 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article containsatranslationofAmazonas from pt.wikipedia. (388670528 et seq.) |
The section made little sense to the reader and points to a city in Portugal. I couldn't figure out what it was, so, I removed it from the text. If someone wishes to include it back, please add a small text explaining what this is about.
The original text is:
-Poli 2005 July 7 15:18 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be Amazonas (Brazilian state), per precedent at places such as Georgia (U.S. state)? - Kookykman|(t)e 13:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like so many article on Brazil, I'm unable to make much sense of this, even after some significant copyediting. I can't change the text substantially, because I know nothing about the history of Amazonas. This article needs a rewrite to stay in the encyclopedia.Sbalfour (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This statement, which is supposed to be supported by a document on a website, is very dubious. That document appears to be an essay written by a college student, and in turn cites no sources. The text in the encyclopedia is not directly quoted in the source, either. It's garbage scholarship, and I've deleted it. The whole text of Orellana's trip is available in 'The Discovery of the Amazon', which I do not currently own. Editors who wish to pursue this matter should start there. Sbalfour (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got this from elsewhere, also not properly sourced: Amazonas: feminine plural noun. The term comes from "Amazon", which originates from the Latin "amazon - onis", derived from the Greek "amazon" designating brave valiant woman, woman riding horse. The denomination is named after the Amazon River and the State of Brazil. The river was so named because, in Carbajal's second narrative, included in the work of Oviedo, the Spanish captain Francisco de Orellana, when, in 1541, came down the river in all its extension, found near the mouth of the Rio Nhamundá a tribe of Indian warriors with which fought fight. Remembering the Amazons of the Thermodon, Orellana put the great river their name. The historian Lokotsch, without specifying which linguistic branch, believes that the name comes from an Indian language, amassunu, which means noise of waters which resound. Sbalfour (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous editor(s), or the authors of the document where text was copy-pasted and translated from, have hopelessly confused the 7 Portuguese trading posts established on rivers from Belem to Mato Grosso, with the 7 Jesuit missions in the south, in what is now Uruguay. The Treaty of Madrid dealt with the southern border, not the northern/western borders. Nor was the principle of uti possidetis asserted there; it was asserted in the Treaty of El Pardo, 1778. The 7 Portuguese trading posts established in Grao-Para by João Pereira Caldas per instruction of the King in 1772, weren't for political reasons, they were for economic reasons, and had little to do with the settlement of the border. The border disputes in the north were defined by the Spanish-Portuguese wars 1761–1763, 1776–1777 of which no mention is made in the article. Whose Amazonas history is this, an 8th-grader's?Sbalfour (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the above, but nearly everything in this subsection is about events and places in the early expansion of Maranhao and the captaincy of Para. Someone has displaced the history of Maranhao (or maybe Para) here, especially since the History section of article on Para is nearly empty. I'm gutting most of the section as I fill in the actual history of the region (yes, events in Maranhao were relevant, but only tangentially so, and we should refer the reader to other article(s) where it they be found, not recite it here).Sbalfour (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does the History section need a rewrite, but it's looking detailed enough to be in an article of its own. We have a separate article for at least the History of Pernambuco; it might be justified here as well. There might be pieces of it already in the various Amazon and Amazonia related articles.Sbalfour (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is of a locality near Rio de Janeiro. It should be removed from this article. 50.89.113.80 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder of the above comment/point five months ago. The picture of the above town has nothing to do with the article. It is becoming pathetic the quality of some articles of the English Wikipedia when they have no relationship to the Euro-Anglo-American world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.9.162 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Completely unrelated picture of a beach which is obviously located on the Atlantic coast rather than on the Amazon river. Aoa8212 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the text, I noticed that this article needs some revisions and optimizations.
--WikiUser22222 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating (several years of) comments above; I’d love to see this in proper English.
And what village?
I presume it’s the village of Mariuá, (now Barcelos), cited 3 paragraphs earlier. And I presume “village” means (something like) province or region.
MBG02 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
