Talk:Brazil

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.

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)