Talk:Brazil/Archive1

History?
I'm actually the most curious about this one, as I know where the Slovenan history section came from, The history section is very thrilling, but why do we have such a long (18k) section on the history of the country? and what can be kept from it as we really dont need most of it on RW.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  06:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got tired reading this article, but was I more informed by it? Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 17:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Churrascaria" vs. "Rodízio"
Right in the beginning of the text, there was a confusion between "churrascaria", which, in Portuguese, means "steakhouse", and "rodízio", which is a style of restaurant service that is offered in many establishments in Brazil. That service consists in the customer paying a certain fee when he/she comes in the restaurant, and getting to eat as much as he/she can, as waiters keep serving food from table to table. Usually, the drinks are not included, and are ordered and charged separately. That is common in steakhouses ("churrascarias", which are specialized in "churrasco" - "barbecue"), but also in restaurants that serve sushi, temaki, and pizza. Not every steakhouse offer that service, and, in any case, costumers can order specific dishes, and pay only for that. Observation: I'm Brazilian.
 * Since this article is completely off topic and should be deleted, I doubt anyone really cares.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's got your panties in a twist tonight? My favorite BBQ a block or two from my house is run by a nice mineira and her brother. Every summer I try to get her to make some salpicao, but it never happens. Guess I need to make it myself again Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It gives a history of Brazil's dictatorship. That's not "completely off topic." Why do you care if you're waiting for RW to die? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is 21 paragraphs long. Four of them are about the Vargas era or the military dictatorship. This is an article about Brazil that mentions the dictatorship. And I'm quite sure that if someone deleted the off topic content (ie, over 80% of the article) I would find it reverted and myself blocked for a long period of time. This is not an article about the Brazilian dictatorship, it's an article about Brazil's history that has nothing to do with the site's mission.--Token Conservative (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you care if you're waiting for RW to die? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the "fail to respond" method of dealing with people pointing out your obvious failings. --Token Conservative (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Geographical Reference
I eliminated then following:

It is also the only country in South America, and in the entire Western Hemisphere (if we choose to ignore Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and fucking Portugal), that speaks Portuguese.

This is because one of those countries are in the Western Hemisphere. Naiant (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

2016's Coup
The current text about the "impeachment" of Dilma is extremely biased towards the innocent idea that there are superior laws that dictates what's a due process (there was and there is, still, today) intense debate discussing if an impeachment is a legal or political decision. In the case it's legal, it was a Coup d'etat, because nothing was proved against her. In the case it was political, then, it doesn't make much difference to call it impeachment or Coup -- this is why normally people who are not her supporters but are fighting for democracy (like I think I am) normally prefer the term Coup. Moreover, it's furthermore biased towards the idea that the supreme court is neutral, when some of them are publicly posting their political opinions online.

If the previous writer doesn't show up to defend the text, I will move that section to the Conservopedia, and rewrite it, accordingly the way I think it should be written. Ribamar (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am trying to edit, but it's now blocke. I don't know if the reason was because of an unclosed tag, but I suspect it was the contents, since more edits were reverted. In the comments I see "unproductive edits". My text wasn't perfect, but then productive is to let an outdated page with a biased view? Maybe my comments were biased as well, so please help me improving it, but simply removing without discussion sounds like the same censorship in conservopedia that stimulated the creation of rationalwiki. Here are the contents I am trying to add:

In 2010, they elected their first female president, Dilma Rousseff (PT or "Workers' Party"). In May 2016, A coup d'Etat, counting with the help of the local press Greenwald, Glenn, and Dau, Erick. "Brazil’s Largest Newspaper Commits Major Journalistic Fraud to Boost Interim President Temer". July 19, 2016. The Intercept. replaced her by Michael Temer. At the moment, members of the parliament, and public PT opponents in general, said that she was being removed for illegal fiscal manouvres, and so called it an impeachment. An audit finished when she was already removed from the power did not find Dilma guilty of any fiscal manipulation, but even so she was not reestablished, nor further explanations were given to the population. In 2018, Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva, the president who preceded Dilma Rouseff, also from the PT ("Workers Party"), who left the power with 87% of popular approval, was convicted of a corruption in a completely flawed trial https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BsSkXPLZltZBe3dnNsmMJZyoanfxPwy7/view "Moro's fallacies" by Euclides Mance, in portuguese. He was sentenced 12 years in jail. PT supporters affirm vividly that it's all a part of a political plan, since older crimes from opponents. PT opponents affirms vividly that he is corrupt. The dialog between the parts are perishing as times goes. One fact-checker tried to ask the source of certain data published in a video by MBL ("Free Brazil Movement"), the most prominent local right wing group and PT opponent since the coup of 2016. The group refused, and published a public answer stating that fact-checking was "invented by the left wing, after they had massive losses, not only in Brazil, but all around the world" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smtOL4GTuSo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m24s.

On PT's Disparaging Claims of Brazil's Elite
Full disclosure: I do not receive funding from the Brazilian Worker's Party (PT), nor am I a supporter. (In fact, I very much dislike them.) I'm just a typical Brazilian (and US) citizen who tries to understand the world around him from an objective lens as much as possible.

Whoever said that PT's claims that right and center parties don't like poor people is bullshit either has a biased view of Brazilian history and current events or is totally ignorant of the subjects thereof. While it's true that such claims might be a bit of an exaggeration, they are not that far-fetched. Brazil is still a very racist and classist country. There's a scholarly consensus that Brazil is the racial democracy that it once claimed to be. (TOW has a I highly recommend it to begin your research.) Further, president-elect Jair Bolsonaro has stated that a) he doesn't understand economics; b) despite 1), he still wants to privatize everything; and hence, 2) has threatened Brazil's current existing welfare state. Anyone who has paid a visit to Brazil knows just how stark income inequality is there, and there is a general disdain for the poor and dark-skinned (which strongly correlate) there, also. To be fair, if PT got everything else wrong, they at least (in part) got this part right.

To sum it all up: I'm removing the link to the article on bullshit. Please do some research before writing about something that you don't know. I understand that this article has largely been neglected (it's outdated and contains too many unsourced statements), and that it has a long history of factual inaccuracies, but still... that's not a sufficient excuse. I expected better from a site whose fundraiser says it plays an important role in defending truth and objectivity. G Man (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What I've heard from totally, unambiguously biased leftist american sources bears out what you're saying here. I won't fight that change if you want to make it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)