of Europe?
I wonder, have you ever been out of your house? You need to travel more, kid. Ask your father to leave you go a little around. Because everybody here is laughing at you and at your non-sense.
All I have to say to you, João Felipe C.S: learn some English and...GIVE IT UP. Opinoso 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I added three more, as I saw a number of countries with a more complete list too, like Nigeria and USA. User Green Giant thought it made it confusing, but he agreed with me in the end. Then Opinoso undid it, giving no reason at all, so I undid his undo (!). I can see that he already did some other mistakes here in his mindless correcting berserk, hehe. Untouchable777, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
According to World Bank's International Comparison Program (ICP 2007), Brazil has already the 6th largest economy (PPP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabalhosgv ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
destroys areas the size of a small country each year
What is a "small country"? Can somebody improve this? -- Taraborn ( talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed some sentences in order to avoid ludicrous POV and the unencyclopedic "that wasn't our fault" and "Portuguese - bad; Brazilian - good (excelent)" feel which characterize this article and other related articles. Pularoid ( talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
is it just on my side or the links for articles with characters like "á" in the name are producing bogus links when clicked? (with what seems to be a random number of characters repeated, usually an upper-case version of the non-english character, but I thikn I've seen different a couple of times)-- TiagoTiago ( talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's too huge an introduction. Check Argentina or Guyana for instance. Janiovj ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.
Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).
If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
See also: Wikipedia:Lead section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhsb ( talk • contribs)
You used Brazil's stereotypes such as "carnival, beaches". I am from Brazil and where I live there are no beaches or carnival.
Stop trying to give stereotypes to a country. By the way, why did you erase the part about social issues? Are you trying to hide Brazil is a violent country with millions of poor people?
Stop this or I will ask some administrator to block you from wikipedia. Opinoso ( talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet it is still huge! Quit changing the subject, people. Janiovj ( talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference for the statement The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Well, there are several studies linking both factors, and it's fairly logical that a mid-income country with such a big amount of poverty must have big economic inequality as well. But enough talking; the most influential and respected studies on the subject are made by Ipea (Economic Applied Research Institute), which published "Desigualdade de Renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente" in 2 volumes. On the first volume, the 10th chapter discusses the importance of the recent drop on inequality rate (gini) to poverty. The title: A Importância da Queda Recente da Desigualdade para a Pobreza Authors: Ricardo Paes de Barros, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, Rosane Mendonça The link: http://www.ipea.gov.br/sites/000/2/livros/desigualdaderendanobrasil/Cap_10_AImportanciaDaQuedaRecente.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently removed a section on Social Issues, but if someone here is against this change, let's open a discussion here. It's widely understood that virtually every country in Latin America have the same issues with crime and social issues one of the main subjects. Nevertheless, only Brazil and Colombia articles contemplate those section on their pages. I struggled to insert a section about crime in Mexico, but it seems that the editors there are more patriotic than the editors of this article...-- Mhsb ( talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the discussion the topic about social issues. The reason why I removed the section, as I had already explained is that this section is tendentious, thus violating NPOV, it's not acurate. I am not proposing to hide social issues on Brazil, but I am proposing to re-edit the section to a more encyclopedic version with neutral point of view. I pasted below the section for further discussion:
Brazil has been unable to reflect its recent economic achievements into social development. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in 2006 the rate of people living below the poverty line based on labour income was of 19.31% of the population [1] — a 33% reduction considering the previous three years. [2]
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy First World socioeconomic standards, [3] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. [4] The level of violence in some large urban centers is comparable to that of a war zone. [5] [6] Analysts generally suggest the alarming social inequality as the major reason behind this problem. Muggings, robberies, kidnappings [7] and gang violence [8] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread. [9] [10] Innefficient public services, [11] [12] [13] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s. [14]
The section has several inconsistencies, several statements are
unreferenced. The topic is about social issues, but it creates a link to crime as well without providing any reference to support that argument. Examples:
Several statements extracted from the text are not supported by references, for instance:
Tendentious argumentation:
And much more I would lik to discuss.-- Mhsb ( talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the user Opinoso didn't understand, literally, anything that I proposed. Let's discuss the section about social issues and them we can move to the introduction arena. I raised several concerns about this section but you did not answer a single one, you just expressed your opnion that this section is a perfect one. Where are the references for your argumentation:
Please Opinoso, respond my concerns and let's discuss this in a civil manner. You a calling the changes I made in the page of vandalism and threatening of blocking me. Please, bear in mind that this violates Wikimedia policies such as Wikipedia:NLT and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please, let's discuss it in a civil manner, be constructive and please, answer my concerns.-- Mhsb ( talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Several statements extracted from the text are not supported by references, for instance:
Tendentious argumentation:
I would like to pinpoint the tendentious arguments of that section, lack of references for some debatable statements and unencyclopedic look of that section. Notice that a section about social issues, we cannot for sure relate "social issues" with "crime", there is no proven relationship between the two and therefore this matter is highly debatable and disputable. I propose a total revision of that section to remove tendentious argumentation, add references to debatable statements and a more encyclopedic view for that section.
-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
References
Social issues section and Introduction
I am addressing to Opinoso because he/she is the first user to object to my recent edits. I think you misunderstood me. You even didn't read the discussion page, I kindly ask you to do so before making false acusations against me. I changed the article but I asked for the opnion of other users, please the page above. I don't think we should include a section on social issues since most of the countries in Latin America don't contemplate that very section. With regard to the size of introduction, I think it's too long, my edits suits the recomendations of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, that I will repeat here:
Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).
If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
See also: Wikipedia:Lead section
So, "by things that it is known for" what I meant is that Brazil is known overseas by its beaches, beautiful women and the carnival. If you have a personal opnion on the matter, you are violating the NPOV and this is not good argument. Please, I am trying to discuss the changes on the article pacifically, don't make false acusations, don't call my edits of vandalism. I kindly ask for your proposals here in the page. Cheers.-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you do an international reaserch to know what Brazil is know for? Where are you researches to say that "country is famous worldwide for its annual carnival celebrations, soccer players, beaches and its abundant wildlife".
Where are you reaserches?
By the way, this is an encyclopedia, and we should avoid stereotypes. We must focus in the truth, not what a country is known for.
Why are you trying to do stereotypes to Brazil such as "beautiful women?". Brazil has no more beautiful women than the rest of the world. Why are you trying to sell this idea? Where is your reaserch saying that Brazilian women are prettier than the other Human being?
I am from Brazil and where I live there are no beaches or carnival. Most Brazilians cities DO NOT have carnival celebrations
Millions of Brazilians live in the interior of the country and do not have any contact with "beaches".
I do not fit in your stereotypes and most Brazilians don't either.
How about "abundant wildlife". Are you talking about Brazil or just a few big towns like São Paulo or Rio?
Millions of Brazilians live in small and quiet towns, where this wildlife style does not fit.
Are you trying to sell the idea that Brazilians do not work and party all day?
Most Brazilians work hard and do not have time to party all day as you are trying to sell. Mhsb, if you don't work, party all day in the beach, play soccer, you are a minority.
Don't try to fit Brazilians in stereotypes.
By the way, why are you erasing the social issues information? Are you trying to hide the bad things of Brazil?
You argue that Latin American articles do not have social issue session. This is not an excuse.
You cannot erase entire sessions here without asking people's opinion.
Stop trying to impose your ideas. Stop giving stereotypes to Brazil.
By the way, if you want to write in Wikipedia, be sure you can write in an acceptable English:
"Brazil is the only portuguese speaking country in Latin America". You must write Portuguese.
It makes me sick to see people trying to sell the idea Brazil is a country where nobody works, everybody party all day naked in a carnival parade.
Most Brazilians don't do this and do not agree with this.
Mhsb, if you do not have the capacity to discern reality from fantasy, should be exempt from writing in Wikipédia.
Opinoso (
talk) 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Again Opinoso is making personal attacks, saying that I do not have the capacity to discern reality from fantasy, a clear violation of Wikipedia Policies. The modification I proposed for the Introduction complies with WikiProject Countries but it seems that you simply negleted my arguments. Please, I ask you again to remain civil! I think that the introduction page is too big and so does the User:Janiovj. I made some proposals to reduce the size of the topic but all you did was to revert my changes and correct my grammar. You didn't understand the meaning of the phrase "abundant wildlife", creating a strange link with "wild life", which has a different meaning. You asked me why am I erasing the social issues information, which evidences the fact you haven't read anything that I proposed. I kindly ask you to make a constructive discussion about the matter. BTW, stop editing my page. Cheers.-- Mhsb ( talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To his credit, when Mhsb said "abundant wildlife", that does not refer to a "wild life style", but to an abundance of plants and animals of many types and species, which I think you would agree that Brazil does have.
On the other hand, I think it was wrong of Mhsb to make significant changes (such as drastically shortening the introduction) without *first* discussing it. Major changes to format and content should not be done without discussion. Bishop^ ( talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is disturbing many articles. In Brazil he is erasing information, including non-sense stuff in the article and creating an edit-war.
Please, somebody stop him. Opinoso (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Some remarks from
User:Opinoso
I will catch that as (correct me if I am wrong):
This contradicts with several references that cleary state that Brazil's population is mostly concentrated alongside the coast. [1] [2]
Can you please indicate where did I say that???
Below are some references to support my arguments that Brazil is famous overseas by its annual carnival celebrations, its beautiful beaches and its wildlife (Flora and Fauna):
Famous Carnival celebrations:
Famous Beaches:
Abundant Wildlife:
Famous soccer players:
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a little problem with the phrase you've used. I never proposed to write to the introduction that "Brazil is famous overseas...", if you scroll up the page you'll notice that I actually wrote:
"Brazil is known overseas...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you had a chance to read the article but the article itself contemplates part of my statements:
Brazil's large area comprises different ecosystems, which together sustain some of the world's greatest biodiversity...
...There is a general consensus that Brazil has the highest number of both terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates of any single country in the world...
(futebol) is the most popular sport in Brazil.[145] The Brazilian national football team (Seleção) is currently ranked second in the world according to the FIFA World Rankings. They have been victorious in the World Cup tournament a record five times, in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002. Basketball, volleyball, auto racing, and martial arts also attract large audiences...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you read the references I posted to support my arguments.... Please, read the references first and make a constructive discussion to the topic. Cheers. -- Mhsb ( talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The article below clearly express my statement about carnival in Brazil:
...In many parts of the world, where Catholic Europeans set up colonies and entered into the slave trade, carnival took root. Brazil, once a Portuguese colony, is famous for its carnival, as is Mardi Gras in Louisiana...
Note that now I am using the word famous...
link: http://www.allahwe.org/aboutus.html
-- Mhsb ( talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! That's why I am discussing it here, otherwise this would be an imposition of ideas right?-- Mhsb ( talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is damn right, it is known overseas for all of that and there's no arguing over it. Carnival is not just a stereotype, but the most representative cultural festival in Brazil. We are also a common tourist destination because of our beaches, and there's no denying most people live close to the coastline. I don't see where's Opinoso trying to get. Janiovj ( talk) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
References
Latin America is one of the subdvisions of the american continent.Every time that i look to this articule i see Brazil is the biggest economy of latin america,the biggest... of latin america. But this is obviously, because it is the biggest country in Latin America , has the biggest population.So why don't put of The Americas instead of Latin America?Because the continent is only one!America.The USA is trying to sepate the things, HAVE YOU EVER SAW THINGS LIKE FRANCE IS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY OF THE LATIN EUROPE?No you hear things like France is the fourth largest economy in Europe. Continents are divided by geographic not language or some other thing.Like south asia , middle east. Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.99.243 ( talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First, "Latin America" is a recognized "grouping" of countries. It is as valid a criterion as geography for specifying a particular group of nations. The term has a great deal of historical weight and current usage, unlike your made-up "Latin Europe". It largely serves to differentiate the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries from "Anglo-America", the places where English is primarily spoken. Even as distinguished a publication as The Economist has a section on their web site for "Latin American Economies".
Please don't create controversy where none exists. Brazil may have the largest population in Latin America, but that doesn't mean it's the biggest of everything. Mexico has a higher GDP per capita, for example. Bishop^ ( talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi... Some people are getting wrong. Saying that most of Brazilian population lives alongside the coast does not mean that they live in coast cities. The statement (correct) means that, considering the dimension of the country, most of Brazilians are concentrated in an area between the coast and an imaginary line we could draw 1000 kilometres inside. This area is less than 50% of the territory, although it is bigger than many countries. But we are comparing areas of a single country.
I can't believe after the amount of effort it took to bring this article down to size, we're adding sections which were removed outright to conform to the GA review. It befuddles me that tables, whole sections have been added when this article has a chronic "stuff-itis" problem--that is, cramming as much information as possible into one article.
Measuring from this edit to the current one, one can see that the text gained 9Kb in prose, and a whopping 220Kb in file size, due to pictures and tables. I'm reverting the article back to Carlosguitar's last edit--before this spat with content, alignment and tables. That's the closest edit I've found that still maintains some modicum of reason regarding size and the GA requirements. The alternative, unfortunately, is to delist this article as a "Good Article". I hope you'll participate in discussing what changes need to be made prior to adding them.-- Dali-Llama ( talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dali-Llama, If we want this article Featured we must follow WP:SIZE and maintain around 85-90Kb. While tables are useful to show information in a organized matter, it is better to use them on sub-articles where there is no problem with WP:SIZE. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference for the statement The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality. Well, there are several studies linking both factors, and it's fairly logical that a mid-income country with such a big amount of poverty must have big economic inequality as well. But enough talking; the most influential and respected studies on the subject are made by Ipea (Economic Applied Research Institute), which published "Desigualdade de Renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente" in 2 volumes. On the first volume, the 10th chapter discusses the importance of the recent drop on inequality rate (gini) to poverty. The title: A Importância da Queda Recente da Desigualdade para a Pobreza Authors: Ricardo Paes de Barros, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, Rosane Mendonça The link: http://www.ipea.gov.br/sites/000/2/livros/desigualdaderendanobrasil/Cap_10_AImportanciaDaQuedaRecente.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you get the information about the percent of water in Brazil is just 0,65%? In other countries they have "more water" than Brazil like Argentina(1,1%) or even Estonia(4,6%), and we know, at least I know(hehe) this is not true. Or, better, someone can explain me what this indice counts? Tks! Leonardomio ( talk) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why has this been not submitted to FAC yet? Looks mighty promising. With very little push this might get through. Anyone hearing this? Aditya( talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This reference,
"The World Factbook: Brazil". Central Intelligence Agency., has a grotesque misinformation about Brazil. In its People section they mention that "estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2007 est.)". This sentence is used in that book for all countries with such a problem. I'm not a health expert, but, that sounds weird for Brazil. I couldn't find another source for that affirmation. There are no mention of such "excess mortality" in
HIV/AIDS in Brazil.
List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate doesn't show death, but give a good idea that HIV/AIDS in Brazil (0.7) is not that far from the United States (0.6).
This report (page 18) also shows that Brazil's numbers are not excessive, not far from the United States' numbers and much smaller than other countries that that book doesn't use that sentence. Even their
own number shows that Brazil's numbers (HIV/AIDS deaths/population 0.000088%) are not so far from the United States (0.000057%), and very far from South Africa (0.0082%).
So, until they fix that, it should be removed because it's not a good reference to readers of this article. --
ClaudioMB (
talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to do some work on standardizing proper name versions and translations, not only for Brasil, but throughout Wikipedia. Focusing on Brasil, the proper and official names should be listed in the Brazilian versions with clear English translations. Even though the article is in English, the country is not. So, even the "common" name for Brasil should be stated as "Brasil". Then, yes, there are official English versions of the names. These should be stated as such along with any reference that makes them so. (For example--to be researched and verified--the US Bureau of Standards specified English versions, the US Congress specified recognized English versions, the Mexican congress specified English versions, etc.)
The actual name of the article, however, can certainly be left in the English common version, "Brazil", because it is an English encyclopedia and the most commonly used version of the name. However, the name should be clearly disambiguated so that any proper spelling leads to--and is validated by--the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 ( talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an English page, so let's just write in English. I don't believe there is a need to write the name of the country in its native language. In Brazil they use the acronym EUA instead of USA. Should we require that they use USA? No, it's their language.
Prizerl (
talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The name of the president should be Luiz Inacio da Silva. "Lula" should be removed. It is a nickname. It'd be like writing William Bill Clinton or Ronald Ron Reagan. It is indeed common to informally write Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (like saying "Bush father" or "Bush son" ) but this is not his real name. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.233.136.118 (
talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not his real name, but it's the name he, as well as the entire rest of the country uses. References to "President Da Silva" sound ridiculous, and I'm not the only brazilian who took a while to notice what the hell people were talking about the first time I read it. The man is President Lula, at best; and I've never heard a single brazilian call him anything other than simply "Lula." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.90.39 ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am bringing that section into the discussion again because I noticed that this section has been under debate for a while. This section has several issues that I would like to address:
According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
which has nothing to do with how the Gini coefficient is calculated. Furthermore, the last sentence should be read: "...a 19.8% reduction from the previous four years."
"...remote upcountry regions that suffer from economic underdevelopment and low standards of living..."
"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards." It should read:
"... constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding standards of living."
Mhsb ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
=> I agree that crime is a social issue itself, however, what I disagree is the way the section is suggesting that the root cause of crime is social inequality. If the article wants to discuss crime issues, my suggestion is that this should be placed in another topic, not under "social issues".
=> I am not denying that all those problems you've listed have been solved. What I am questioning is the statement that there has been no social developments at all as a result of economic achievements because there has been, in fact, some social development landmarks. May be the word "reflect"here is misplaced or the statement lacks reference.
=> Sorry, but this statement is debatable and if you have any reference it would be great to add to it. For instance, Japan's gini index is higher than India, but India is poorer than Japan. If everyone is poor, economic inequality is lower and the country as a whole is poor. Furthermore, this kind of discussion goes well beyond the scope of the section and the article itself.
=> Agreed.
Mhsb ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides Brazil's recent economic achievements, the country faces serious social problems. Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government. The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's
economic inequality. Brazil ranks among the world's highest nations in the
Gini coefficient index of inequality assessment. According to
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population
[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various
favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living. There are also great differences in wealth and welfare between regions. While the Northeast region has the worst
economic indicators nationwide, many cities in the South and Southeast enjoy
First World
socioeconomic standards,
[2] with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.
[3] Muggings, robberies,
kidnappings
[4] and gang violence
[5] are common in the largest cities.
Police brutality and corruption are widespread.
[6]
[7] Innefficient public services,
[8]
[9]
[10] especially those related to security, education and health, severely affect quality of life. Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the
Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800). The social security system is considered unreliable and has been historically submerged in large debts and graft, which have been steadily increasing along the 1990s.
[11]
Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated high at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life. [12]
The rate of poverty is in part attributed to the country's economic inequality.
=> It removes unreferenced and debatable statement.
According to Fundação Getúlio Vargas, in June 2006 the rate of misery based on labour income was of 18.57% of the population[1] — a 19.8% reduction during the previous four years.
=> It keeps the text simple. Don't need to include more statistics on social issues if the first part of the sentence contemplates that.
Poverty in Brazil is most visually represented by the various favelas, slums in the country's metropolitan areas and remote upcountry regions that suffer with economic underdevelopment and below-par standards of living.
=> I believe that the illustrated picture of that section already contemplates that information.
with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. [3] Muggings, robberies, kidnappings[4] and gang violence[5] are common in the largest cities. Police brutality and corruption are widespread.[6][7]
=> It keeps the text simple. There is no need to list all types of crimes in the section. The main section will detail those issues. Furthermore, the section is about social issues, not crime issues.
Minimum wages fail in fulfilling the constitutional requirements set in article 7, IV, regarding living standards. Brazil currently ranks 70th in the Human Development Index list, with a high HDI (0,800).
=> It keeps the section simple. There is no need to cite the article and section of the constitution. HDI index is discussed further ahead.
Besides its discreet growth, Brazil has achieved some improvements in the indicators that composes the HDI, currently rated at 0.800. With the exception of adult illiteracy index, the country's economic growth provided some improvements in the overall quality of life in the recent years.[12]
=> Provides unbalanced information. -- Mhsb ( talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Poverty, urban violence, growing social security debts, inefficient public services, and the low value of the minimum wage are some of the main social issues that currently challenge the Brazilian government.
The topic about social issues begin talking about economic inequality, poverty, then economic inequality between regions, it lists some types of crime, it talks about police brutality and corruption, then inefficient public services, low minimal wage, then about high HDI and finally, the social security system. Structurally, I must agree with you that this section needs organisation. Furthermore, we need to distribute the information avoiding undue weight on some of the issues, such as crime. We need to balance the information in order to comply with WP:NPOV. I agree that crime is a social issue, but we need to avoid undue weight, otherwise we run the risk to talk about another subject instead of social issues. I should list below some Brazilian social issues:
We need to distribute the information along the suggested issues and then we need to balance the information by talking about what has been done or have been achieved to address those issues, even if they haven't solved all the issues. This creates unbalanced opinion and keep the section neutral. Furthermore, we have to make the section short, keeping in mind that the article is about the country and that the article should size below 80K, current size is bearing 100KB. There are still lots of work to bring this article as a feature one and to me, this section is where we have multiple problems, starting with grammar and misspellings.
-- Mhsb ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that "third world" was a phrase that was self-labeled by developing nations during the Cold War between the US (and allies) and the Soviet Union (and allies). The Non-Aligned Nations took up this phrase to proudly indicate that they were unaligned with either side in this conflict. It originated with a French writer (Alfred Sauvy) who declared that the capitalist West was like the nobility (the French "First Estate"), the Communist East was like the clergy (the "Second Estate") and the rest of the world was the common man (the "Third Estate"). It was a term of praise, because in the French Revolution, the common man rose up and overthrew the clergy and nobility to declare a government managed by the masses, and Sauvy believed that the Third World would in time be the real power on Earth. It truly had nothing to do with "better or worse" as a ranking of countries, but was a reference to the French Revolution. Bishop^ ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb, feel free to remove this section. The unreferenced and tendentious argumentation which you brought were added by only one user, without any consensus or discussion, even with your very improved text, it does not fixes issues with undue weight and the section is still unbalanced. The WikiProject Countries also does not recommend a social issue section. As ClaudioMB said some information should be moved to Demographics section linking to Poverty in Brazil and Crime in Brazil with a balanced information about Brazil effort to combat crime and poverty, all the other details will be cited on these articles not here. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Mhsb ( talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Mhsb is the information balanced now or there is still tedious argumentation? I merged some information and balanced with neutrality, it is better, but we can add a better response to crime in Brazil. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So, from my point of view, the section that I removed from this article didn't contemplate 30% of the issues above listed. Therefore, i propose to workout the article Social issues in Brazil before we proceed to include such a section here. Myself and Carlosguitar made some changes in the article but this is a big task and we need help from other editors...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We've always had many debates, discussions, and sometimes even fights in this page. However, in most cases we tried to find democratic solutions to resolve each problem. This time I'm surprised to see there was no "debate". There are three users supporting the "social issues" subsection - Sparks1979, Opinoso and the Dúnadan. That's three people or three votes. Then there are three editors who want to see the social issues subsection removed or revamped: ClaudioMB, Carlosguitar, -- Mhsb. That's clearly a 3x3 score. So far so good - the problem here is that for some reason the opinion of the first three users was completely ignored, and the subsection was removed without much of a debate. Is this how democracy works in Wikipedia? Even if there was a majority either way, it would have to be an overwhelming majority, or else changes should be put on hold until an agreement is reached. Quite frankly, I have a feeling something unfair was carried out over here.
I haven't been very interested in this page since the last big discussion occured some time at the end of last year, when people were fighting over the pictures in the sports section. I think that showed just how difficult it is to work on pages like Brazil or Mexico. People make everything here too personal. Wikipedia is meant to be a place where people have fun and share knowledge, not a fight arena. Why does this page have to be locked constantly? I guess we will never make it to Featured Article - not because the contents aren't good, but because this article will probably never be stable.
I see no problem at all if people want to make changes - that's what Wikipedia is all about. The problem is that changes should be made in a democratic way, and I don't see that happening here, at least not at the moment. Many people support the social issues section. If we look at the archives, we will find several users in the past were complaining about the page not mentioning violence, poverty and other major social problems in Brazil any Brazilian is well aware of. Any major city in Brazil has thousands of people living in favelas, and for some reason a few users think that's something that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I see only one motivation behind this - I think people want to hide dirt under the carpet.
Hey guys, I'm not one of these people that want to destroy the image of Brazil or anything like that. I just think information must be balanced, because that brings it closer to reality. We don't need to talk only about issues in Brazil - but we do need to talk about issues in Brazil. Brazil isn't Angola, but it's not England or USA either. People here got offended because I was talking about Brazil being a "developing" nation... some of you are being too sensitive. Even Brazilian authorities talk about Brazil being a "developing" nation, including our President and our Legislative and Judiciary highest ranking members. Our Geography and History books talk about the "developing" nation we know as Brazil. So what's happening here? Sincerely, I think some people(wether they are Brazilian or foreigners that like Brazil) are almost obsessed with the so-called touristic version of Brazil. I can undertand patriotism etc, but I've seen that harming the article ever since I started reading it almost two years ago. No wonder many good editors were slowly driven away. Some of you hold on to things in Wikipedia as if they were the most important thing of your lives or something. Guys, editing Wikipedia is only a way for us to spend our free time.
I see Carlosguitar constantly saying I added information without references, when each bit of information I added was based on sources such as BBC World, Amnesty International and studies carried out by Fundação Getúlio Vargas. I didn't invent expressions such as "war zone" - they came directly from the sources I mentioned. I think it's quite clear I'm not wrong in this case.
If you guys could take some time to review this posture, maybe we can get back on track with Brazil. I no longer have much time to edit Wikipedia, I'm mainly only a reader now. Albeit I know this may make some people happy - lol - until I have time to come back as an editor, I will keep to myself knowing I made good contributions to Wikipedia and helped with several improvements.
I've given up on this article since the sport section picture fight last year, when I noticed how people easily make things personal and are unwilling to let go of their own opinions even on the smallest little things such as a picture. I prefer to work on pages with few editors, where users don't stab each other over each suggestion someone makes.
Good luck to you guys. I will be back if I have the time and if people remember Wikipedia is a hobby, not a fight arena. Sparks1979 ( talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Reply to Bishop. First off, no one is talking about authority, and please do not put words in my mouth saying that I am the "final authority", for someone that wants a productive discussion, this is very unproductive. Second the only problem that I see in the current revision of article is with size, you have not explained what is wrong with current revision nor how a social issues section will improve this article or even how to reduce this article, it is your fault if you are understanding that putting all controversial aspects into a single section is inappropriate. Third, I have not misunderstand what consensus is, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other problems are fixed in the current revision, again what is wrong with current revision outside of its size? Fourth, it is strange that you only talking about a Social issues section, why do not you talk about a social improvements section? I am following the policies and guidelines, by the way WP:WPC does not recommend a social issues section. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with what Carlosguitar has been saying over here is not his opinion per se, but the fact he has been constantly disregarding other opinions and points of view, by claiming they are supposedly invalid and not adjusted to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in his own point of view of course).
1) There is no consensus over here. Many people have debated the contents of this section in the past, many defending it whilst others disputed it. The debate has always been a valid one, but a consensus was never reached. Now Carlosguitar is trying to artificially declare there is a “consensus” when it’s crystal clear there isn’t one. Several editors have defended the inclusion of the “social issues section”, and it has been a part of this article for many years. It has also always been under intense discussions. That means there’s no consensus. Actually, WP:Consensus does not clearly define what a “consensus” is, so it looks like Carlosguitar is exploring this small loophole in the rules to pass his own idea of a so-called "consensus" when we’re very far from one in Brazil. How can we talk about a consensus when there are at least 3 users defending the inclusion of the “social issues” subsection in the current discussion (myself, Opinoso and the Dúnadan) not to mention many others in past discussions? By the way, I had a quick look at the talkpage archives and apparently some material has mysteriously disappeared.
2) If I understood him correctly, Carlosguitar claims there’s a consensus because people who defend his view (the “no social issues” view) are allegedly basing their arguments on “Wikipedia policies and guidelines”, whereas all the other people are not - thus, according to him, the later shouldn't be listened to. I ask you Carlosguitar, who are you to ultimately determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t? Can’t you see this is also a debatable issue itself? I myself think you haven’t been following certain guidelines – I think you’ve been authoritative with your arguments, for instance. So who is to say who is following “policies and guidelines”? I’m sorry, but you don’t have the right to decide and determine who is following a guideline and who isn’t - you can have an opinion about it like everyone else, but that's it. An administrator should always be helping people and finding peaceful solutions to problems - an administrator should never be igniting quarrels by presuming bad-faith from editors who solely want to defend their points of view.
3) Carlosguitar has put forth authoritative arguments by saying whoever wants to “edit Brazil adding a social issues subsection without basing their criteria on policies and guidelines will be considered disruptive”. I have a feeling that could mean, “I may block whoever dares to add the social issues section into Brazil again, because I’m the one who determines if policies and guidelines were being followed or not”. Note Carlosguitar has also unilaterally declared “we will not have a social issues subsection”. I personally find it difficult to consider this the best stance an administrator should have on the matter. At the very least, if an administrator has involved himself in a debate, he should summon one or more neutral administrators (that is, not an administrator that's his fellow friend of course) to help appease the matters. Obviously it's a bit hard for an administrator to make a fair decision when he is one of the parties involved in whatever is going on.
4) Carlosguitar claims the section had no references, when in fact it had several hard sources such as BBC World and Amnesty International for crime and violence, FGV for the social security problems, etc. People can check an old version and see this for themselves. This also means there was no "original research".
5) Carlosguitar claims the social issues subsection violates “NPOV”, but he has never explained why – until now… he thinks we can’t have a “social issues” section without a “social developments” section. What he fails to understand is that the word “issues” is not necessarily a synonym of the word “problems” – “issues”, in this context, means “aspects” or “matters” – they are highlights of a certain topic, important things that should be mentioned. That being said, in a “social issues” subsection you can talk about negative and positive sides of social stuff related to Brazil.
6) “Social issues” are a complex topic, but so are “Law”, “Economy” and “Government”. If we can make a synthesis of “Law”, “Economy” and “Government” in two or three paragraphs, why can’t we make a synthesis of “Social issues”, expanding its details in a subpage?
7) Size is not the only problem in “Brazil”. Stability is also a great problem. Note this page has been “protected” for many months and there are endless debates filling the talk page.
8) I never opposed a revision of the subsection – in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about – editors trying to improve things. What I can’t agree with is the exclusion of relevant information. So we can talk about football but there’s no room in the article to mention social inequality in Brazil, which happens to be one of the largest in the world?
Sparks1979 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[ [9]]
WikiProject Countries do not specify such section. If "social issues" is not included under the main Project why should we include in here? I don't understand why you insist in creating such a section under the article of a country. I would recommend you to focus your energy in the main article about social issues in Brazil: Social issues in Brazil. I didn't see your name under the contribution list, so I quite don't understand what you want to achieve here...
-- Mhsb ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)