Jump to content

Talk:Brazilian Army

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

The article is still not complete

[edit]

There is a section concerning Military Regions, but there is no section to the Army Divisions, which are the proper combat units of the Brazilian Army. Someone has to expand the article and add this information, because Military Regions are solely responsible for logistical duties. Without Army Divisions, they would be pointless, for there would be nothing to offer the logistical support to. Furthermore, the picture of the Southern Military Command (Comando Militar do Sul) is not really from the Southern Military Command, but from the Salvador Military School (Colégio Militar de Salvador. Since both share the same acronym in portuguese (both Comando Militar do Sul and COlégio Militar de Salvador are "CMS"), the editor probabbly exchanged the coat of arms. Someone should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampaio5325 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Someone has undone my editing

[edit]

There is no need to repeat all the time that Brazilian Army Regiments are Battalion Sized. Also, the SubUnits (Subunidades in portuguese) of Brazilian Cavalry Regiments are called Squadron, not troops. Furthermore, all brigades but Infantry Frontier Brigades and Jungle Infantry Brigades have at least one Artillery group. Someone has simply erased my editing in that section. Besides that, the Light Infantry Brigades are Airbone Brigades, nor Airmobiles. For instance, after serving for at least 5 years in a light infantry brigade or in the parachute infantry brigade, you receive the "Airbone Medal" (Medalha do Mérito Aeroterrestre), so they share the same name and the same doctrine, although there are differences in their modus operandi. Please, stop erasing my editting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampaio5325 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Why did my edit get partially reverted ?

[edit]

It was referenced.(albeit in brazilian portuguese which could of caused some confusion,which could easily get solved up to a certain point with use of a automatic translator.).I will let this stay here for some time (actually,for more than 10 days,because im going to travel.).And if no justificative is presented i will undo what was undone.i will still obviously leave the "fixes" made on the writing and etc ,though.This is in order to try and avoid edit-wars. This is about the Number already in service of the ec725 super cougar in the brazilian ARMY,by the way.and the refference in question which was used was this one.Which is the site of the Brazilian Air Force ,but it is about the search and rescue of a downed brazilian Air Force aircraft ,which was aided by the Brazilian army.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.128.8 (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Last paragraph of the Article

[edit]

Since the History's books used in Brazil as well as quotes from new generation of army's officers refer to the events of 31 march of 1964 as a coup d'état I don't known were it could be a partiality in my edit, it seems the contrary... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.228.172 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting to discuss this! I undid the edit because of this line: "The noxious effects from this regime on Brazilian Society are still ringing today." In Wikipedia we have a very strict guideline about a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Calling a regime noxious, no matter how true or untrue, is not a neutral statement. You're more than welcome to add in any sourced material - just keep an eye out for those kinds of statements. Thanks! --mboverload@ 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription

[edit]

I removed the phrase: "Generally, those from the upper class and upper middle class find ways to defer, and as a result the ranks are made up primarily of lower-class and lower-middle-class recruits". Forced conscription is actually extremly rare. Several cities don't even have the possibility of conscription and everyone imidietly goes to the reserve. The phrase implies that lower class boys end up conscripted due to lack of enough influence to avoid it, but the truth is that, even among the lower classess, conscription is rare. 177.182.244.247 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible

[edit]

This is the first Wikipedia article that I would call "horrible". It was obviously written by someone whose first language is not English. The second paragraph (which is one sentence) is so terribly written that I can't even tell what it's trying to say -- otherwise I would edit it. But the article is full of incorrect words, missing articles or prepositions, etc, making it very hard to read. Can somebody who knows the subject matter, and who also knows correct English, just go through and clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMaru (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent vandalism at Opening Section

[edit]

The present revertion (21 June 2016) aims to draw attention to the recurring vandalism in the article's opening section, carried out by Brazilian militarists, who insist on denial and revisionism in relation to the role played by the Brazilian army in the 3 military dictatorships which the country suffered.
First, it is possible to observe through the "Revision History page", that over the last years without any justification, they simply tried to delete the 2nd paragraph of the opening section.

Related to the latest two attempts (done through IPs 200.97.170.124 and 189.81.204.182):
200.97.170.124 tried doing so giving an exculpatory varnish claiming "wiki neutrality" in the attempt to substitute the present text (which match with its references), by a simulacrum of military statement which finds no support in the reference books.
The attempt done by ip 189.81.204.182 (in the 1st §) is even more bumbling, since not satisfied in simply try their "old way", deleting the stretches which didn't pleased them, added a claim that hasn't any support in the MINUSTAH weblink that has been pasted as its supporting reference!!!.

Now, it is worth to remind that, besides all reference books meets the wiki standards, they're pretty explicit on the interventionist role of Brazilian army, as cited in the text repeatedly vandalized by militarists revisionists. 191.248.161.118 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and haven't a political agenda. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article tone remains neutral and under equally neutral references, including a recognized Brazilianist recently deceased. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a personal opinion. The article is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for "personal opinions", which are your points by the way, as shown above... Contrary to the present text that are based up on reliable book references. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book's author has his political views. The article is for everyone: left, right, center... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can not even argue according with the rules. BTW, it is worth remembering ONCE AGAIN that the weblink you posted in the 1st paragraph have a claim that hasn't any support in the MINUSTAH weblink that you pasted as its supporting reference!!!. That's the kind of your "arguments" and respect for Wiki rules... 177.9.140.87 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oficial United Nations Website with all information: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, contrary to the stretches in the present text which are clearly at its book references, your claims doesn't match with any text of the web link you posted. And even if it match with your sentence in the 1st paragraph, why delete the referenced 2nd paragraph, that has no relation with such link??? 177.9.140.87 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) BTW,[reply]
No, the reference is correct. The United Nations link has all documents. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So paste the direct link, since this one doesn't provide such information. And Again, even if it will match with your sentence in the 1st paragraph, this doesn't justify delete other referenced stretches!!! 177.9.140.87 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All information preserved, only personal opinion removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be cynical! You have deleted reference book information, and try to introduce your own personal opinion through sentences that doesn't match with the references that you insist in using. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read your own first post. You have a political view. You don't like militaries and used this article against them. Wikipedia is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to impute to others your own practices.
Don't try to shift the focus of your flaws trying to change the fact that your statements don't even match with your references.
The text is here for some years, has reference US Brazilianists authors, one of whom freely circulated among the military leadership of the last Brazilian military dictatorship.
So, before returning here, first go study the subject which clearly you don't know have a single clue even on the basic authors.
And for Jesus Christ, also learn at least to sign your f... deliriums!!! 177.9.140.87 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's only author's opinion and reflect his political position. The article is for everyone and must be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, first the authors whom You trying to ignore are several, not just one...
Second, besides ignoring the subject, you also have shown doesn't know what Wikipedia is about. Here no single opinion has equal weight to that of reliable sources. Read What Wikipedia is not About before back. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are using the article against militaries. The article must bring information. Readers have the choice to get their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC) I will post this article in all foruns. You will not do it again. (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
??? 😏 Go ahead
Arguments, proofs, reliable references, Any of those require above? None I see...
You are completely out of balance. So, I suggest you take a vacation from this space, and only come back when you learn and willing to follow the rules of this space, as sign your comments at each leave 😏 177.9.140.87 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against a text which include Eurico Gaspar Dutra in military rule? A text with an asterisk? Where did you see an asterisk in an article? Your text is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) If Eurico Gaspar Dutra, Floriano Peixoto and Deodoro da Fonseca are military rule, Ulysses Grant and Eisenhower are military rule too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Really? Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto were elected in free elections YEARS after leaving the army, in a nation with big electoral tradition, as Grant and Eisenhower??? No, they arose through a coup d'état, and Floriano Peixoto refused even comply with the then new rules written by the own army, which caused conflict with the Navy, then mostly monarchist, which had never quite never accepted the 1889 coup. This led to the naval revolt and to the 1893 federalist revolution etc. etc. But it seems that you ALSO ignore selectively these well known historic facts. And why not is doesn't surprise me as well? 😏
The reference to Dutra's period is another case (despite him unlike the cited US generals, was not retired for years, but just have left the command of the army, which was in charge during the 15 years since the coup of 1930). Obviously is related not as a military dictatorship, but as a sequence to keep controlling the local political arena by the Army (is there in all cited references, easily to check on google books, as well as other digital libraries - BTW the very references you have ignored 😏). Ie, it is a consensus among historians of the period, included those mentioned in the article, as well as the stretches of their authorship. Btw, AGAIN: a fact can be attested in views of google books, for example. A fact that we can not say about your links, huh? 😏
Now, that this your attempt to divert the focus of your own lack of references, have failed, have you something useful into the rules to show, or you will continue trying to shift the focus of the question? 😏 191.8.11.192 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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) 15:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brazilian Army. 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: 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) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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: 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) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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: 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) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian Army. 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: 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) 22:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Seems to have been written from a strongly pro-military POV. I mean, the section on indigenous people in the army reads like it's from a recruitment brochure, with no mention of the army's role in the genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 22:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being vandalized.

[edit]

The page is being vandalized by trolls, an editor needs to come here and lock the page before the damage is irreversible. João Vítor Teixeira Bento (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazilian_Army&oldid=1200335515"