Talk:Brazil–United States relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updates to Sean's case needed...[edit]

the section about sean is outdated.brazilian supreme court has,quite some time ago decided and sean was handled over to U.S authorities.there is no mention to that at the article ?Why?I would do it myself but my english is far from the ideal and i am not able to find proper referencing (in english sources) even though im sure this received some major main stream media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.203.12 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What??[edit]

"Brazil has traditionally preferred to cooperate with the United States on specific issues rather than seeking to develop an all-encompassing, privileged relationship with the United States"

This needs to be changed. No-one has an "all-encompassing, privileged relationship with the United States", not Britain, not Japan, not Australia, NO-ONE. The introduction needs to be changed. Contralya 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The quote comes from a recent (2007) U.S. CONGRESS Report on Brazil-U.S. Relations([1] page 11, line 7), therefore it is appropriately referenced.Limongi 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no-one has all encompassing agreement with the united states. NO ONE. The world doesn't work like that, and it is ignorant to think that it is a standard for anywhere. It is an ignorant statement. Because they said it in congress doesn't mean it should be in wikipedia UNLESS it is a quote. Contralya 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Japan is essentially a protectorate of the United States...moving away from this but still highly dependent on the American military. Britain, despite Barack Hussein, has an extremely special relationship with the United States...we were started by her people as her colonies. How much more special than that can you get? Language? Art? Literature? Social and Moral standards? Religion? That's like saying Brazil and Portugal don't have a special relationship, or France and Haiti, or Russia and BelaRUS. Have you ever considered that our flag is simply theirs rearranged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.155.250 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake ?[edit]

"In 1975 Brazil renounced the United States-Brazil Military Assistance Agreement, which had been in effect since 1952, in a clear response to the position of the Carter administration."

Carter served his term in office from 1977 to 1981, right? So the sentence doesn't make sense. Someone with more specific knowledge on these issues should correct that.

I agree, I came to the talk page with this in mind. It's a glaring error. --mahlered (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Goldman[edit]

There should be a mention of the ongoing struggle between the US and Brazil to repatriate Sean Goldman. There are those who call for trade sanctions on Brazil for violating international law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has addressed the legal dispute over the custody of Sean Goldman. It is very strange there is not even a wikipedia article on Sean or David Goldman, considering the article length of the page for Elián González.

Article on US congressman addressing use of sanctions on Brazil http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/us_us_brazil_custody_battle

NBC page about the Goldman affair http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31079844/

--75.69.161.74 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RfC David Goldman case[edit]

Is a civil custody case being handled by the judicial system (Sean Goldman custody case) worthy of mention in this article (that deals with inter-state relations)? Limongi (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

short answer is yes. brazil is a signatory country of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the case falls under the hague convensition, and obama brought up the case during his first meeting with the president of brazil. the reprecussions of this case were very broad, here is a quote from an AP article "...if the Hague Convention were not followed by the chief justice, "the State Department should immediately issue a travel advisory warning parents not to go to Brazil with their children.""

and also "Last week, a U.S. senator reacted to the case by blocking renewal of a $2.75 billion trade deal that would lift U.S. tariffs on some Brazilian goods."

Extrabatteries (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its mention would be a likely case of recentism and systemic bias, as the case seems to have gained broad coverage in media in the US. Generic mention to similar cases is enough. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be mentioned. The fact that it got significant news coverage (granted despite its unworthiness for primetime news) makes it worth adding. If the article becomes too long for the page to load properly then perhaps I could see how a good argument could be made for removing it in favor of talking about other matters in the limited space due to recentism. Yet, until then I don't see how a good argument can be made for not talking about it. There still is plenty of room to talk about many varying topics relating to "Brazil – United States relations" and this is certainly one of them.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should also mention that I think the addition by this new user is quite poor and reasonably enough removed for that reason alone, but that there is no reason in principle why it can't be fixed and then included.Chhe (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it should:
    • If this subject is mentioned by the president of the US, this is obviously part of international relations. Maybe the question is the size of the matter compared to other issues. The problem may be that this article is very well informative about this issue, maybe less on other issues, like negotiations concerning Zelaya, so it may give a weight to the issue that is not proportionate. But this cannot be avoided.
    • In an encyclopedia, I think it is always better to mention too many things than not enough. People who read are not stupid: they come to get some information, they will be able to disregard what they see as minor. The point is to assemble as much relevant information as possible. So when in doubt, I would tend to err on the side of keeping the information. After all, people have worked to edit something, we should not discard their work.Voui (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I'd tend toward not mentioning the case by name (the text states there are 66 comparable cases, and we don't intend to list them all in any case). However sources discussing the case sound like good candidates to act as references for the paragraph where these issues are discussed, and features from the sources could well be included in the text, for example that Obama has raised the issue of child abductions in discussions with the Brazilians or that the trade deal may be held up due to the cases. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading some more recent news on the Goldman case which in my mind clarifies its significance. The article mentions that the Goldman case is "the first -- and to date, only -- unlawfully abducted American child returned to the United States by Brazil." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021803401.html
If not a direct mention, why not just put a line in the article that connects it to the Goldman custody case article? Extrabatteries (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the article should reflect 65 children, not 66 which predates the Sean Goldman case. Extrabatteries (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lack of info[edit]

Something must be added on the rising contention between the US and Brazil over Brazil's support of Iran's Nuclear Program. This will surely become a major obstacle in bilateral ties between the two, if it continues the way it is now.Zereshk (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetfighters[edit]

Brazil is currently choosing a supplier of jetfighters for its armed forces. One of the bidders is Boeing, which is willing to sell F-18 fighters to Brazil. That's a very relevant current issue. Jgsodre (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential WSJ resource[edit]

Brazilian Tourists Flock to U.S., Snap Up Real Bargains December 20, 2011, 4:57 P.M. ET. by John Lyons and Paulo Trevisani, excerpt ...

Ana Ligia Paladino traveled 5,000 miles from her home in southernmost Brazil last month to jostle for Black Friday bargains at Macy's in New York City. Waiting in line by 5 a.m., she soon notched her first buys in a planned 10-day shopping spree. "It was a bagunça!" she recalled, using a Brazilian expression that means both mess and mayhem to describe the scene.


97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential NYT frontpage resource[edit]

Miami Has a Hearty Oi (Hello) for Free-Spending Brazilians by Lizette Alvarez published December 27, 2011 (and A13 in print) See Miami 99.181.153.29 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

country comparisons[edit]

I have looked at 100s bilateral articles and it is not normal practice to put these tables. The main reason is that these articles are about actual interactions eg trade, leaders visits, disputes between countries. Because one country had a different population or language to another is actually not reporting any interaction. Lastly if you really want to read about say Brazil, click ;Brazil. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever other articles might or might not contain, I think the comparison still adds value here. Knowing some background about the countries' relative positions in the world helps inform how they interact.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actual coverage of interactions shows how they interact. Not comparison tables. What next a comparison tables of their leaders? LibStar (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cancelled" Visit[edit]

Dilma didn't cancel her visit in September 2013. She postponed it. There is a difference. The confusion arises from the fact that many newspapers either don't know the difference or want to exaggerate. See this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nsa-spying-scandal-spoils-dinner-at-the-white-house-for-brazils-president/2013/09/17/24f5acf6-1fc5-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html --74.96.52.45 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brazil–United States relations. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brazil–United States relations. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality[edit]

Is it just me or do some parts of this article read like a press release? Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About photos in article's lead section[edit]

Hello. Please take a moment to review the WP:UNDUE WP:BALASP policies before including photos in the lead section.

The prominent placement and subsequent content juxtaposition of photo ops with the lead section gives the depicted events undue weight, negatively impacting the impartiality of the article. Such images belong in the History section, preferentially being the sole representative of a given period of time unless there's a reasonable and verifiable reason behind their inclusion. Even then, their inclusion should be excised with utmost care to not break the aforementioned policies due the political nature of the subject discussed in this article. — Radnyr (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joint law enforcement operations[edit]

Where should we add in Joint Law enforcement operations between the U.S and Brazil? In 2012 the US FBI and HSI agents started special trainings of the Federal police. In 2019 the FBI and HSI along with the NCA of the UK conducted a joint operation in Brazil called LOBOS 1 and LOBOS 2. There are likely many more joint operations, memorandums of agreement etc. We have an FBI and an HSI office in Brazil. eximo (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazil–United_States_relations&oldid=1206421529"