Talk:2013 protests in Brazil

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 protests in Brazil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2013 protests in Brazil. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2013 protests in Brazil at the Reference desk.

A news item involving 2013 protests in Brazil was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 June 2013.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Brazil: History / Transportation High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Transportation in Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance). Transport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Starting Wiki pages for each and every current events that may occur somewhere in the world is grotesque. Ongoing current events like this one should no be the subject of a Wiki page. Obviously there could be no end to it and I could feel quite justified in starting a page on a shoot-out outside a local bar last night.

This article, as well as dozens and dozens of others like this one should be deleted.

This subject has been covered in multiple, third-party, national and international reliable sources - quite enough to justify an article. Why exactly do you disagree with the creation of such pages? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's an important event and actually it's while I was googling to find more information about it that I stumbled upon the Wiki article, at the top of the list... I suppose the word 'grotesque' is excessive but let's say I find it inappropriate for Wiki, an online encyclopedia, to have an article on what is a current event (no matter how important), with new posts and blog-like updates almost every other minute. IMO, more appropriate for a blog, Facebook, Twitter, etc.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that's why we have guidelines explaining how these topics should be handled. This article needs a lot of work, I'll do it when I have some more available time. We have to keep in mind that most people looking for information on this topic will go to Wikipedia. Even if they don't, Google will take them here, anyway. If there are plenty of sources, we can satisfy at least the basic rules and keep a decent page. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/brazil-protests-2013_n_3443742.html http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-brazilian-spring-goes-global_062013 http://www.business2community.com/trends-news/the-real-reasons-behind-the-latest-changebrazil-protests-0524975 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AIBYEXLGdSg --189.104.40.217 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help adding additional information into this infobox. Feel free to edit. Thank you in advance! Dosul23 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are completely unrelated events being added to this page? This article is about the protests that began over the bus fare issue and has since exploded wider. But everything under the "Controversial political climate: March–June" heading is completely unrelated and seems like an attempt to shoehorn in other political interests. Silverseren^C 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above. The events that took place in the "Controversial political climate" section seem to be unrelated to the other bus fare protests and should be placed elsewhere, not in this page.

Besides, there seems to be a certain "watchdog" user undoing all changes that other users are adding up to this page, which prevents it from being developed properly as new current affairs are taking place by the hour. --200.183.53.145 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what's been happening? I was wondering why new information wasn't being added to the page. I had thought Brazilians just weren't interested in updating the information in this, which would be weird. Silverseren^C 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver, those marches are ANTI-GOVERNMENT. Our government is a sick bunch and this movement, that consists mostly of left-leaning youths like me, is surely against intolerant, jihadist and rich Evangelical priests trying to uphold their agenda by the use of law. Marco Feliciano for example passed in a chamber the projeto cura gay, what means that conversion therapy won't be banned by scientifical reasons anymore in Brazil, just as you know. They really declared war against our Secular state, drawing an imediate line with the problems Turkey is facing. Brazil don't see political mobilization among its youth for more than 20 years, obviously the Não Me Representa and the repercussions of third-wave feminism in the 2010s here added to something that was moribund. Without those, there wouldn't be social mobilization about political causes to start with. It would be just this random, abstract "corruption" idea, that is an essentially center-right middle class concern, and alienation, rather than something that would make a movement of almost 250.000 people in the streets and thousand others more hacking websites and social media accounts of parties and the media. Lguipontes (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Brazilians aren't generally interested in using this space because it has too many rules, they are relatively lazy and won't read all of them at the same time, and it is not in our native language, rather in a native language we sometimes think we can master with the help of Google services, but often really not. Not in a pretentious way of mine to say that, I found myself in the same situation in 2010–2011. Lguipontes (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am no watchdog. My reasons to undo absurd changes is because English Wikipedia is not the same mess that anonymous users make Portuguese Wikipedia, a place that is quite not inviting of new users unlike here, be what it is. Also, there are lots of IPs focused on similar changes. It looks like you are acting as a group (what is banned here unless it is explicited, and according to the rules), rather than me not adding information. But your claims are silly, I didn't remove any sourced, properly written, important information. Lguipontes (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, see, I have no problem with information on those protests, but they belong in a separate article (and this article's title should probably be made more specific). Unless you have reliable sources that directly link those protests regarding LGBT rights, reproductive rights, or the rest and explicitly connect it to these current protests that started with the bus fare thing, unless you have sources like that, then making it seems like they are connected in this article is pure original research, not to mention synthesis. And that's not something we're supposed to do. Right now, the vast majority of those sections don't have any sources on them at all and the ones they do have don't discuss anything in relation to the protests going on right now. Silverseren^C 01:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Seren, while the claim of OR may be somewhat valid from article quality (NOT about what is happening, there should be sources, it just isn't obvious to find very detailed information, as this is a minority issue rather than that of everyone and a protest against bus fare hike wouldn't jump into a pride parade, but it is just making it clear that Brazil's Chamber was igniting the fire around itself for a long time this year and that AMONG THE REASONS is the prominence of those working for conservative causes based on religion there), I think it is too early for saying I am doing synth (things started to get fire just Thursday or Friday).

As Vitão said, there are many concerns Brazilians are having about what to do with this movement. Since many sections are left-wing-dominated, it is reasonable for my claims to make sense, nevertheless. I actually think I did not commit synthesis since 1 - people are clearly against PEC 37, 2 - Anonymous, that is an ally in the cyberactivism side, denounced in a source I just put two PECs dealing with secularism and our rights ("our rights being ignored" by politicians is a main reason of the protest), 3 - Even if more media doesn't comment it, it is know that those are among the motives people are pushing for change, as they limiting the powers of the Supreme Court is an obvious part of "our government trying to get it their ways". About the LGBT rights, I swear I heard it in Globo News at the crack of dawn tomorrow that people's dissatisfaction with Marco Feliciano and his party threatening our same-sex marriage status was a reason, but I can't be sure if it is written in the web. I am not so sure I've heard they mentioning the so-called bolsa-estupro, but I surely heard feminista and a referrence to an upcoming SlutWalk that will also join it (obviously this is in their agenda).

There were protests for Indigenous rights against the bancada ruralista, foreign interests in the Amazon (I'm told, by mainstream sources, the necessity for those dams can be perfectly corrected with more energy efficiency, what is much less expensive and would take just a fraction of the money necessary to the major sport events, we can finance other alternative energy sources with our amount of resources in the long-term, so obviously those theories that would get FRINGE label here in Wikipedia will pop up in the minds of everybody, the reason I don't know even how to start to write on this topic) and Dilma giving it to them, for all of her term but now, if as a cherry in the top of the cake, limiting greatly the powers of FUNAI (El País talked briefly about Indigenous peoples getting 13% of Brazil in the source I put up of them so the recent Indigenous lands'-creating government branch being rinsed is surely a hot potato right now) to be analyzed to agencies other than them so as to not include any land of 'economic interest'. For decades people criticized how Brazil's deals with the environment, we don't hear it because media wants to appear neutral, or as I have seen at social networks many actually support those actions, it can't be possible that in the voices of this government where we now have almost everything against the government, it isn't protested against what many see as Dilma's biggest failure. Our green movement is right-wing, stereotypically middle class-concerned, voluble, so those with an interest in the issue as most of my friends that migrated to Northern Brazil don't really support them.

I put those blank sections because I would like to try to work with detail on them later, but anonymous users apparently liked the idea to randomly delete them instead of trying to search as I would do. I will ask a friend from Roraima that is admin of a Facebook page tomorrow, he brings looooooots of eye-opening information to us so he probably is more informed of where to find information than I am. For the time being, I suggest we decide if we create a new article with those many minor repercussions later, before deleting information while it is still being builded up and we couldn't even try to make a decent final picture of these many original variables in the course of making a people I heard my entire lifetime to be unique in world, or at least Western, terms of lacking political conscience go to the street angrily almost all about the same time, in less than a week before now. Lguipontes (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am Brazilian and I am interested in updating information (I actually did it), but I have the Portuguese-language article to take care of, and as a journalist I have to be there sometimes to cover the facts. Now, I think most Brazilians are just too astonished with such sudden and huge protests to remind of Wikipedia. Also, we are having a major problem not only on the PT-Wikipedia, but also among the movement, which is: what are we protesting for? It started as a anti-bus fare raise demonstration, but now people are asking, like, for Dilma Rousseff to resign. Things have gone a little out of control there, so I think the article's title is the best we can have now. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukenji

We don't have lenition after the 'rr' sound, and in stressed positions, aside of the phonotactic limitations already present in other West Iberian languages. Furthermore we palatalized 'd' before 'i', what reduces the chances of we perceiving it even more. In other places, lenition is mostly alternative as Brazilians aren't aware of it, but I find nice to mark it here because getting a too artificial Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation is worse. It is much wiser to learn a European Portuguese phonology first and then go to Brazil and get the various myriads of the local pronunciation that aren't confidently loyal to Portugal's rule, just as it is wiser to learn Portuguese before Spanish or Catalan if you plan to do both/all.

This is clearly a girl from São Paulo (and her accent is so gorgeous, omg): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3H2J-m9A8I

This is clearly a man from Rio Grande do Sul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCCS6xH_tE

This woman from Espírito Santo pronounces 'tudo' with lenition by around 1:37-1:38 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBOcEnFwnhA (there aren't other places where one could lenite in this song)

Hear it with care. You may not note the differences from usual [b], [g] and dental [d] as the lenition is allophonic for us speakers of Iberian languages and we native speakers don't generally hear allophonic differences (I never got that in Rio de Janeiro people had chiado but in São Paulo they did not before someone actually told me). :) Lguipontes (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an example of where Wikipedia fails. The reasons for the protests that are given in the article have nothing to do with reality, but instead are based on some editor's own political agenda. I could try to fix it, but I know that any changes I make would be quickly undone.

/\ Said by any right-conservative-evangelic party or pró-corrupt-government that posted anonymously crap in the talk. Fact is, the *great majority* of population agrees with this article, as seen in social networks that are blooming with revolt and revolution, as well as events that are occurring (and I know, I'll be there). Atriel (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atriel. I would like to see the bonitões saying that this articles sucks dirty big d**k to rebuild the sections (instead of just deleting them, killing part of the depth in the reasons for this Brazilian dissatisfaction present here) and adding all the necessary sources, instead of just complaining. It would be the most beautiful thing to ever happen to Wikipedia. This user probably speaks Portuguese, but even so he doesn't say where we could have neutral, unbiased, correct third-party information on a leaderless, horizontal movement articulating itself mainly by Facebook (NOT a reliable source), of which's importance mainstream media tried to avoid for more than two weeks, where everyone can go with their own particular agendas.

I would love to do so if I could, but IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE THIS ACCORDING TO PRETTY WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, DUH. It is not me who is saying Brazil is mad with the corrupt, rich Evangelical preachers in our Chamber, it is most of the 'vandals', 'dirty commies' and 'punks' that went to the 'usual commie riot' before it getting huge and conservatives trying to say it is a people's movement, we don't represent the people and we have ulterior political motives (the same shit conservatives are very used to say, even when we the people unlike FRANCE didn't go to the streets wanting to challenge the fact that now gay couples can marry, the most reliable proof that Brazilians don't have the ideas of those freakos as common sense, matter-of-factly just as it could be easily seen in the fact that we elected Lula and Dilma). Lguipontes (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? We can't help you if you just come here and state "This article is wrong". What's wrong? What shoud be changed in your opinion?

Amphicoelias (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems. It doesn't mention the reaction by politicians, or that metro/bus fare has been reduced in most capitals (São Paulo and Rio just announced they reduced as well). The LGBT/reproductive rights has almost nothing to do with the actual protests (I challenge anyone to find a reliable source showing otherwise; this protest is mostly about metro/bus fares). The worst part is the "Controversial Political Climate" section, with its laughably biased facebook poll. Basically, this article has several issues related to NPOV and is confusing to read overall. It needs to be rewritten, but any big change would get reverted immediately.201.9.173.50 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction is not all. People are trying to get zero now. You aren't well-informed, this is a very amorphous movement rather than something very planned and politicized. I showed, and the protests aren't anymore about such since long. I found it just to prove you h8ers wrong, what I successfully did – people ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT this everytime and it still is a hot potato. Well, BE BOLD add the accurate information you are talking about, and correct what you believe is wrong without deleting what is proved to exist.

Shut your finger down. I am not a Wikipedia God – much by the contrary, my voice is as heard here as yours, even if you gave this page solely 2 edits – and I wouldn't revert obviously good and sourced text. What I have a problem is people trying to eliminate my narration just because it doesn't fit their views of what is happening.

But then, it fired just in less of a week ago. You can't expect a thesis by an anthropologist or a sociologist so fast on something no one is really getting, not even those doing it. Lguipontes (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, take it easy when referring to fellow editors. Saying things like "The reasons for the protests that are given in the article [...] are based on some editor's own political agenda", "You aren't well-informed", "right-conservative-evangelic party or pró-corrupt-government that posted anonymously crap in the talk" doesn't really help on the construction of the article, neither does it writing in capital letters. We have to comment on the content, not the contributors. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lguipontes, I see you referring to information you added to the article as "my narration" and I just want to bring Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to your attention. Best, Spencer^T♦C 00:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I forgot I wasn't in a social network. Thank you for remembering me this isn't appropriate. But my tone was just that of a person defending itself of accusations that were implicitely directed at him. Lguipontes (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an original research tag on the section 2013_protests_in_Brazil#Controversial_political_climate:_March.E2.80.93June. While I understand that the article is titled 2013 protests in Brazil, the introduction clearly states that this is referring to the specific Revolta da Salada event. In the tagged section, yes there have been protests (in 2013 in Brazil). But reliable secondary sources do not indicate that these are related to the Revolta da Salada events occurring now. Perhaps this article about these protests could be better titled and the other information about the "controversial political climate" split off into a different article (like List of Brazilian protests in 2013- this is just a filler title, but just a possibility). The "controversial political climate" is good information, but it's linkage to the Revolta da Salada protests from my understanding is original research. Please feel free to add references to reliable secondary sources highlighting such links. Spencer^T♦C 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I surely support it (eh, I don't want to be seen as a watchdog or something like that, which I am not). Actually, we can move it right now as long as we find an appropriate name. Or make a Revolta da Salada article and move most of this article information there (I think it would make more sense)? But then people refer to this specific event with various names... I have no idea of what could work. Is there any common specific English name? Lguipontes (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. I don't know if it's possible to leave the article here at 2013 protests in Brazil for now and find a new home for the other information? I don't know if there's a possible title for that either. Spencer^T♦C 01:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps talking about Marco Feliciano and/or the Movimento Não Me Representa in one article, talking about the Estatuto do Nascituro and reactions in another one, and here we stay with PEC 33 as it is and summaries about those redirecting the interest of the readers with "main article"s? What was questioned isn't that the information I put is UNDUE, but rather that I did OR in associating those with the Revolta da Salada. Well, today I provided a source that says that in Brasília they colected signatures for ssm in the protest, and I saw on TV people with their writings against Feliciano. I don't even know if I'm going to write about the Indians, despite it being a foremost concern IMO. Lguipontes (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to bitch but, other users already sanitized the article (with reason, I made it a mess). Well, I think I won't be capable of making a cohesive entry with those here from now on, what means that it will still have a little coverage of those recent Brazilian things, as if in the same point I started. I think it is not my business anymore then. Lguipontes (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sections "Scant public services and high cost of living" and "Impunity to criminal politicians" are badly titled and poorly written with an unacceptable bias just reflecting very POV opinions of some writers. These two sections need to be almost completely re-written, let alone taking care of the huge grammatical errors inflicting them. werldwayd (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now retitled section into "Grievances and demands of protesters" which is a more neutral term. But still the section needs important editing and possible trimming werldwayd (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction. It is indeed POV, but it isn't the opinion of some writers. It is the opinion of entire Brazil, and, in truly a much less emotional language that I still didn't master to use, the developed country's media coverage on the topic. Lguipontes (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more careful in saying words like "this is the opinion of [the] entire Brazil [population]". The only time I would use this term would be if Brazil is playing the Final match of the World Cup and Neymar scores three goals himself. There, possibly, probably, the support conveyed may encompass "the opinion of the entire Brazil" LOL. Thanks for your contributions. But seriously though, comments like above do not help your case. werldwayd (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a recent research by Datafolha shows that 77% of the population of São Paulo support the demonstrations against the raise of the fares (source: [1]). I'm highlighting those words to make it clear that people were supposed to answer as if the demonstrations were against the R$3,20 price, and not corruption and other causes that joined the demonstrations later. Of course supporting the demonstrations does not equal supporting the cause, but it's the best source we can get for this particular topic. I'll add that information later. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added a tag calling for POV check. I was particularly struck by the chart legend, " is the victory of the Brazilian people." It seems inappropriate to me to call one side of a controversy "the Brazilian people", even if that side is supported by 77% (or, for that matter, 90%) of people polled. Are the other 23% not people? Cnilep (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table cited above. In fact most of the lines marked "checked" are still pending. Each line should receive a reference before the table is moved back to the article. —capmo (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Demands and Result (National Congress and Governments actions)
Demand	Result
Reduction in the prices of Public transport (Metro, Train and Bus) (Governments approved)	(June 2013)
Revocation of (Bill - PEC 37) that hindered the Public Ministry to investigate (Congress approved)	(June 2013)
Destination of petroleum royalties to Education (75%) and Health (25%) (Congress approved)	(June 2013)
Criminalization of all forms of Corruption and Embezzlement as heinous crimes (Congress approved)	(June 2013)
The end of Secret vote in Congress for forfeiture of office (Congress approved)	(June 2013)
The end of all Taxes in the Public Transport (Metro, Train, Bus and Ship) (Congress approved)	(June 2013)
National Pact to improve Education, Health, Public Transport (Government established)	(June 2013)
National Pact to Fiscal responsibility and control of Inflation (Government established)	(June 2013)
Prevision of federal plebiscite to politic reform in the country (Government established)	(June 2013)
Prevision of destination of 10% of the Brazilian GDP to Education (Congress announced)	(June 2013)
Prevision of free pass[disambiguation needed] to the Students enrolled regularly (Congress announced)[1]	(June 2013)
Revocation of (Bill - PDL 234) "Gay Cure" authorizing psychologists to treat LGBTs	Pending
Revocation of (Bill - PEC 33) undergoing decisions of Supreme Court to Congress	Pending
The end of Privileged forum	Pending
*Note: is the victory of the Brazilian people.

" is the victory of the Brazilian people." is way too inappropriate. How about changing it to " means the demand was fulfilled" or something? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few things that everyone (media and protesters for a start) seems to agree on is that the social networks have played a major part in the protests. Why remove the section?--200.183.53.145 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed the section. If anything, I have given it more importance by putting it in the intro to the article. werldwayd (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Another popular name for the protests is Outono Brasileiro ("Brazilian Autumn", in reference to the events of the Arab Spring."

Popular where? no one call the rebellion by this name, there's no label until now. Those sources are from Portugal, and only a newspaper, not Brazil. Nor the British ro American medias call what happens in Brazil by this name, no one knows this. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. A quick search engine test gives about 4,000 hits for Brazilian Spring and about 50 for Brazilian Autumn (some sources seem to have copied it from Wikipedia). Braincricket (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because I read some of the comments here and I felt we need order here (something I apparently failed in the Talk:2013 protests in Turkey)

By the way, should we keep an eye on the article and clean up sensibly? Image2012 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

".. were arrested for carrying vinegar as a means of protection against tear gas and pepper spray .." implies that vinegar is an accepted treatment. It is self-evidently true that they were arrested for carrying it, and many websites (and doctors) recommend soaking a clothe with vinegar to breathe through as a temporary measure to escape. I think we need something more informative than "as a means of protection", as the vinegar aspect of this protest is so central to the protest growing into a large movement.

Also, it would be good to get some medical editors to improve the article tear gas which currently says "Milk, ayran, lemons, lemon juice and vinegar are also used [as a treatment], but their effectiveness is disputed." As the government is trying to prevent people from using vinegar, it is an opportunity for Wikipedia to be giving the public the best possible information. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Did a little on tear gas page - but I'm fairly new at Wikipedia, and can't fix a little muddle in the references now. I didn't realize at first that Hu had already been used, and it's now referred to twice - can you fix that please? Didn't use the PMID so that the link to the free full text can stay. I didn't add anything in counter-measures about the idea of vinegar - I didn't see anything in the first aid/medical literature about that in my quick look. But I did add a note that vinegar fumes can irritate the airways. So that would be relevant. The websites I quickly looked at were recommending vinegar to soak the cloth you breathe in. So I've given that page a little first aid, but it needs real treatment. Hildabast (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was very helpful, and user:Boghog has fixed the syntax. Example claims that vinegar soaked clothe helps are [2] (written by [3]), [4], [5] (which links to a book), [6] and [7] but many other sites site it 'shouldnt' help [8] and [9]. So confusing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about "marcha do vinagre" is a fun blog, not a notable media source. 170.66.1.231 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I took it from Portuguese Wikipedia, probably added by an experienced user (as most useful/accurate things there) and it is still there. Second, this is a topic that boomed this month and is not something "in control" but instead it comes from the masses and is very amorphous, it is perfectly reasonable to have a liberal approach to the sourcing policy. If it is not self-published (actually, AFAIK YouPIX comfortably fits Wikipedia definition of second-party), a way of propaganda, copyrighted, controversial and that holds fringe theories, or other seriously problematic material, I believe we might use what we may get. Lguipontes (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are still being used on Portuguese Wikipedia. There is a bit of discussion happening on the Portuguese talk page about the title/name of the event, and sourcing, but that is auxillary to the undeniable fact that people were carrying vinegar and were arrested, and that was a significant spark to this event. We need to find a way to include this without giving [bad] medical advice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/481193/20130620/mass-ufo-sighting-brazil-protests-aliens-truck.htm
• http://www.realitatea.net/ozn-filmat-in-timpul-protestelor-din-brazilia-mii-de-oameni-l-au-vazut_1208997.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terraflorin (talk • contribs) 2013-06-25T04:22:33‎

This is nonsense. The video linked in both articles was removed; I particularly didn't hear (or read) even a single comment in the Brazilian news regarding a UFO sighting. —capmo (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UFO was actually just a drone used by a local newspaper in order to shoot some aerial images of the demonstrations. (source: [10]). Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first paragraph of the "Demands of protesters" section is one single sentence, 184 words long! This makes it impossible to understand adequately, and consequently impossible for somebody like me to edit properly. Can somebody with the requisite knowledge break it down into at least five separate sentences, so that we can keep track of what is being said? The following two sentences are also too long, though not as extreme. They could also do with being broken down into shorter sentences. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed an update from August 26 which cited no verifiable sources and was lacking in unbiased information. A more neutral update is necessary. Zelani (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 protests in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309073915/http://www.cadastronacionalmedico.org/noticia/136-A-legislacao-sobre-a-homossexuais-bissexuais-transgeneros-transexuais-e-travestis-.htm to http://www.cadastronacionalmedico.org/noticia/136-A-legislacao-sobre-a-homossexuais-bissexuais-transgeneros-transexuais-e-travestis-.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 protests in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618040533/http://youpix.com.br/viral-2/a-marcha-do-vinagre-ja-e-o-mais-novo-movimento-revolucionario-da-internet/ to http://youpix.com.br/viral-2/a-marcha-do-vinagre-ja-e-o-mais-novo-movimento-revolucionario-da-internet/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://arquivo.dm.com.br/texto/gz/121469
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://arquivo.dm.com.br/texto/gz/120788
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131121141400/http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/noticia/2013-06-11/manifestantes-contra-aumento-da-passagem-entram-em-conflito-com-pm-em-sao-paulo to http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/noticia/2013-06-11/manifestantes-contra-aumento-da-passagem-entram-em-conflito-com-pm-em-sao-paulo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327180136/http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/tag/delta/ to http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/tag/delta/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706161114/http://www.gph.org.br/faq.asp to http://www.gph.org.br/faq.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia182/2010/05/16/brasil%2Ci%3D192631/HA%2B20%2BANOS%2BA%2BOMS%2BTIROU%2BA%2BHOMOSSEXUALIDADE%2BDA%2BRELACAO%2BDE%2BDOENCAS%2BMENTAIS.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]