Talk:Brazil/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Recent imagespam

A few days ago, this article was flooded with images of questionable relevance. The Economy section was hit especially hard, resulting in a continuous column of images on both sides of the text. The editor responsible for this added text as well, some of which might have value, as far as I can see, but I'm not sure. I think it would be good if someone takes a look at these additions and decides what should be removed and what, if any, should be kept. Lennart97 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed many of these unnecessary images that squeezed the text, per MOS:SANDWICH. Some editors don't understand that adding too many images to an article adversely affects its readability. Carlstak (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action, Carlstak! Lennart97 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To handle photos of an article, the ideal is to understand the article well. Unfortunately you just went out taking the pictures without any criteria. There are photos that are more representative of Brazil's economy than the ones you left. Clearly, you don't understand the subject and went out of your way to do anything purely, just to "keep the rule". OK, I understand that there is a rule that wants us to AVOID putting too many pictures. It's not mandatory to only have photos on one side of the page. I don't agree that it makes it difficult to read anything, and I even consider it an outdated rule, from the time when people had a bad internet and bad computers, today nobody has a problem uploading many photos. You should review this rule. I will put the most REPRESENTATIVE photos of the Brazilian economy, based on the country's exports. And try to stop altering the article in an indiscriminate and unaware way. Prunexor (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are dissatisfied with the guidance in places like MOS:SANDWICH, it has a Talk page, on which you can certainly register your disagreement. You could even try editing the guidance yourself, but this is one of those situations where you might want to try the Talk page first.

Personally, as someone who is not an expert on Brazil, when I come to this article, it's usually to look something up. Pictures do not help me and often just get in the way. OK, the mountain at Rio de Janeiro is famous, so is Iguazu falls, but all the rest ... what is this, a tourist brochure? Or, the photos of a military airplane, a military rocket launcher, an aircraft carrier -- is this an encyclopedia article or a military recruiting brochure? I realize that when I visit other Wikipedia articles about countries or big cities, some of them are almost as excessive as Brazil, but wouldn't it be nice if this article would set a good example rather than a bad example. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is already quite image-heavy, which is distracting. For an primary importance article about a country, photos should be of good quality and composition, or not included at all. Fbergo (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there are haters from the country with the sole intention of leaving the article visually poor and without representative photos. Prunexor (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This garbage photo has no place in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#/media/File:Perdigao.jpg Fbergo (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is an encyclopedic article, not a touristic brochure and definetely not your particular website. Fbergo (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I know everything about the country's economy, I'm putting sources. Go sleep. You're nervous because I'm putting reliable data. Prunexor (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox demographics

@Ciro Lyndo: Sorry, I don't quite understand your change to the demographics in the infobox. The footnotes are very helpful as they immediately tell the reader what ethnicities are included in which groups. Just for example, Arab Brazilians being included in White Brazilians; many readers would be interested to know this but would not click on White Brazilians as they probably assume that White simply means European, and thus they'd never find out. That's exactly why the footnotes are so convenient. It's similarly informative to immediately see which variants of multiracial people are included in that category. I'm totally fine with changing "Mixed" to "Multiracial" and "Asian" to "East Asian", but why do you want to get rid of the helpful footnotes so badly? Lennart97 (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because i'm Brazilian. In Brazil, these words "mulatto", "caboclo", and "cafuzo/zambo" are soooo racists. Nobody uses these words here. "Mulatto" is like the N word for the Americans. Arabs and Jews are really white here, but Romanis i'm not sure. Ciro Lyndo (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. It was very helpful! But, please do not use the phrase "fix a typo" when you are doing something quite different from fixing a typo. Thanks again! Bruce leverett (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ciro Lyndo: Thanks. I can understand that you find these terms to be racist, but they are apparently still widely used for racial classifications in Brazil. Just see the Demographics section of this article (which the infobox merely summarises) or Race and ethnicity in Brazil. Their use is supported by large numbers of reliable sources. Removing those terms from the infobox doesn't change anything and as long as they are widely used in the rest of the article and other articles, it is helpful to use them in the infobox, too. Ultimately, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say; you being Brazilian, even though these things are obviously important to you, does not give you any kind of authority to change things like this if the sources don't back those changes up. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS might be a helpful read in this regard. Lennart97 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at United States, I see that the Demographics section doesn't even have a subsection about Race and Ethnicity, and the infobox doesn't have words that would be considered ethnic slurs (I think). I don't think this is because of difference between the United States and Brazil. Certainly I know that race and ethnicity are much discussed, and often used for classification, here in the United States. Instead, I think the difference in the approaches taken by the articles reflects on the biases of English-language Wiki editors such as ourselves, and perhaps also the biases of the authors of the English-language sources that we use. My advice would be, if you want this part of the infobox to look better, first take a look at the Demographics section, and think about whether there is a way to improve it. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

While not a subsection, the US demographics section definitely describes race and ethnicity. As for your suggestion: I don't "want this part of the infobox to look better"; I want it to look the same as it has looked for a long time (that is, accurately reflecting the Demographics section), until it was changed on no other basis than "I'm Brazilian and these terms are racist". It's on Ciro Lyndo to support these changes with reliable sources. Just for example: not even the Portuguese Wikipedia article on "mulatto" mentions anything about the term being considered controversial or racist in Brazil, let alone equivalent to the N-word; it merely states that it's not commonly used by Brazilians. That doesn't suggest to me that Ciro Lyndo's view is necessarily such a widely held one.

Anyway, my main point remains that the infobox merely summarises the article and is no place to right great (perceived) wrongs. If there's a consensus for the Demographics section to be significantly changed, then the infobox will obviously follow. Lennart97 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Mulatto" isn't a category in Brazilian census. This word means a person mixed between White and Black. But, in Brazil, White people can have African descent; and Black people can have European descent. Brazilian census only counts color, not race or ethnicy. East Asians are counted by "yellow" in Brazilian census, not as "asiáticos" (Portuguese word for Asians). https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulato#Pol%C3%AAmica%20quanto%20ao%20uso. The word "Mulatto" is considered racist by Black people and new generations in Brazil, cause "mula" means "horse" in Portuguese Ciro Lyndo (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the article does mention that some consider the term racist, I missed that part; but it also clearly states, right after, that this is not universal. This is, however, still unrelated to your change to the infobox (this change in case that was unclear to anyone following this discussion). The Race and ethnicity subsection of the Demographics section states: The brown population (officially called pardo in Portuguese, also colloquially moreno)[2 refs] is a broad category that includes caboclos (assimilated Amerindians in general, and descendants of Whites and Natives), mulatos (descendants of primarily Whites and Afro-Brazilians) and cafuzos (descendants of Afro-Brazilians and Natives).[5 refs] There is no reason why the infobox should not reflect this information. Lennart97 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Mulato, cafuzo and mameluco are technical terms in Brazil. The racist term for black people in Brazil is "crioulo". This user Cyro Lindo is lying, do a sock puppet check because he may be one of the typical partial Brazilians who try to misrepresent the article here. Unfortunately, we have radical socialist users coming here all the time trying to say that everything is racist, which is a childish and ridiculous argument. 2804:14D:5C8F:832B:8C12:9C86:A97:2CB0 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am brazilian and confirm that mulato, cafuzo and mameluco are common terms, and are not racist slurs. They refer white/black, black/indigenous and white/indigenous ethnic mixes, respectively. The usage of these terms has become less common in the past 2 decades as ethnic miscegenation is quite common and many people do not identify themselves strictly with these dual ethnicity denominations. Fbergo (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

should article mention that current (post-junta) state is the "sixth republic"?

I am not sure how due this would be in the article; if virtually no one refers to it this way, the article should not give the false idea that this title in use, when in reality it isn't. HOWEVER, since there are pages about and references to on various pages the First and Fourth Brazilian Republics, it may be worth mentioning here that the current one is the sixth, and if this is a label next to nobody uses, could mention in the same sentence that it isn't in wide use. the Brazilian legislature apparently uses the designation, at least foret of describing the post-1989 state. What do other editors think? Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What did vandals did to thir article?

This article is extremelly awful since someone made edits changing images and adding other images for no reason, not to mention the clear political bias. Omg... how did people let this happen to this article which was great before? 168.181.62.234 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary era

The last paragraph of the Contemporary era section should be revised as all it does is duplicate content from the preceding paragraphs, except in a POV tone. It's almost completely dedicated to the scandals from the PT-era and uses sources that are unreliable (such as the Mises Institute) or that simply don't support the claims made (this article, for example, which supposedly supports the claim with Lula and Dilma openly supporting [...] the Chinese Communist Party doesn't even mention Lula or Dilma.) But even without the POV/sourcing problems, this topic is simply already covered.

This paragraph, instead, should be about the Bolsonaro era, starting in 2018, which is where the previous paragraph ended. As User:Allninemice's attempt to correct this was reverted by User:Prunexor, maybe we can reach a consensus here as to what the paragraph should cover. Lennart97 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with this section, the problem is when some users appear, who are clearly Marxist radical socialists wanting to hide the country's political shift to the right that has occurred (which is historically important), wanting to hide that one of the main reasons for the Dilma Rousseff's impeachment was the attempt to lead the country to socialism, and they still put irrelevant things in the article, such as opinion polls, which change at every moment and have no historical representativeness regarding the impact of the president on the country as a whole. Prunexor (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're not a troll, I hope you at least realise that labelling other users as "clearly Marxist radical socialists" certainly makes you look like one. Do let me know if you have anything serious to contribute. Lennart97 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand: but there are users who are partial and enter this article (and several others) to do "historical rewriting", wanting to hide notorious and relevant facts. It is well known that several ultra-communists, ultra-rightists, ultra-religious, radical Muslims etc. have come here trying to shape articles in their image. I hope you don't think that all Wikipedia users are neat, nice and come here with great intentions, if that were so, there would be no need to have people to block anyone, right? So, I didn't think the Chronus edition was bad. The edition that I undid was terrible. Prunexor (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware of POV-pushers, and pushing a POV is exactly what the paragraph you restored did. You certainly come across as more politically biased than the average editor here, so you might want to reconsider just declaring everyone who disagrees with you to be ultra-communists or whatever other insult. The paragraph you deleted was definitely not "terrible" and, at the very least, perfectly neutral. But anyway, if you're fine with the current version (i.e. no paragraph on post-2018 history), that's fine with me, too; it's not really history yet, anyway. Lennart97 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lennart97, I think that Prunexor's edits were mostly conflicting with Munmula, so it would be best to include them in this as well. All I was here to do originally was fix one of the cited URLs. ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware. However, you did do a lot more than just fixing a URL, so you still might want to clarify that you're not a "Marxist radical socialist", unless of course you do identify as such :). Lennart97 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not a "radical" socialist ;). On a more serious note, I make my best effort to have my edits be as neutral as possible. I don't think I've done any major work on this article, but I could be forgetting. ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

72.136.23.5 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

do you done go to brazil ?????

No edit requested, closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Amarela

In our (Brazilian government) sources for ethnic data, "amarela" (yellow) is used to describe persons of East Asian descent. An editor has modified our text to use "yellow" instead of "Asian", but this can be expected to be confusing for English-speaking readers.

I would suggest using "East Asian", but adding a footnote explaining that the sources use "amarela" (yellow). Bruce leverett (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: - I put the term there because I read the census source and the categories provided. I don't see any guideline or policy prohibiting the page from saying, for example: "1.09% Yellow (East Asian)" or "1.09% East Asian {Yellow)", etc in the "Ethnic Groups" section with a footnote explaining Brazil's census term "amarela/yellow". I understand that on English-language Wikipedia, people maybe confused or disagree with the usage of the term, as referring to people of East Asian background as "yellow" is considered outdated/offensive in the Anglophone world. But, the article is about Brazil, and I'd like to point out that the term "coloured" is also considered outdated and or offensive in English-speaking countries.[1][2] Actor Benedict Cumberbatch issued an apology several years ago after using the term,[3][4] yet the South Africa page still uses the term "coloureds", as does the page made for the term. For the time being, and given what the term refers to and your suggestion, I have changed it to say "East Asian" with a footnote explaining Brazil's census and other groups excluded from this term. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a general problem of "translating" other countries' euphemisms into English euphemisms, and I suppose that Brazil and South Africa are only the tip of the iceberg. I also agree that, in the case of Brazil and perhaps others, our use of "Black" in annotating demographic data has some of the same problems as using "Yellow". I don't know if there are any guidelines in WP: or MOS: that would help with this. Thanks for making a start on the problems. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Coloured" is specific ethnic term for which there is no alternative term in English. Meanwhile Asian or East Asian can be easily used to refer to "Yellow" people.Bundestag1 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The item "Mains electricity" has to be updated to 220 V, 60 Hz and 127 V, 60 Hz.

Reference: https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/plug-voltage-by-country/brazil/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgranadobr (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ASTROS 2020 SS60 rocket.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Justice system

Maybe the article should tell about the Justice system or Courts in Brazil.
(I looked for that topic, because another article is suggesting that a something very important happened in Brazil history, sp that now, if one has "an active lawyer representing them or not, [... one is] allowed to file court cases electronically so long as [... one has] a Brazilian certificate. The request was filed with the National Justice Council (CNJ), the regulatory body of all Courts of Justice in Brazil". 89.8.150.205 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The environment section has obvious political bias.

The remarks about the difference in native vegetation cover between Brazil and Europe are points constantly repeated by President Jair Bolsonaro to defend his destructive environmental policies against European demands, as well as the fact the section does not mention the spike in deforestation during the current administration. 201.82.129.215 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The information regarding historical vegetation cover is true and supported by reliable sources, cited in the article. Yes, it makes European countries look very hypocritical when they make any demands about preservation on foreign sovereign territory when they never cared to enforce preservation on their own land. You are upset because truth does not support your political choices. You have a problem, not the article. Fbergo (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs of the section Brazil#Biodiversity and Environment can best be understood in the context of the arguments about exploitation versus preservation. But this article doesn't introduce those arguments. So these paragraphs are out of place; one might even say mysterious. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Informal Request for Comment re adding graphic re loss of tropical primary forest

Home to much of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil's tropical primary (old-growth) forest loss greatly exceeds that of other countries.

In the "Biodiversity and environment" section, a couple of editors have repeatedly deleted the graphic at right, without sound reasoning or without any expressed reasoning at all. I think it properly belongs there because it shows quantitatively how much forest is lost. To avoid edit warring, please say include or exclude below, to achieve consensus. Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
P.S. The most recent editor transferred the caption text to the narrative text, but deleted the graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this saying they lost 15 hectares in one year? Moxy- 11:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: No, the chart indicates the country lost almost 1.6 million hectares in one year (over 6,000 square miles). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Overall I think the graphic should stay, but I'm going to play devils advocate here. The problem with "facts" is that there are so many to choose from, and so many ways to arrange them. We owe a strong critique even to things we agree with.

• The graphic does an excellent job of answering the question where is rainforest loss occurring, but does a terrible job of conveying which countries have the most (or least) effective environmental policies, for the simple reason that it's not scaled to be proportionate either to the total land area, or to the current forested area. That's why it's a easy target for accusations of political bias even when we think we're being even-handed.
• This graphic should sit alongside the paragraph about deforestation that starts By 2013, Brazil's "dramatic policy-driven reduction in Amazon Basin deforestation" (and incidentally, where's the citation for that quote? Even without the scare quotes, words like "dramatically" don't sound like NPOV.)

Martin Kealey (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Brazil's tropical primary (old-growth) forest loss greatly exceeds that of other countries (compare rectangular areas), though its percentage loss is about the median among the ten countries with the greatest loss.

Good points, @Martin Kealey: I think the textual caption helps to put these issues in context: even considering the scaling that you mention (large forest area to begin with), the chart+caption together convey the importance of large-forest-area countries in determining overall forest loss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that "overall forest loss" is only marginally relevant in an article about a specific country. If you believe that the comparison is truly necessary then you must also make the scaling effect pellucidly clear: Because Brazil has the largest remaining area of wilderness rainforest, it is also the country suffering the greatest rate of loss of rainforest. Martin Kealey (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Martin Kealey: You have inspired me to make a "variwide" bar chart representing both the percent lost (vertical axis) and the raw area lost (areas of rectangles). I will add this graphic to the article unless there is contrary discussion here. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

@RCraig09 Excellent idea; the heights give a fairer comparison of the (in)effectiveness of government controls, while the area shows the global impact. Martin Kealey (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The article's infobox seems to conflate ethnic groups with traditional racial classifications. It has two references, the first one is a table from a census. The table refers to raça (race) and not ethnicity. The second source is the CIA factbook. The CIA factbook lists races as ethnic groups for many countries, yet there is a rationale provided for this equivalence. CIA appears to be projecting US-based ethnic-racial equivalences into other countries. This amounts to a US-centric point of view, which is not allowed to be presented as a "simple fact" by Wikipedia policy. The CIA factbook has yet another problem which is that it does not appear to list the origin of its information; did the CIA held a US-like racial-ethnic census in Brazil or is it using the information of other sources without acknowledging them? Dentren | ^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the requirements for the infobox I think that the numbers are fine. I wouldn't disagree with the percentages they give based off what I've seen here in Brazil. I also think that the Brazilian census numbers help us avoid the issue of this being US centric in its outlook. I think there's probably a reasonable discussion that could be had about what race and ethnicity mean in the Portuguese speaking world and Brazil in particular because you are right that it can be much different than in the US for instance, but that's far beyond the scope of the infobox. 2804:14C:8781:8673:D868:C01F:7744:404B (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Brazilian source numbers do not refer to ethnic groups but to racial ones. It is the CIA that appears to pick those numbers (they are identical) and presents them as ethnic groups. No rationale for the source or racial group to ethnic group conversion is done. The infobox and Wikipedia as a whole should present information as much as possible in a Worldwide perspective. I don't see how CIA´s racialized views could be in line with this. Plus, racial classifications are themselves often questionable. Dentren | ^Talk 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's simply false to use the term "Ethnicity" to refer to what in Brazil is called "color of skin". Declaring a "color of skin" in Brazil has no ethnical meaning, since most families have people of different phenotypes, therefore different people from the same family most often declare themselves varying between black, white and pardo. The expression "Ethnic group" should be removed. I don't think it's possible to find any written source referring to Brazillian "white", "black" and "pardo" populations as ethnic groups.

What is being called "Ethnic group" is actually a self-declaration of "phenotype", and literally called "cor de pele" - color of skin. Although putting this kind of chart in emphasis in an article is definitely a sensitive matter in Brazil, it's not recommended, while the information should be treated with more delicacy and better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.175.160 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think many of these "ethnic group" sections for country infoboxes seem to conflate "race" with "ethnicity" because there is no official parameter for "race" in the template. As mentioned, Brazil's census does not list ethnic groups. It specifically states "race" or "colour" (Cor ou raça).[5] For example, "East Asian" isn't an ethnic category in the Brazilian census, rather their racial/colour classification would be "Amarela" (Yellow in English). But that would include various ethnic groups like the Japanese. And so on for the other categories. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Forest loss

@RCraig09 and Chronus: It is important that this dispute be resolved in the talk page, rather than in an edit war.

The treatment of deforestation in this article should, I assume, be a summary of Deforestation in Brazil. Of the two illustrations we are discussing, one also appears in Deforestation in Brazil, the other does not.

This paragraph:

By 2013, Brazil's "dramatic policy-driven reduction in Amazon Basin deforestation" was a "global exception in terms of forest change", according to scientific journal Science. From 2003 to 2011, compared to all other countries in the world, Brazil had the "largest decline in annual forest loss", as indicated in the study using high-resolution satellite maps showing global forest cover changes.

doesn't have anything more recent than 2013. Isn't that a problem? Is there a neutral way of including more recent developments in the discussion of deforestation? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett Regardless of whether the text needs to be updated or not, there is no reason to keep two graphics on the same topic in a section that already contains two other images. That's the point. Chronus (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: @Chronus: I appreciate the principle against edit warring, but I thought that my two captions—respectively starting with "Annually..." and "Cumulatively..."—show the two graphics to not be duplicative. Together the two graphics convey the brief discussion in my edit comment: "One is ANNUAL forest loss, the other is CUMULATIVE forest loss. It takes TWO graphics to convey that Brazil forest loss WAS worst, and CONTINUES to be worst." This substantive reason supersedes the formal, stylistic guidelines in Chronus' vague reference to MOS:IMAGES. There is no set limit to the number of images per section, especially when, as here, a section has just been broken into two sections. . . . . On a different issue, the two graphics I added are from very recent references, compared to the references you (Bruce) mention above which are almost a decade old. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Omission of information and pictures about African, Indigenous and non-white groups

There is an omission of relevant information and pictures about the contribution of african and indigenous traditions for the brazilian culture, in music, national holidays, history, religion such as, for instance, topics about quilombos, yoruba language in Brazil, pictures of capoeira, maculele, beliefs in orixas, important and relevant historical figures such as Zumbi dos Palmares, indigenous tribes, food, religion, clothes etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.45.5 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It has enough information. Photo of feijoada, of Machado de Assis who is black, text about ethnic groups, etc. There is already text about this on other pages about Brazil as well (it doesn't have to be all on the country page).2804:214:8168:8A38:C21:2B81:A620:B685 (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with OP 216.165.95.144 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Change the economic data back to 2022

Please return the economic data in the infobox to 2022, there is no rating yet for 2023, so this edit is not relevant Qplb191 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

In the second round of the 2022 elections, former President Lula was elected for the third time with the support of 50.9% of the electorate, in the closest election in history, while Bolsonaro became the first Brazilian president to not being able to be re-elected after redemocratization. 4nG3L0fTh3 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Comment directed to @Chronus:: Seems your latest edit changed some date formats away from the hatnote indication they should be in DMY format. I'll change of subset of them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ceyockey Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't realize I did that. Thanks for the alert and help. Chronus (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus: there were only 3 or 4 that I revised. I didn't change the access-date or archive-date formats, only date ones. The page is auto-changing the display to MDY, so I left alone those that are in a kind of grey area; the date itself of a source is the primary focus of the MDY hatnote, not necessarily the supporting dates like archive and access. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Maternal mortality error

Maternal mortality rate is listed as 73 per 1000, this should be 73 per 100,000 I think. 198.255.227.54 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Change the translation of the Brazilian denonym from "Brasileira/e/o" to "Brasileira/o" - the gender neutral pronoum is not recognized by any formal governing body of the Portuguese language or by the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, therefore, as of today, it is nothing more than a political term, not in the agreement with Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality. Erikwmd (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You will need to provide a reliable source to support that change. The reliable source will need to state what the Brazilian demonym officially is, and not just how the language works. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

the source is the brazilian portuguese vocabulary itself.no book uses "brasileire" or anything with "e" to sinalize neutral terms. it's either "a" or "o". Coolguygamer25 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Your word on this isn't a source. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no "brasileire". This is invention of a very small minority trying to change the language by force, and they are trying to use Wikipedia to prove their point.177.133.154.244 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

Change brasileira/e/o to brasileira/o, the "e" is not used in the portuguese denomination rules. (there's no gender neutral in brazilian portuguese) Coolguygamer25 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the user that included it that should provide a source that such denonym is used, not the other way around. Torimem (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Torimem is right. You are reverting the onus by asking proof that something isn't. You should ask a source to prove that something is. Per WP:BURDEN. —Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Teles: I asked them to establish a consensus after I saw OuroborosCobra's comment (suggesting a content dispute). Whether the content in question is sourced or not is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant, per WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. The issue I have is that an editor comes along proposing a change to the demonym without providing any sources for their change. We don't take the word of random editors on what is or isn't rules of a language to establish what a demonym is or isn't. We rely on reliably sources for such changes, and thus far, not a single source has been provided to support this change. We are supposed to just take the word of one editor on how the Portuguese language works. Beyond the obvious issues of violating WP:OR, this assumes that the language is spoken exactly the same way across the globe. It isn't. Just as Mexican Spanish isn't identical to that spoken in Spain, there are several Portuguese dialects, including the distinct European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. Now, I'm no expert on this language, but the closest to a source we've been given is the claim "Portuguese doesn't work this way." Well, which one? European? Brazilian? I don't know, and we shouldn't be determining the demonym through original research. We need to be looking to reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems you people are miss understanding the whole ordeal here, portuguese doesnt work that way there's no "E" in the end of any gender or non-gendered words "Now, I'm no expert on this language," well, I'am brazilian, I see protuguese on a daily basis, I talk protuguese on a daily basis you people want to see "proof" that portuguese doesn't work that way. but are proactively protecting something you have no knowledge or either the capacity to search if it's right or wrong on a wikipedia page of a country with 216 million civilians. how can i be so rude and say that you should "provide proof to something" why i need to proof portuguese-brazilian demonym dont work that way but the other way had the capacity to add those facutal misinformations here with no problems at all? do i have to write several reasons "E" never was used in the portuguese vocabulary to begin with?

brasileire is used only by people and companies wrongfully since it is not the official brazillian portuguese rules

if sources are needed https://www.portugues.com.br/ and https://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/significado/brasileiro/1432/

if you need any more proof here's one with "A" that can be used in both genders https://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/egoísta/

you can go search there any other word, and see there's no "e" in non gendered words, it's either "a" or "o"

there's basically no english source i can cite sorry. good luck. Coolguygamer25 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no "brasileire". This is invention of a very small minority trying to change the language by force, and they are trying to use Wikipedia to prove their point.177.133.154.244 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Not only brasileire is not a real word in portuguese, there is no reason for non-English demonyms in country infoboxes in the English wikipedia. It is borderline ridiculous that this wasn't fixed right away. Fbergo (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brazil Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

51.37.31.122 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Brazil has won the most (fifa world cups) Whit 5.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 10:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ed assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samknn (article contribs). — Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 census, official population data

The 2022 official census population data carried out by IBGE is out and it should replace the CIA World Factbook figure currently in the article, which is just an estimate. Torimem (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes the population of Brazil is only 203,062,512 according to census and it's overly stated in this article.https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-census-shows-population-growth-its-slowest-since-1872-2023-06-28/ 223.123.90.70 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

The population of Brazil is only 203,062,512 according to 2022 census and it's overly stated in this article. Kindly change it. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-census-shows-population-growth-its-slowest-since-1872-2023-06-28/ Nutnate (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Brazil's population is now 203,062,512 according to the 2022 census, and the GDP per Capita is more than 10k now.

. Semduvidas1 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Mixed" category in racial data

The IBGE, which is the Brazilian government's institution responsible for the census and other surveys, divides the population into 5 races: branco (white), amarelo (yellow/Asian), indígena (indigenous), preto (black) and pardo (roughly translated as brown). While "pardo" does by definition include people derived from various racial origins, racial mixing per se is in the blood of the vast majority of Brazilians, and therefore those considered solely white or solely black are likely to be mixed as well. Instead, "pardo" has been mainly used throughout history to define black people with "lighter skin", in what is considered by many academics (such as Darcy Ribeiro and Sueli Carneiro) as an effect of widespread unconscious assimilationist (rather than segregationist) racism, which makes the idea of blackness to be undesirable. Knowing this, institutions usually include both "preto" and "pardo" in a broader "negro" category, since the social identity and sociological role of both groups is barely different. (https://www.uol.com.br/universa/reportagens-especiais/quase-brancos-quase-pretos/) (https://inteligencia.insightnet.com.br/pretos-pardos-uma-breve-historia-das-classificacoes-raciais-movimentos-negros-e-institucionalizacao-simbolica-no-brasil/).

"Negro" does also translate to black, and therefore I know it's hard to put this concisely into the page, but "mixed", while correct, doesn't show the broader picture of its meaning in Brazilian society. All of this to say it would be very informative if there could only be a footnote even if it is just to mention the junction of both groups in the "negro" category. Thanks! 2804:7F3:868E:5BAD:20C0:4F22:D86C:4B0A (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yellow or "Amarela" does not equal all Asians. Nor were all peoples native to "Asia" classified as one unified "race". "Yellow" or "Amarela" only equals ethnic East Asians or East Asians who would be considered "racially" Yellow (i.e - Mongoloid for outdated terminology). West Asians, largely the Lebanese and Syrians in Brazil are considered among the largest Asian ethnic groups in Brazil.[6] descendentes e os asiáticos – japoneses, chineses, coreanos, libaneses, sírios, entre outros In Brazil, they are typically considered "white" and Asian. And some East Asian immigrants themselves are "white", if that means European ethnicity. Russians are one of China's 55 minority peoples, and some Chinese who immigrated to Brazil were Chinese of Russian descent.[7] and the third one is the resettlement of the Russians from China during the 1950s. Furthermore, some people in Macau are also of Portuguese ethnic/national origin, some of whom may have also came to Brazil during the waves of Chinese immigrants to the country.[8] Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)