Talk:Bolsa Família

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universal Basic Income, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Universal Basic IncomeWikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeTemplate:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeUniversal Basic Income articles

dead link

Citation #28 is a dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.185.244.123 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a research paper

I'm writing a research paper on this topic, so I'll add more as my research continues- (Note: I am not just copying and pasting, but trying to reformulate my own knowledge of the subject, based on sources of course)--OneWorld22 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am as well. Once I'm done with the paper (soonish) I'll add some significant contributions to this page. Epistemenical 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

child benefit

Maybe we could add some information about BF into the child benefit page? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section inaccurate

The History section of the article is not accurate. The 'Bolsa Escola' was not pioneered in Brasilia by ex-governor Cristovam Buarque, but idealized by the ex-mayor of Campinas (SP) José Roberto Magalhães Teixeira, who implemented the program in the city in 1994 with the name 'Programa de Renda Mínima' (Minimal Incoming Program) after a previous project (from 1991) of today senator Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy, which aimed paying a grant to the families of low incoming (poor) school attendants. The next year it was implemented in DF state and in 2001 it became federal. See further reading at: Estud. av. vol.11 no.30 São Paulo May/Aug 1997 (doi: 10.1590/S0103-40141997000200007) (in Portuguese). --Spmoura (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we need refs

There are too many external links; these should be used to cite data in the article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed added

Added a citation needed to the following part:

"Many people give up to get a job, content to live on the Bolsa Família program, called the "alms-basket" by many Brazilians"

A good source could show an increase in unemployment in families receiving the benefit, and also show which Brazilians call it alms-basket(a good definition of many?). From the data i searched, hovewer, there doesn't seem a correlation between a rise in unemployment from families receiving it. I just don't want to remove the unsourced expression because i'm new here and don't want to mess other peoples work. Someone with more experience here please add your opinion. Thanks. Also show me how to sign my posts please =( ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for whoever added the source. Although it looks to be a blog and in Portuguese i think it fits the article, since it seems to be related to a Brazilian magazine(VEJA). At least that's what i got from goggling it.

However, taking into account my poor understanding of portuguese, the source doesnt seem to relate to the the part it references at all: ""Many people give up to get a job, content to live on the Bolsa Família program, called the "alms-basket" by many Brazilians".

I searched the article and there is no reference for the words "cesta", "esmola" and especially "cesta-esmola" as the article states. I also ran the article on the translator and it doesnt seem to talk about unemployment, or unemployment of families receiving the benefit. It also doenst seem to refer to "many" people calling it that way. Isn't "many" in this case a weasel word? Frankly, looking it from outside it doesnt seem relate to what is referenced at all. There has to be an English source somewhere to the affirmation, or at least a verifiable source in Portuguese. Frankly, thought, the affirmation seems hard to source.

Please, could someone who understands brazilian portuguese confirm this source, showing where it states what it states? The person who added it, preferably.

I don't want to mess with others people work, so i won't ask for references or change this part until there is further discussion.

Sign: Enuma_Elish^

Now it is signed the right way hehehe ^^--Enûma Eliš (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enuma, had a look for you at the post (the guy seemed to work as a columnist for veja), most of it is anti-Lula/right-wing junk. Not sure if opinion-articles would be good sources for an Encyclopedia (WP:NPOV). What our editor used here appears to be from the comments section of the article rather than the article itself, which could constitute WP:OR. Some commentators in the post were talking about how people (especially in the Brasilian NorthEast) aren't working now that they gain the Bolsa Familia. The post itself talks about some research from Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) which shows that people in the NE have only had more money coming in, and not improved human development index, which the author suggests can only come from different programs (i.e. Dilma's rival in the recent presidential election). Time to WP:BB and edit this from the page. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources regarding the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church, through its powerful National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB), maintains[17][18] that "the program is addictive" and leads its beneficiaries to an "accommodation"

This is misquoting the source. The first source says:

O Governo Lula tinha necessidade de um freio de arrumação, para superar uma desvalorização exagerada do Real. Mas foi eleito para mudar e já podia ter mudado as prioridades. Ajudou a melhorar a vida de milhões de pobres pelo bolsa família, mas entrega dez vezes mais aos ricos, em juros sobre a dívida pública interna, uns 150 bilhões por ano, muito mais do que investe em educação, na infraestrutura e na saúde. Está na hora de mudar.

Which I can translate to

The Lula government needed to improve internal affairs, to stop the Real devaluation. But he was elected to change, and could have already changed the priority. He helped to improve the life of millions of poor people through Bolsa Família, but he handles ten times this amount to the rich, through interest of public debt, about R$ 150 billions a year, which is much more than he invest in education, the infrastructure and in public health. It's time to change.

Dom Cristiano Krapf means exactly the opposite what this article says!

The second source is similarly misquoted: it cites Bolsa Família briefly in the end, only to say that the government gives to the rich "ten times more" than it gives to the poor through Bolsa Família. (the article is actually about agrarian reform).

I suggest removing this passage completely unless it's better sourced. --177.135.41.90 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bolsa Família. 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: 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) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zero citations "Structure" section

The content of the section also reads like someone's research paper with statements like "The central government’s ability to bypass twenty-seven powerful governors demonstrates that federalism in Brazil is a three-level game." Would this be worth putting an Original Research tag on the article over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerGeistSeinerZeit (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]