Talk:Human rights in Brazil

message: The usage of the word "sad" in the following sentence is ambiguous and open to interpretation, and also opinionated in wording.
"Brazil has a sad record of domestic violence, both against children and women."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.70.120 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the sentence involving the word "sad"

message: Well, this article do not cite it´s sources. Wikipedia is not a research facility. Only verifiable information can be part of an article. This article do not cite sources. Many things it states are correct from the point of view of a Brazillian, and also from international Human Rights institutions, but none of it seems encyclopaedic. For example, it´s widely known that Brazillian racism is more tied to poverty than skin color, but the racism part tells the contrary. It´s article is in desperate need of attention because material without sources should be deleted. The Carandiru Massacre is blamed as a huge human rights violation, and so Human Rights institutions will try to get the "blamed" convicted resorting to any means. The first judgment was a complete act to get the media satisfied. Even a terrorist is allowed a proper, impartial judgement. The Police men involved were judged by public opinion rather than by an impartial judge and juri. Human Rights should be protecting them from this kind of violation too!!! That´s only to show that this is controvertial matter and wikipedia should never state that one thing is like X when it can be interpreted as both X, Y, Z... Regards Loudenvier 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks sources 

message: this article is 99% negative about Brazil and not sourced.  It presents the country like some hellhole with no redeeming virtues.Courtney Akins 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I bet you don´t live in Brazil. I don't either. And I bet we have no idea about you´re talking about: we must SEE with your eyes and FEEL in your skin what is live here, people. Gestapo´s agents were fine persons compared to Policias Militares in Brazil. They EXECUTE people in the middle of street, in daylight, with several witnesses lookin at. And then they threaten the witnesses too.
On last months, on the so-called PCC attacks, more 400 hundred INNOCENT PEOPLE were killed by Policias Militares e Policia Civil in Sao Paulo. Most of then were people backing home after a working day. No criminal files on then, no nothing. Some of then were killed with more 10 shoots. On the back of neck, or in the head. Execution, see?
On a single day, you can be stopped by two or three blocades from Policia Militar. They humilliate you. They ask for money. They do everything to make your life a hell. I know that because I live here, pal, and not in a favela; I live in Sao Paulo city, in a good neighborhood, I´m white, well educated and I have a good job.
And yes, they are even worse with black people. Black people don´t have rights in Brazil. And it´s not a problem of poverty, they mistreat equally healthy or poor black people. Policias Militares assume that if, you´re black, you are a criminal. 
And if you want sources, just ask me, or to other brazilians, and to hundreds of human rights defenders living in Brazil. We will send you testimonials, affidavits, video footage and everything you want. Just ask me.
And no, Brazil isn´t a hellhole. From hell you can be redeemed by Almighty God, but sometimes we think God can´t do that in Brazil.
: Hi. I do live in Brazil and it's not that hell you are talking about. I live in Rio de Janeiro, so I know what is going on here. You tell about 400 inoccent people killed... where did you took those figures? Black people doesn't have human rights here? What the hell are you talking about? You were comparing PM with Gestapo... I really think you do not know what you are talking about. You take the incidents and say they are the rules everywhere around here. You're plainly wrong. Maybe you are one of those that think the MST are the heroes of modern day society. Or, perhaps, you're just scared of living in a developing country, with all the problems attached to it. Sometimes I got revolted with things as they are here... but, overall, I really think it's better to live here than in the xenophobic USA for example, where you would be forever discriminated just by being from latin america. You've painted Brazil as the worst place in the world. You do not place yourself in the shoes of the Policiais Militares... A hell of a salary to risk your life, without the correct instruction, training and equipment. You tell your life is a hell, I tell you the life of a PM is what I would actually call a HELL. It's you that doesn't seems to know what you are talking about. Regards. Loudenvier 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''I LIVE IN BRAZIL''' 

message: But this does not make you an expert on Brazil.
This article -must- be sourced — I don't care if your great great grandfather was a Brazilian, or if you live in São Paulo or Rio or Recife — you're not an expert and you cannot portray yourself as such.  Find sources.
And some of the wording in this article needs to be changed.  For example, the government "taking land that is rightfully their (the indigenous people's)".  Encyclopaedias do not establish moral limits — they report on facts and, perhaps, opposing viewpoints.  They do not take stands unless they can logically be supported by fact. 71.235.66.254 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitution in Brazil is clear on indigenous rights and squatters rights. The statement you oppose is actually a correct one, but perhpas should be better sourced to avoid WP:SYNTH. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Live in Brazil 

message: There is a proposal to merge Allegations of Brazilian apartheid into Human rights in Brazil. There is another proposal to rename the Allegations article "Social apartheid in Brazil". Please discuss these proposals at Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. Lothar of the Hill People 03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this proposal, as these are two separate topics. While human rights are touched, it also includes civil rights, and things that go beyond rights. The article belongs as a separate page. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge, but HG makes a good point at Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid that we should probably decide on what to call such a section before proceeding.--Cúchullain t/c 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Allegations of Brazilian apartheid 

message: This article is a fucking mess, it is biased and outright WRONG. Please read any reliable report on the HR situation in Brazil, Brazil is a FREE, FAIR, DEMOCRATIC nation. And I have many sources to prove it. Justask me and I will present them. QZXA2 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Welcome to the article. Colorful comment aside, you're right: this article is generally unsourced and without references. Whatever issues may be true in human rights cases in Brazil, it lacks sources making that case. Hopefully we'll improve it soon.--Dali-Llama 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While I certainly don't agree with QZX's tone, I have to say that there are no sources in the article-- only "see also's". Unless specific conclusions are sourced, this article has serious issues.--Dali-Llama 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article needs a serious re-write, as I've mentioned. If you'd like to start, I'd contribute on an as-needed basis.--Dali-Llama 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "serious violations"?? 

message: There aren't, nowadays, serious human rights violations. Unless you count exceptional cases, like the so famous favelas in Rio de Janeiro(which doesn't mirror brazilian situation by any means), there aren't, and there is no motive to believe what this article says since it cite no sources. Furthermore, police abuses are also common in the United States, so whoever is doing this article take your job seriously please, and don't talk about what you don't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.18.217 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a ridiculous article! 

message: I'm sorry to say this, but this must be one of Wikipedia's worst articles. I mean, not only it shows only one side of this subject (after all, it's about HUMAN RIGHTS and not VIOLATIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS) but it also entirely lacks reliable information, references and a cleaner text. For example, it says domestic violence is "remarkable" in Brazil, but where is that information? I mean, as far as I know, domestic violence is a world problem, not only Brazil's. Another example is in the text about torture, which mentions tortures in mental institutions - it should say that all the cases discovered by the press happened in ILLEGAL and CLANDESTINE institutions, not any regular mental institution in Brazil. Another case of extremely biased and badly made text is the part referring to favelas - it cites "City of God". What's this about, a teen talking or an encyclopedia? The problems in favelas aren't all showed in "City of God" - and, most importantly, not all favelas are exactly like "City of God"'s one. Oh, and City of God is all about favelas dominated by drug dealers in RIO DE JANEIRO - which contains only about 5% of all Brazilian population.
So, please, have this article changed. This is too bad for Brazil's and especially for Wikipedia's reputation. Brazil is an underdeveloped country with lots of human rights violations that concern to us all - but it's not a hell-like warfield like it's showed here. Not at all. High indices of criminality are true and terrible. But this "land of massacres" myth is just plain and dull stereotype, and nothing more. 201.9.167.80 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Won't this article get changed? 

message: The information in this section is absolutely biased. Brazil has the 11th larget Jewish community of the world. The article presents anti-Semitism almost as if it was a chronic problem, when there's absolutely no support for such an exagerated writing. Three attacks towards Jewish students and 
"anti-Semitic" graffiti certainly don't justify such a large section with such a heavy alarmist language like we see here. I also never saw anything in the Brazilian press about "Jewish community leaders" expressing "concern over the continued appearance on Web sites of anti-Semitic material compiled by neo-Nazi and "skinhead" groups." We need other independent sources to keep this kind of inflamatory information. Dornicke (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: This article has way too many internal links.  A lot of them are going to disambiguation pages and should be removed.  Please review WP:OVERLINK and help remove the erroneous links.  Cheers, Joshfinnie (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OVERLINK 

message: Much of this article is written in the past tense, or alternates confusingly between tenses. This occurs in multiple sections. The change of tense blurs the line between the past and present, and makes it appear as though some abuses from the dictatorship period (decades ago) are still being perpetrated today. I would like to propose a sweeping rewrite. Interlaker (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense 

message: I'm not sure if I understand the POV tag on this article. Is there some bias in this article that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060820104152/www.unifem.org/news_events/story_detail.php?StoryID=503 https://web.archive.org/web/20070609035728/http://www.hacer.org/current/Brazil101.php https://web.archive.org/web/20090121083656/http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/09/brazil.slavery/index.html. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed