Talk:Brazil/Archive 7

in Brazilan-Portuguese, Brasil is pronounced /bɾaˈziw/

Les pido que lo cambien. Lhes peço que o mudem. Vi chiedo di cambiarlo.

I ask to them they change that it.

I don't speak english. I'm sorry.

--Aramaicus (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the following paragraph has been vandalized and presents extremely biased and somewhat offensive views:

"Brazilian Portuguese has had its own development, influenced by the Amerindian and African languages.[130] Due to this, the language is somewhat different from that spoken in Portugal and other Portuguese-speaking countries, mainly for phonological and orthographic differences. These differences are somewhat greater than those of American and British English.[130] Portugal may have to recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil, its former colony; it is considering reforming its own language to accommodate linguistic developments in the Brazilian Portuguese since the two languages diverged. [131]"

Here are the main issues: - [130] offers no evidence whatsoever the differences between pt_PT and pt_BR are greater than those between en_EN and en_US. - "recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil" -- ???. This is nothing more obviously than article vandalization. - "it is considering reforming its own language to accommodate linguistic developments in the Brazilian Portuguese" -- There is no "own language", the language is called Portuguese, what there is consists of an orthographic reform set to be adopted by all Portuguese speaking countries, elaborated by ALL those countries. (There will be changes in both pt_PT and pt_BR orthographies).

I would propose reverting that paragraph to some previous version that offers a better script.

--janjokela 20:15, 24 June 2008 (GMT)

Your observations seems to be right. I support reverting that paragraph and see if the author of the latest version has something to say.--ClaudioMB (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree and I too support reverting the paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliOGrande (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! This line "recognize the inevitable by bowing to the economic and cultural supremacy of Brazil" is taken from a tendentious article published by The Independent, they obviously do not speak Portuguese and make distorted and unverified asserts, also making arguably unfitting comparisons of our case to their american-british feud. Infinito (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good time to start considering work towards FA status. Check out the criteria here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article's references (or sources) need to be improved using Wikipedia:Citation templates. Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Introduction → needs a cleanup, reduction of text, and credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• History
  • Origins → needs a cleanup and more credible references.
  • Colonization → needs a cleanup, reduction of text, and more credible references.
  • Empire → needs a cleanup, reduction of text, and more credible references.
  • Republic → needs a cleanup, reduction of text, and more credible references.
• Government and politics → needs a cleanup, small expand of text, and additional references.
  • Law → needs a cleanup, more links, and additional references.
  • Foreign relations and the military → needs a cleanup, small reduction of text, and more credible references.
• Subdivisions → needs to be rewritten and much more references, credible.
  • Regions → needs to be rewritten and much more references, credible.
  • States → needs to be rewritten and much more references, credible.
• Geography needs a cleanup, small expand of text, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Climate → needs a cleanup, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wildlife → needs a cleanup, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Economy → needs a cleanup, small expand of text, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Energy policy → needs to be rewritten, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Science and technology → needs a cleanup, and more credible references.
• Demographics needs a cleanup, small reduction of text, and more references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Education and health → needs a cleanup, more links, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Language → needs a cleanup, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Culture needs a cleanup, medium expasion of text, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Religion → needs to be rewritten, updated, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sport → needs a cleanup, and more credible references.  Done Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The new gini coefficient for brazil is 50,5 . You guys need to change the article, becouse it's showing it like 55.9 . the font is here: http://economia.uol.com.br/ultnot/bbc/2008/06/23/ult2283u1279.jhtm ! Update it please! Quiclky! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.124.204 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazil currently hold the titles of the World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Championship and the World Cup, as well as the gold medal at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Brazil is the #1 team on the FIVB World Rankings. Joevicentini (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Volleyball has been one of the most successful sports in Brazil. Please, enter the text here for discussion before adding in the article.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of Course Volleyball is the second sport in Brazil! You dont say it. The text puts Volleyball after Basketball, a sport that is not so popular here in Brazil! Actually F1 is more popular than Basketball too!

I believe the FIFA ranking is not very important and changes very often. The most important is FIFA World Cup titles that are already there. So, the text about it could be removed to give space to other more important things about sports.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence.--ClaudioMB (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I read this article and it says that Portuguese is the only official language of Brazil, but if I'm not mistaken, Nheengatu, an indigenous language of the South America has gained a co-official status in the city of São Gabriel da Cachoeira in the year 2003, so should it be mentioned in the article? I've also found an article in the New York Times that mentions about it too. Kotakkasut (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a co-official language of a city doesn't warrant status of official for an entire country. Spanish is co-official in Miami, FL (US), and Spanish is co-official in a border town in Gabon, but they do not have any recognized or official status country wide. Kman543210 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on that, but if you see the United States article, in the Demographics > Language section, it does mention that Spanish can be legally used in New Mexico, but in this article, not a single sentence about Nheengatu can be traced, so should I add it up into this article? Kotakkasut (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning it as a co-official language might go too far, however a mention in the "Language" sub-section seems logical. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it in the language sub-section, but just make sure its entry is relative to its prominence. In other words, if only a very small percentage of the entire country speaks it, then it would not warrant an entire paragraph but a brief mention. Spanish is probably a different situation in the United States, as it is spoken by a large minority due to a constant influx of immigration from Spanish-speaking countries as well as parts of the U.S. formerly being under Spanish/Mexican control. With the exception of Puerto Rico (with U.S. commonwealth status), Spanish is not official in any state, but the law does give allowance for it's use in both New Mexico and California (I think).Kman543210 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments guys :) I will put up a sentence about Nheengatu in the Demographics > Language section, feel free to correct it if I made any mistakes alright. Kotakkasut (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riograndense Republic that could really do with input from experts and contributors to Brazil-related articles. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Encarta" :
  • "People and Society". Encarta. MSN. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
  • "Ethnic Groups". Encarta. MSN. Retrieved 2008-06-10.

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider further investigations regarding the title of first Brazilian University.

The article says it was the University of Paraná, in 1912. I found some references showing University of Amazonas as the first one in 1909

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidade_do_Amazonas

There is also an important mention to the Medicine College of Bahia, founded in 1808, as the first College/Faculty.

Lskbr (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)lskbr

I've been using Wikipedia to compare GDP figures for several nations. I noticed that in the portion of Brazil's info box to the right of the screen pertaining to GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal), the figures are given using a comma instead of a period; i.e., USD 1,804 (trillion). Using a comma in this circumstance implies 1 quadrillion, 804 trillion dollars. I have looked up the following other countries in comparision: United States of America, France, Italy, Russia, China, India, Japan, Canada, United Kingdom. The GDP info for all of these countries is shown using a period, not a comma.

Krystoffer 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The date audit revealed a mess of US and international date formats. I made all of them international format, since that appears to be the preferred format according to MOSNUM (although there's current debate about this). If editors here want US format, please buzz me and I can easily switch them. Links in edit summary. diff. Tony (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that information about Brazilian territories should be moved to a separated article since there is no territory today in Brazil.

The article should provide only actual and abridged information about Brazil.

I will move them if nobody opposes.

--Quissamã (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use this notorious phrase that is associated with racism? I would have replaced it but for this page being protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.152 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the section on the interesting etymology of the name Brazil? For decades it was taught that Brazil came from brazilwood and brazilwood came from Portuguese "brasa" (ember) (hence the spelling change from Brazil to Brasil in Portuguese) but it is well established noew that the name came from the old Irish legend of the Island of Hy-Brazil. This should be added, since all articles must contain at least links to the etymology of the title word.

Mopcwiki (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not "well" established in Brazil. Cite your source before claim something. Leonardomio (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of links to the etymology of Brazil on the Portuguese page.Mopcwiki (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an Etymology section but someone deleted it. Why?

Mopcwiki (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I´d like to point out a miswritten phrase in the sub-topic "Foreign relations and the military". In "Brazil is sought to be a political and economic leader in Latin America,(...)" the use of the past tense of the verb "seek" (sought) lacks sense in comparison with the rest of the phrase. I suppose the original meaning was: "Brazil is thought to be a political and economic leader in Latin America,(...)". Please someone correct it.

Marcusvrs (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it could also mean that "Brazil seeks to be a political and economic leader." I guess that would depend on whether it is already considered one in Latin America. Kman543210 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two wrong statements in the "Climate" section: 1) the semiarid climate always has rainfalls below 1,000mm, but not exactly below 800mm, which is what happens in most of that region, but not in some areas of mild semiarid climate that are quite numerous - besides, IT doesn't fall in two or three months (Encarta is wrong, I'm sorry), but MOST OF IT fall in a period of three to five months, mostly between January and May; 2) The Southern subtropical climate doesn't have average temperatures below 16ºC, which is what happens in cities like Curitiba and others which are in highlands - so, the average temperatura is actually below 18ºC, but it's below 16ºC only in higher altitudes. I hope these two statements are corrected soon, because it makes one believe the semiarid climate is actually much more irregular and arid than it is and that the subtropical climate is colder than it is in average. 189.13.30.6 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done for 2, but not for 1. I made a little research about it, and for the brazilian semiarid climate the rainfalls was generally below 800 mm as show here and here(in portuguese), at Embrapa meteorological station in Bahia and Pernambuco. So, I only changed to "generally receives". Leonardomio (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- - -

That's right. "Generally receives" will make it, though I must reinforce that we here have many subtypes of Semi-Arid climate, so that in higher lands or in the Semi-Arid coast there is a subtype called "mild semi-arid climate" which may have rainfalls as high as 1,000mm. That's what happens in many parts of Ceará. What remains typical of the Brazilian semi-arid is the irregular distribution of the rainfalls.

I only ask you something more: please, change the number of months in which most of the rainfalls occur. It's simply not true. The rainy season in the Sertão Nordestino happens in 3 to 5 months, mostly from January to May, though it is MOST INTENSE in 2 or 3 months (in general, March and April).189.13.30.6 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} "Nowadys" should be "nowadays."

Interesting - I thought "Nowadays" was slang or at least informal, but apparently we can trace it back to 1325 (according to Dictionary.com)

Urbushey (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done It was an incorrect usage of the word, so I changed it to "modern-day".--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has 3 pictures of President Lula. That's a lot. On the other hand, the article has a single picture of the city of Rio de Janeiro. Actually, not of the city, but of the Statue of Jesus Christ the Redeemer... It seems big fans of Lula have been posting his pictures everywhere. I think we should just remove 1 or 2. Opinoso (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaced too dark Itaipu image (invisible in thumbnail) with a better one. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article need organization, and I propose a standard number of sub-sections (4) for each section. This will significantly increase the size of the article, but will include important issues in the text that are hidden. Each sub-section would have only one image. The "History" section already has 4, the "Economy" has 5 ("Transportation" could be eliminated), and will determine the other sub-sections to be added in the other sections. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 04:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sections you want to add!? Leonardomio (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From User Franz weber: I provided a link to the e-books of the Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales, which provides many high-quality e-books with relevance to Brazilian and general Latin American research. High-quality titles include studies on MERCOSUR, Argentine-Brazlian relations, the EU and Latin America and what have you. To simply remove the link with reference against spam protection might in the end amount to nothing more and nothing less than Northern hemisphere censorship against Southern hemisphere good and serious scholarship in the traditions of Raul Prebisch and Celso Furtado. It was removed, may I ask here why?

Here again is the link, judge for yourself:

http://www.caei.com.ar/es/irebooks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence: "first most biodiverse" is redundant; should be "most biodiverse". It does read better to have instead: "Brazil is considered to be [ref. 13] the most biodiverse country in the world."Roboso (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Duque de Caxias should be spelled out in the list of Largest Cities. It is spelled out in the 2nd footnote, but there is no reason to abbreviate it n the main list. There is plenty of space left and "D." will not be understood as an abbreviation for Duque by the typical reader.Roboso (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned up a large number of wikilinks that I think are unneeded and really clutter up the article. Do we really need to link "Latin America" every time it appears? Once is enough. And especially linking every instance of things like "corn" and "fire" and "fishing". There's still some cleanup that can be done, but I have to go to lunch.Bishop^ (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the following statement is correct: "ranging from equatorial rainforests in the north and semiarid deserts in the northeast, to temperate coniferous forests in the south and tropical savannas in central Brazil." The semiarid vegetation in Brazil is unique in the world, because it is in fact a savanna, characterized by a significantly denser vegetation than in other semiarid biomes. So, one can't say "semiarid deserts", because in fact the only desert-like areas in Brazil are rather the result of disasters caused by excessive agriculture and bad use of the land's resources, but never a natural landscape. Caatinga, which is our semiarid vegetation, I insist, is a semiarid savanna, which varies from a low and sparse vegetation to forests of trees adapted to dry periods.189.13.6.77 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the geography section,

   {{km to mi|8511965|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}, include {{km to mi|55455|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}

should probably read

   {{sq km to sq mi|8511965|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}, including {{sq km to sq mi|55455|abbrev=yes|precision=0}}

The value that currently results for the "mi" is especially unfortunate.

I say "probaby" because I cannot find a definition of the Wikipedia unit-conversion template, so I don't know for sure that "sq mi" and "sq km" will work.

And -- the server will not allow me to edit the page, even though I'm a logged-in user. I don't how I can acquire the ability to edit a semi-protected page; the Wikipedia edit header for this page says, enigmatically, that I'll be able to that "after a while".

And -- the numbers here disagree slightly with the numbers given on the "Geography of Brazil" page. But they do match up with geography-source referenced by this page (the CIA Factbook), so they probably be left alone for now.

Garry

Sqzx (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, well spotted - I've corrected the template (it's {{km2 to mi2}} in fact) and the conversion numbers look much more reasonable. As for the discrepancy in the numbers - I agree with leaving it for now, as long as it matches a reliable source that's provided, it's not a problem. Thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking up topics of Brazil for a project, but I needed some conflict information. I know that not everything is Happy-Go-Lucky on countries like these. More information on a high-traffic article please! K50 Dude the Great^{Talk to me!}_{Look at me!}

Countries like these? What is the criteria you're looking for? Try going to a forum on the internet. --Pinnecco (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant populated and well-known.

I think this is a good time again to start considering work towards FA status. For this, we need to rewrite the section "Subdivisions" and the subsections "Regions", "States" and "Science and technology". We could put two subjects in the same subsection, for example:

We need also to review all the sections, update and improve text and references. Check out the criteria here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article's references (or sources) need to be improved using Wikipedia:Citation templates. Time to start thinking about FA status… we got work to do, fellow editors! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently struggling to maintain its GA listing, never mind FAC. See Talk:Brazil/GA1, referred to above. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My eyes jumped out at the phrase "Brazil's booming economy is shifting into overdrive, with biofuels and deep-water oil providing energy independence and the government collecting enough cash to irrigate the desert and pave highways across the Amazon Rainforest," previously in the "Economy" section. I was impressed at how many incorrect and misleading statements could be gathered in one single phrase. Although substantiated by a broken link to a Yahoo! News/Associated Press article, the phrase was so blatantly delirious to any Brazilian or to anyone who is familiar with the country that I couldn't help but delete it. None of those statements resists serious verification with other sources:

• Even before the current worldwide economic crisis, there were no economic indicators showing that Brazilian economy was "booming" in a dramatic, steady and stable manner as the East Asian economies, for example, although it was indeed in a favorable growth phase when the referenced article was published (April 2008). I also think that "overdrive" is too vulgar, emotional and judgmental for an encyclopedic article (unless it was about motors, of course).

• Biofuels are a big promise in theoretical terms, given the country's size, tropical location (meaning lots of sun, where the energy in biofuels ultimately comes from, and the possibility of several crops a year), and agricultural potential, but are far from having a consistent policy and even the most successful of such programs, the ethanol fuel program, is plagued by problems and far from being a mainstay of Brazilian economy (even though it is so for some areas of the country, most notably sugarcane-growing areas of São Paulo state and the southeast).

• Deep-water oil production has been steadily growing and has given Brazil net self-sufficiency - meaning that the oil has low quality (it is too heavy and bituminous for the most part) and has to be traded for better oil in international markets. So, Brazil would still be in a bad situation without access to foreign oil. I believe this hardly qualifies as "energy independence." Additionally, the alleged monster reserves in very deep ("pre-salt") seabed deposits, announced with fanfare in 2008 as if they would turn Brazil into a new Saudi Arabia, have become an embarrassment as falling oil prices made their prospection economically unfeasible (the extraction would be too expensive and demand technology that is not even fully developed yet).

• I am not going to even scratch the surface of tax collection in Brazil, but as for "irrigating the desert," Brazil does have semi-arid areas in the Northeast, as well as other areas subject to occasional droughts, but there are no true deserts in Brazil to be irrigated. Even a large project of irrigating Northeastern lands with waters from the São Francisco River has met considerable opposition, particularly for environmental reasons, and has not taken off yet.

• There are no current plans to pave or even build highways in the Amazon rainforest after that proved to be a colossal fiasco at the time of the military regime, in the 1970s. The one possible exception is the BR-319 highway between Manaus and Porto Velho, which has been the subject of talks for its recovery and paving, but little action has been taken so far, and this is far from being a consistent plan, policy or trend for transportation in the Amazon region, where boats and planes still rule.

If anyone feels that any of the deleted phrase's statements is correct, or that the mere reference to a single (and obviously misinformed and flawed) press article justified the phrase's presence here, feel free to revert my change and reinstate it, but I would love if more reliable references could be added and that almost propaganda-like tone could be lessened. --UrsoBR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be interesting to add in the "History" section that, simultaneously with the exploration of the gold and diamond mines, there was a massive immigration from Portugal to Brazil, and also a huge increase in the number of Africans brought to the colony. The Brazilian colonial population is estimated to have risen from 300,000 to about 3,000,000 from 1700 to 1800, what is an incredible population growth. In a book I've read there was also a comment from a officer from the Portuguese Crown who mentioned that, if the immigration continued in such an intense way, Portugal would be "empty" in some years.189.13.24.51 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Subject/headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.85.187 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Geography

Wrong: The highest point in Brazil is the Pico da Neblina at 3,014 metres (9,890 ft)

Right: The highest point in Brazil is the Pico da Neblina at 2,994 metres (9,822 ft)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_da_Neblina http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=8700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.20.209 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request the exclusion of a commentary made in the image "Boa viagem.jpg" in the topic Demographics by claiming it is unverifiable. The phrase: "Recife, the most important metropolitan region of the Northeast" does not follow any criteria of objectivity as the city clearly does not represent the biggest, wealthiest or most cultural important metropolitan region of the Northeast.

Furthermore, I fundamentaly object to the existance of the image "Boa viagem.jpg" as it is not representative of the topic Demographics. The picture does comply a usefull role, by judging how enlightening can a picture of a beach and some buildings be in face of the great mixture of races that exists in Brazil.

--Marcusvrs (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marcusvrs. The sentence "Recife, ..." is not objective and probably not correct. Also, the different ethic groups of Brazil are unique in the world and it will suites much better than a beach and buildings.--ClaudioMB (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Recife is for sure a very important city in Brazil, but the idea of representing the whole northeast and its state capitals with Recife only doesn't sound accurate or fair. If we are to make compliments on northeast's states' capitals, we shouldn't focus only in Recife but expand it to all of the other states' capitals and try to be less emphatic in one place only. Denisxavier (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed → Boa Viagem beach in Recife. Much of Brazil's population is concentrated across the coastline. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The current infobox of this section, wich represents the largest cities of the country, can be quite misleading for those not used to the subdivion system of the country, since the information contained in this box refers to the population of the main municipality only, not to the whole of the urban area wich contains it. The figures for the urban area of São Paulo, for instance, are twofold that of the municipality of São Paulo, displayed here. I don't think there is any other country page in this encyclopedia wich works this way and I advise you to look around for any precedent. I strongly suggest this infobox to be replaced by another one, wich shows the actual figure for what really matters, i.e., the population of the urban sprawl itself, not only the jurisdiction of the main city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.107.52.242 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the population of 44,150,249 for São Paulo is not correct (even for São Paulo Metro area). --Celso Pinheiro (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems that the data for Sao Paulo refers to the population of the metropolitan region (so the population of Guarulhos, for instance, is double-counted) whereas for all other cities, the data is that of the municipality itself. What a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.82.60.148 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The brazilian population is not 196,342,592 as the article says... The Official Brazilian Population clock says its 191,120,592 as you can see: http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

That error must be affecting the percapita GDP too, it must be higher... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.36.248.236 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pico da Neblina is 2.994 m high, not 3.014 m as is stated in Geography section. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_da_Neblina is clearly proven that 2.994 m is correct. I already corrected it but was reversed ... why is unclear to me. Now Brazil page is locked. How can i correct that out-of-date fact? 77.38.44.85 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

add an article

o brasil e um pais de todos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.59.55 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the cash crop of Brazil and can someone put it on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.76.102 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the second paragraph it's written that Brazil was a Portuguese Colony from 1500 to 1822.

However, in 1808 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) became the capital of the Portuguese Empire, making it, at least de facto, not a colony. Later, in 1815, Brazil was no longer a colony, not even de jure as the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves was established. I guess that this period, even beeing short, is very important to Brazil's History and can not be ignored.

So, Brazil was not a colony at the time of it's independence, but part of a country (the United Kingdom of...) that had it's capital in Brazil. That's important to say, as it makes Brazilian Independence very peculiar among the other American countries ones. Oli1944 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The timezones mentioned in the info sidebar should be fixed to fit the new official timezones, defined by federal law since June 2008. UTC-5 doesn't exist anymore within Brazil, so both official timezones and daylight saving timezones spread only from UTC-4 to UTC-2.

Krystoffer 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The state of Acre does not belong to UTC-5 anymore (since last year); it is now UTC-4. Thus, Brazil spans now only three time zones.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo.scampos (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)