Talk:Brazil–China relations

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GClark1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

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

I have therefore removed this section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• With reference to the new source, the information is either (i) not contained in this source or (ii) a WP:COPYVIO cut-and-paste of this source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (The current timeline in the article appears to be merely the unsourced material previously in the article, combined with a verbatim replication of the cited source's timeline. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) )

Developments on Brazil-China relations

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

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

Your 'reincorporation' is in violation of WP:COPYVIO being a copy-and-paste of the cited source. Please cease and desist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To Hrafn. I will paraphrase the information in the timeline, could you please contribute in stead of making anoying remarks? I'm open for discussion but stop being autoritarian, I don't think you contribute in a constructive way.JanHop (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To JanHop: I might stop being "autoritarian" [sic] if you stopped violating core policies without having to be told over and over. You were told that this was WP:COPYVIO back on 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, what do you think of the latest contribution, in exchange you leave the timeline? Best, JanJanHop (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

I propose to change the name of the article, for the full name of Brazil is Federative Republic of Brazil, and by stateing one short name and one full name in the title of the document, inequality might be assumed. Proposed title: Brazil - China relations. And refference to the full names of both countries in the introduction. JanHop (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree to renaming to Brazil – China relations, per WP:TITLE principle 'Conciseness', with full names of both given in the Lede. The only substantive rival for the label 'China' is Republic of China/Taiwan -- which is ubiquitously known as the latter, so does not add any real confusion.
• Also agree. Guess we can make a request in the uncontroversal section of Wikipedia:Requested moves unless anyone objects in the next couple of days. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: just thought to take a look at Category:Bilateral relations of the People's Republic of China. <squirms> What a mess! Majority of articles appear to be "People's Republic of China", the majority of subcats "China". No consistency in either however. I have a bad feeling that we may be about to open a can of worms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose renaming this particular article and leaving the rest of the PR China articles. We use "United States - Fooian relations" not "American". We use "United Kingdom" not "British". I think this needs a much larger discussion before changing the format.--TM 13:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Source

Interested in Sino-Brazilian relations? Jiang Shiuxue has written an excellent article on the historical relations of China with Brazil and vice versa available at http://blog.china.com.cn/jiangshixue/art/915285.html JanHop (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.brasil.gov.br/para/press/files/fact-sheet-brazil-china-trade/at_download/file. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NortyNort (Holla) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • • That's a clear story, I would like to make adaptations when I have more time available. JanHop (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil–China relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130024328/http://www.cebc.org.br/sites/500/521/00001316.pdf to http://www.cebc.org.br/sites/500/521/00001316.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)