This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military dictatorship in Brazil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Military dictatorship in Brazil appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 August 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | On 24 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Military dictatorship in Brazil to Military State of Brazil. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
Discussions above have reiterated the conclusion that the article should be named "Military dictatorship in Brazil", as is the case. However, the introduction has been rewritten to keep the first sentence as "The Brazilian military government", which goes against Wikipedia's rule of opening articles with the title, and is also biased as a military government may be legal and non-dictatorial. It is not even correct, as there were several military governments in Brazil, but only one military dictatorship, so this one was not "the" Brazilian military government.
I have been trying to correct this but my edits are reverted with the argument that keeping the first sentence different from the article title was "agreed" upon in this discussion page, which I honestly can't seem to find any trace of. Dan Palraz ( talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to mention that "Military Dictatorship of Brazil" is a misleading title to describe the entire period. On March 31, 1964, a military uprising led to a coup that ousted the president from power, but the country did not instantly become a dictatorship. Not it ended in 1985 as a dictatorship. The military were in power, but a dictatorship existed from 1968 (after the AI-5 was enacted and torture and executions began) and endured until 1978, when president Geisel extinguished the AI-5. No one would claim that in 1982, when Brazilians emigres were back, elections were occurring freely, including with openly left-wing parties competing, Brazil was still a dictatorship. Thus, the correct terminology for this article, if it indeed covers the 1964-85 period, should be the previous one, Military Regime of Brazil (which existed for years unchallenged until it was changed unilaterally recently), with an explanation in the lead and in the main body of text about the increased authoritarianism until it became a dictatorship and then its gradual democratization. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
My proposal for a new opening:
A military dictatorship in Brazil was established on 1 April 1964, following the deposition of President
João Goulart in a
coup d'état, and lasted for 21 years, until 15 March 1985.
Dan Palraz (
talk)
16:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Somebody added to the first phrase "also known as the Fifth Brazilian Republic (Portuguese: Quinta República Brasileira)", giving a source ( https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiab/brasil-republica.htm) that specifically does NOT use the purported title of "Fifth Brazilian Republic", but rather "Military dictatorship" for the period, so I'm removing the addition. On the other hand, someone else has recently added to the introduction the claim about indigenous genocide, making it say that "It is estimated that 434 people were either confirmed killed or went missing (not to be seen again), 8,000 indigenous people suffered a genocide and 20,000 people were tortured". That's terrible wording as it makes it seem like Wikipedia doesn't consider indigenous people to be people. Also, genocide is a term defined by international law applied when there is the deliberate intent on destroying a people, while all three sources claim that the number of indigenous people who died is an estimation of those who died due to negligence from the state, so I am rewording this phrase to replace genocide for government negligence, as per the sources, which are kept in the introduction. Dan Palraz ( talk) 06:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
There is one thing i'd like to call attention to in this discussion, which is the following line wrote by @ FredModulars: "You can also check the Portuguese Wikipedia to confirm this is a thing, the source is just a compliment (i assume you meant 'complement'?)". Well, this entire phrase is incorrect. According to verifiability policy:
Another important thing is, the person who adds the information is the one that has to provide the sources. Saying "the other Wiki is doing X and Y" won't cut it. Per WP:UNSOURCED:
So, FredModulars, in short, you must find a sorce that directly supports the info you want to add. This is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. Coltsfan ( talk) 22:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Curious and I would like to be corrected, but if thousands of indigenous people were confirmed to have died. Then why has the armed forces of Brazil deny it? CuriousRandy21 ( talk) 19:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If it’s confirmed that thousands of indigenous people were killed due to negligence by the state, then why does the armed forces deny the findings? (reasons) 2607:FEA8:7A5E:C400:506:1FEC:21A0:6EE2 ( talk) 21:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOWCLOSE nonsense request. Ixocactus ( talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Military dictatorship in Brazil → Military State of Brazil – Standardization of extreme right-wing article titles such as United States and Islamic State vide: https://www.dw.com/en/is-brazil-turning-into-a-military-state/a-46339335 187.20.0.211 ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The corresponding article in Portuguese is better sourced and complete. I could translate it, but considering this is a more important and sensible article, I would like to know your view/opinion if it's ok to do it or if it's better to leave the current article as it is. Torimem ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Are there any sources or scholars that support labeling the military dictatorship "far-right"? This category has been in the article for years, but there doesn't seem to be anything supporting it. -- 2804:248:FBB1:8600:9897:5307:A3AB:69FF ( talk) 06:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the above is relevant. This is not a BLP, and the category is not “labelling” anything. As you’ve already accepted above, and as anyone with a passing knowledge of the article subject is aware, far-right figures were involved in the dictatorship government. Thus the page is relevant to the category of the history of the far-right in Brazil. As four editors oppose you removing this, the onus is on Ip editor to demonstrate a different consensus against its being on the page. Time to stop slow motion edit-warring against four other editors and try to build a consensus for your position - highly unlikely, in my view. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military dictatorship in Brazil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Military dictatorship in Brazil appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 August 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | On 24 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Military dictatorship in Brazil to Military State of Brazil. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
Discussions above have reiterated the conclusion that the article should be named "Military dictatorship in Brazil", as is the case. However, the introduction has been rewritten to keep the first sentence as "The Brazilian military government", which goes against Wikipedia's rule of opening articles with the title, and is also biased as a military government may be legal and non-dictatorial. It is not even correct, as there were several military governments in Brazil, but only one military dictatorship, so this one was not "the" Brazilian military government.
I have been trying to correct this but my edits are reverted with the argument that keeping the first sentence different from the article title was "agreed" upon in this discussion page, which I honestly can't seem to find any trace of. Dan Palraz ( talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to mention that "Military Dictatorship of Brazil" is a misleading title to describe the entire period. On March 31, 1964, a military uprising led to a coup that ousted the president from power, but the country did not instantly become a dictatorship. Not it ended in 1985 as a dictatorship. The military were in power, but a dictatorship existed from 1968 (after the AI-5 was enacted and torture and executions began) and endured until 1978, when president Geisel extinguished the AI-5. No one would claim that in 1982, when Brazilians emigres were back, elections were occurring freely, including with openly left-wing parties competing, Brazil was still a dictatorship. Thus, the correct terminology for this article, if it indeed covers the 1964-85 period, should be the previous one, Military Regime of Brazil (which existed for years unchallenged until it was changed unilaterally recently), with an explanation in the lead and in the main body of text about the increased authoritarianism until it became a dictatorship and then its gradual democratization. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
My proposal for a new opening:
A military dictatorship in Brazil was established on 1 April 1964, following the deposition of President
João Goulart in a
coup d'état, and lasted for 21 years, until 15 March 1985.
Dan Palraz (
talk)
16:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Somebody added to the first phrase "also known as the Fifth Brazilian Republic (Portuguese: Quinta República Brasileira)", giving a source ( https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiab/brasil-republica.htm) that specifically does NOT use the purported title of "Fifth Brazilian Republic", but rather "Military dictatorship" for the period, so I'm removing the addition. On the other hand, someone else has recently added to the introduction the claim about indigenous genocide, making it say that "It is estimated that 434 people were either confirmed killed or went missing (not to be seen again), 8,000 indigenous people suffered a genocide and 20,000 people were tortured". That's terrible wording as it makes it seem like Wikipedia doesn't consider indigenous people to be people. Also, genocide is a term defined by international law applied when there is the deliberate intent on destroying a people, while all three sources claim that the number of indigenous people who died is an estimation of those who died due to negligence from the state, so I am rewording this phrase to replace genocide for government negligence, as per the sources, which are kept in the introduction. Dan Palraz ( talk) 06:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
There is one thing i'd like to call attention to in this discussion, which is the following line wrote by @ FredModulars: "You can also check the Portuguese Wikipedia to confirm this is a thing, the source is just a compliment (i assume you meant 'complement'?)". Well, this entire phrase is incorrect. According to verifiability policy:
Another important thing is, the person who adds the information is the one that has to provide the sources. Saying "the other Wiki is doing X and Y" won't cut it. Per WP:UNSOURCED:
So, FredModulars, in short, you must find a sorce that directly supports the info you want to add. This is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. Coltsfan ( talk) 22:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Curious and I would like to be corrected, but if thousands of indigenous people were confirmed to have died. Then why has the armed forces of Brazil deny it? CuriousRandy21 ( talk) 19:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If it’s confirmed that thousands of indigenous people were killed due to negligence by the state, then why does the armed forces deny the findings? (reasons) 2607:FEA8:7A5E:C400:506:1FEC:21A0:6EE2 ( talk) 21:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOWCLOSE nonsense request. Ixocactus ( talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Military dictatorship in Brazil → Military State of Brazil – Standardization of extreme right-wing article titles such as United States and Islamic State vide: https://www.dw.com/en/is-brazil-turning-into-a-military-state/a-46339335 187.20.0.211 ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The corresponding article in Portuguese is better sourced and complete. I could translate it, but considering this is a more important and sensible article, I would like to know your view/opinion if it's ok to do it or if it's better to leave the current article as it is. Torimem ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Are there any sources or scholars that support labeling the military dictatorship "far-right"? This category has been in the article for years, but there doesn't seem to be anything supporting it. -- 2804:248:FBB1:8600:9897:5307:A3AB:69FF ( talk) 06:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the above is relevant. This is not a BLP, and the category is not “labelling” anything. As you’ve already accepted above, and as anyone with a passing knowledge of the article subject is aware, far-right figures were involved in the dictatorship government. Thus the page is relevant to the category of the history of the far-right in Brazil. As four editors oppose you removing this, the onus is on Ip editor to demonstrate a different consensus against its being on the page. Time to stop slow motion edit-warring against four other editors and try to build a consensus for your position - highly unlikely, in my view. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)