Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Archive 2

Pronunciation[edit]

Could anyone add a sound file of the Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation of the name Rio de Janeiro?

My pronunciation (and I hear from all: media, other brazilian citizens, whatever) is [ˈxiʊ dʒɪ ʒaˈnejɾʊ] or [ˈxiʊ dʒɪ ʒaˈneɪɾʊ] but other Wikipedia editors have corrected the issue the article I did for the pronunciation, changing it to [ˈʁiu dʒi ʒaˈnejɾʊ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.128.89 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot a cultural factor: in Rio de Janeiro we have the formal language we use in education, media and public life, and another language, informal, and we use routinely to people nearby.

I think so [ˈxiʊ deˈ ʒaˈneɪɾʊ] better represents the formal language, and [ˈxiu dʒɪ ʒɐnejɾu] represents informal. 189.106.128.89 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the rhotic, it's pronounced in many different ways among Brazilians, so the default rhotic symbol for to be used in wp:IPA for Portuguese is /ʁ/, and about the pronunciation of the word "rio", perhaps you are trying to use the symbol ʊ as semivowel, in this case, the formal pronunciation is the same of the verbal conjugation of "eu rio" instead "ele riu", so the symbol /u/ fits better for this representation, and the [ʊ] in Brazilian Portuguese is an unstressed final /u/, we use /w/ for represents the semivowel here.--Luizdl (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I too support the [ˈxiʊ ...] variant, since the Brazilian pronunciation is definitely different from the Portuguese one, so there MUST be two pronunciations. You will also hear the difference of words like "raça" which is ONLY pronunced [ˈxasa] in Brazil. Absolutely no /ʁ/ whatsoever. -andy 77.7.101.131 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uvular variant does exist in Brazil.--Luizdl (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carioca R is certain more closely to Greek χ or whatever h than French and German R. Absolutely no /ʁ/ whatsoever. +1 Lguipontes (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carioca R is certain more closely to Greek χ or whatever h than French and German R. Absolutely no /ʁ/ whatsoever. +2 User:MMaselli (who always lived in Rio de Janeiro) 22 August 2011.

I would add that:

1] people from some other Brazilian states may pronounce it more or less like /ʁ/. In Rio, definitely not;

2] "Rio" is pronounced by cariocas as a fast hiatus, "Hi-iu". In the south of Brazil, people say "'Riu", as a diphthong. The "ro" in the end of "Janeiro" is like an "'ru" very fastly spoken (difficult to hear with clarity).

3] This "acoeli" example (although badly recorded) is a good, tipically carioca way of pronouncing: http://www.forvo.com/word/rio_de_janeiro/

4] I really don't agree that there are an "informal" and a "formal" way of speaking "Rio de Janeiro". [ˈxiu dʒɪ ʒɐnejɾu] represents approximatively the way we cariocas pronounce it in any circumstance. The real distinction is not between formal/informal pronunciation, but among different States' accents.

187.14.28.163 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and the typical and foolish exaggerations that plague Wikipedia[edit]

The article links to narcoterrorism and Urban warfare. It is easy to see that those other articles do not refer to what happens in Rio de Janeiro (narcoterrorism is about the alleged links between FARC and drug traffic, and Urban warfare is about war (not in a metaphoric sence, but actual war) within cities).

But evidently, what would be of base sensationalism if everybody had good sence? Ninguém (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obsviously don't live in Rio or don't even watch TV.. criminals combat with police forcing shops to close and desperate people running or locked in their homes is very common. Sure this does not happen in Ipanema or Leblon. But what you see in the favelas is only seen in war zones. And this is not exaggeration, it is reality. Brazilian and proudly carioca. --201.78.50.230 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that if you wish to kill some gangmember, a bullet wont do. The next thing is to cut of the head of the deceased, dump it in a rubbish bin, then call up all newspapers. (82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

These links have since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,565 cities in Brazil?![edit]

In the crime section it says:

According to federal government research,[2] the city itself ranks 206th in the list of the 5,565 most violent cities in Brazil and first in total number of firearm-related deaths.

So there are 5,565 cities in Brazil? Is this a typo? Did they mean 5,565 cities in the world ? Ceresly (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a typo. There's nowhere near 5,565 cities in Brazil. Although I could be wrong, I'm going to say change it to 'in the world'. --Flash flash ; 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a typo. There are 5,564 cities in Brazil + Brasília (Federal District). (Ref) Limongi (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misunderstanding. In Brazil informally all municipalities are considered "cities", but they are not. The correct translation would be "5,565 most violent municipalities". Dantadd (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dantadd is correct, municipalities and cities are not the same. A municipality is an administrative division very similar to a county. In Brazil, each and every municipality has a seat (sede do município) in a town or city within its limits. Some municipalities have 2+ towns or cities within their limits, therefore there are well over 5,564 towns/cities in Brazil. Limongi (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you intended to write was that "the city [or "town", as we in Brazil use to translate the word "cidade"] itself ranks 206th among the 5,565 cities of Brazil in terms of violence...". It's not a list of the 5,565 "most violent cities in Brazil", it's a list including the violence indexes of all the 5,565 cities (or towns) that constitute Brazil.MMaselli 22 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.14.28.163 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This text has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro is NOT the second largest metro area in South America[edit]

Even the link to the article List of metropolitan areas by population on the introduction of the article refutes this statement. The source, which is Forstall doesn't even recognize Rio de Janeiro on that list. But, two other South American metropolitan areas are listed which means that they are larger than Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo are listed.

Here's some other alternative lists refuting the statement that it is the second largest metro area.

I'm going to add these sources to justify changing from second to third. There are differences between an agglomeration, metropolitan area, and urban area, but they usually have similar figures. But as a reminder, Forstall's list which is linked in the article which measures metropolitan areas does not include Rio de Janeiro and cites Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires as larger. Elockid (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro[edit]

Rio de Janeiro means "River of January" not "City of Jesus", can someone explain me why did they put it there? Victorfri (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well after the olympic games of 2016 will over I'm not sure that any river would left to name the city after. Maybe someone mixed it up because of the Corcovado.--Gilisa (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God. The "river" refereed to in the name is Guanabara Bay. They originally thought it was a river.187.14.22.127 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any songs about Rio de Janeiro?[edit]

List of songs about Rio de Janeiro
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in Brazil and the movie industry portrayal[edit]

Funny Facts About Brazil no. 53: A commom maneuver teachers perform in brazilian schools to skip doing their job (teaching) is taking all the students to a video room a then leaving them there for the rest of the afternoon watching movies themed on what would be that day's subject of study. let's say today's history class revolves around WWII, Pearl Harbor attacks to more specific. OK, so*... STEP 1: Go to a rental and get michael bay's award winning film. STEP 2: Throw 33 young citizens into a vast 8x8m2 empty area with no windows and faint light. STEP 3: Turn on the DVD and... voilá.

if no one died of asphyxiation**, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

So brazilians who grew under this regime were led to believe this is a valid way to illustrated events, facts and realities and thus, keep messing wikipedia with messy edits.

NOW, if you (born anywhere but brazil) happen to come across articles about my country (like the one on rio) that contain references based on semi-fictional books/scripts turned into movies, please rewrite that section or sentence in such a way that this is dropped. you can't blame them for the habit. that's how they were educated.

Don't let the "critical acclaim" fool you, Bus 174 (or was it 178?), city of god, elite squad, carandiru and all the crap are as trustworthy as a portrayal of brazilian society as "who wants to be a millionaire?" was for india's.

if you are the teacher
- after 3 hours of "fun" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.22.20 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular destination in Latin America and the entire southern hemisphere - And The "Brand City" in Latin America[edit]

In the last ranking the most visited cities in the world made by Euromonitor International, Rio is the most visited city in Latin America and the entire southern hemisphere. It is important to include in the article.

Top City Destination Ranking:

http://www.euromonitor.com/Euromonitor_Internationals_Top_City_Destination_Ranking

And, Rio is considered the "brand city" of Latin America and 31 of the world.

City Brands Index Ranking 2009

1. Paris 2. Sydney 3. London 4. Rome 5. New York 6. Barcelona 7. San Francisco 8. Los Angeles 9. Vienna 10. Madrid

31. Rio de Janeiro 35. Buenos Aires 43. Mexico City

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/06-16-2009/0005044837&EDATE= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy joy (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the first link it looks like London is top, followed by New York, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. To me it looks like a list of major transfer airports, and there are quite a few cities high up on that list which are pretty boring and can only keep you occupied for a couple of days. Maybe the second link is more interesting :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today, The most important newspaper in Rio de Janeiro "O Globo" reported: "Rio de Janeiro is the main tourist destination in the southern hemisphere"

http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/mat/2010/01/28/rio-de-janeiro-o-principal-destino-turistico-do-hemisferio-sul-segundo-consultoria-915726007.asp

This ranking of the Euromonitor International is the most comprehensive and popular ranking of tourism cities. I think this is important and can not get out of the article of Rio de Janeiro. Today, Rio is considered the city with the strongest brand in Latin America and the most popular tourist destination in southern hemisphere. This is very important. Billy joy (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Eraserhead's comment: if Euromonitor showed a list of the "major transfer airports", it's not the case of Rio. The hub here is Sao Paulo. Anyway, I agree that the second list is much more interesting. :) 187.14.28.163 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Tourist Destination[edit]

Rio de Janeiro is the main tourist destination in the South Hemisphere

International consulting firm survey reveals the number of international visitors increased by 7.8% in 2008

Host City of the Olympic Games 2016, Rio de Janeiro is the leading tourist destination of the South hemisphere, a survey published on January 20, by Euromonitor International, revealed. The opinion poll was conducted in 2008, one year after the Pan American Games Rio 2007, and shows that Rio was the destination of 2.82 million international tourists, representing a 7.8% increase against the previous year.

The survey covers only tourists who stayed at least 24 hours in town. Rio appears in the 40th place of the general ranking. London leads the ranking with 15.03 million visitors.

Because of 2016 Olympic Games, Rio should receive a growing number of international visitors. The Ministry of Tourism is forecasting that the number tourists from abroad in Brazil by 2016 should have increased from 10% to 15% percent against 2015.

http://www.rio2016.org.br/en/Noticias/Noticia.aspx?idConteudo=1118 Billy joy (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro[edit]

São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro is the ecclesiastical province that includes the city of Rio. Unless an editor can come up with a reliable source that says that its officially part of the city name, then it does not belong in the ibox. Even the History of Rio de Janeiro has nothing on including São Sebastião as part of the city name.
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 09:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on Wiki Answers which is why I reverted it, but yes a reliable citation does need to be found either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This explains it. The province is larger than the city. I see that São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro redirects to the Rio article, so I will put a special {{R from}} template on the redirect page. It needs its own article, or at the very least, its own section in this article! I'm not qualified to write it, but maybe someone who reads this is qualified to write an article on the Catholic province?

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 09:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

While many of them are interesting I don't think they meet the criteria set out in WP:EL If any are to be re-added to the article can it be justified below? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Rio: Light & Shadow documentary film about Rio de Janeiro
See recent pictures from the Antonio Mucherino's web site
RadioFavela - The Sound of Rio, is part of ar2com, a research blog about architecture and communications with audios and videos about the city.
(in Portuguese) Maplink - Rio de Janeiro Street Guide and Maps
Rio de Janeiro After Dark by Daphne Carpenter, Vision Magazine, May issue

stop biased information[edit]

this article suffers from the same problem that the article about Sao Paulo does: lots of biased and misplaced information. Remember that wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a marketing tool - all information here must be taken from official fonts, not personal opinions. Please, anyone who wants to contribute with this article, must observe the following:

- avoid any kind of biased comments or information - avoid comparisons with other cities/regions/countries - avoid the use of irrelevant superlatives - keep the focus of every section of the article, and.... - NEVER use texts extracted from tourism sites, guides or books.

Please, let´s try to brush up our brazilian cities articles so they can be A-rated by the Wikipedia board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.97.159.163 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what specifically is wrong with the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I fixed many parts of the article. Checking out the Culture and Transportarion sections, for example, there was a lot of misplaced adjectives and expressions like: hands down, magnificent, without a doubt, special etc. These kind of expressions you may use in a tourist guide, but not in a encyclopedia where formal language must be used and personal opinion must be skipped. It´s clear that several parts of this article were taken from travel guides. That should be avoided and, when used, properly rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.22.205 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GaWC Classification[edit]

The GaWC classification of Rio as a Beta- city is attributed to the work a single minor university in the united kingdom, the university of loughborough, and is hardly considered a universally accepted standard or set of criteria. As such I have removed the reference to it.24.200.55.244 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

navbox Rio[edit]

There is a navbox Template:Rio de Janeiro for Rio, but I think it can be improved. Bom. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure projects section[edit]

God. There is a lot of translation mistakes in this section. I'm not the most brilliant brazilian english speaker, but i'm going to fix it. There are LOTS of former names translations like German (Alemão), Canterbury (i think it is about Cantagalo), Mosque (Mesquita), Burnley (this one i've had to take a lot of time to figure out that is QUEIMADOS)

I want to warn the brazilian editor to not doing this again. Please, do not just translate it with Google! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrodigea (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The City "Faces South"?[edit]

What does that mean? Don't they have buildings on both sides of their streets? Don't half the streets have east and west facing buildings? I've never heard of a city "facing" in some direction. 17:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC) GeneCallahan (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means it's predominantly oriented South. Some would say San Diego faces west, Miami faces east. Detroit faces south, and is the only city to do so facing a Canadian city. Though in some cases where there is no center of focus, such as New York, or inland cities, i.e. Denver, it seems to be hard to distinguish which way they "face". Thus I would say the adjective describing where the city faces is most applicable to coastal cities. Judging from this map, it could be said that the city faces south. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This text has since been removed (which seems like a good idea to me). -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcantara-mega.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Alcantara-mega.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Car Free[edit]

What? I move to delete this. It is under the cultural events section yet it isn't a cultural event. It is written like a definition of the organization, instead of explaining the organization's overall role in RJ. I'm sure it is a very noble organization with very noble goals, but (similar to the Intramural football team at UFRJ), it has no place in an article about RJ. --Lacarids (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading use of Human Development Index[edit]

I am proposing deletion of this section, to compare the Index between countries and neighbourhoods is a misrespresentation of what the HDI is for. secondly, it implies that eg a neighbourhood is better than Australia. this is POV. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, and no one's changed it since. -- Beland (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrincha was not from Rio[edit]

I took off the reference to Garricha as a football player "born in Rio de Janeiro". He was born in the city (or town...) of Magé, as you can see in his page. It's in the metropolitan region of Rio, in the State of Rio, but not in Rio city. (MMaselli) 187.14.28.163 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Maracaja Neto?!?[edit]

WTF? I have much more occurrences in Google than him... Have never listened about the guy. Checked my health insurance book and he's not there. Does anyone have additional information? 187.14.28.163 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]