Talk:Military dictatorship in Brazil

Opening still says "Brazilian Military government" even though the title of the article is "Military dictatorship in Brazil"

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)

Well, the discussion was about the title of the article, the intro is a different animal. First, it's not wrong. It was a military regime. Nobody disputes that. Second, the intro is neither bias, nor inadequate, or wrong.

Here is the thing. To say "xxx Military dictatorship was a military dictatorship" is a unnecessary pleonasm. If possible, always avoid unnecessary repetition of words. The intro let it very clear that it was an authoritarian government. So the point here is to make the intro as concise and "enciclopedic-like" as possible. It doesn't break any rules, it's backed by sources, and it doesn't sugar-coat anything. It's the same thing as saying "England is an english country on an english island". Like, we get it, it's english. Can we say that in a more concise and didactic way? Yes, we can. Like we're doing here. This was discussed upon before, here and between users.

It's not about twisting meanings, it's about making the introduction fluid and avoid unnecessary repetition of words. And since "Military dictatorship in Brazil" was not the official name of the country, the intro does not need to match the title, per say. Coltsfan (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, if style/pleonasm is your objection to it, we can simply do as in Military dictatorship of Chile, that is, start it with "A military dictatorship in Brazil took place between...". Military government just isn't the same, as there have been others and this is not "the" Brazilian military government, but one of several. Plus, calling a dictatorship a military government is not unbiased. "Regime", as you suggest here but not in the article itself, might indicate more clearly it was a dictatorship. But I believe we can just go with the Chilean solution. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your main problem is that you believe that "regime" sort of sugar-coat the dictatorship thing. And that is not so. A regime is a form of government, very unbiased word. You have a communist regime, you have a democractic regime, a dictatorial regime. In case of this article, call it a "military government" is the same thing. It was a government run by the military and it was an authoritarian dictatorship. That's in the first line of the article! It's telling it like it is. Plus, i might be wrong, but, according to my broad research, in Brazil (at least the scholars), the term "military government" is widely used, so there is the backing of WP:RS. As for doing like Chilean article, it might work. But i'd like to hear an opinion of a third person on this though. Coltsfan (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear and upfront characterization of this government as a dictatorship, I do understand that a dictatorship IS a form of regime, however there is a specific context in Brazil where negationists routinely use the term REGIME as a way to deny the dictatorial quality of said era, therefore it's importance in this specific article. A similar dispute is ongoing in the Portuguese version of the article, and usually users who change it to REGIME or GOVERNMENT also erase the traces of DICTATORSHIP in the article, among other vandalisms. We can rephrase the first paragraph in order to accommodate this necessity

What "negationists" (sic) say or don't say is of no important. "Dictatorship" is in the name of the article, and the article as a whole hides nothing nor does it use terms that diminishes what happened in that time period. That country had a "military government" that was a dictatorship, the article says that in the first phrase. The problem is that you people think because of one word there is this whole "agenda" to "hide the truth" when in reality is just to avoid unnecessary repetition of words. Look how strange it sounds something like "The brazilian military dictatorship was a dictatorship in Brazil runned by the military". It's like "Solar system is a system there is a sun in it". Saying the same thing twice don't make it more "in your face", it only makes it appear that the article was written by someone who never read an encyclopedia. Coltsfan (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But if your argument for not using the word is the repetition, we can simply rephrase it as in the Chilean article, as it was pointed already. So, since you were waiting for a third party to speak, and as a Brazilian myself, are we agreed?

Well, first of, the fact that you are brazilian has little bearing here. Second, i could also use the article about the Chilean military dictatorship as an example, as you can see in the first paragraph, it says "A right-wing authoritarian military dictatorship ruled Chile". See how it's fluid, no pleonasms or overencumbered words? Just straight to the point. Not, again, like it was proposed here, "X Military dictatorship was a military dictatorship", which, lets face it... well, it don't sound too good. Third, nobody said why the current arrangement of the words in the introduction is wrong. The base of your argument rest solely on a supposed "attempts to hide the truth" or something of the sort.

Here is the thing you must ask yourself: Is the intro lying/wrong? Wasn't Brazil ruled by a military government/regime that was a dictatorship? If the answer to this question is "yes" then the intro has no problems at all. Coltsfan (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Coltsfan, where did you find that "in Brazil (at least the scholars), the term "military government" is widely used"? As a Brazilian I see the use of "military dictatorship" overwhelmingly predominant over "military government", both in academic context and in common speech. Excommunicato (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Excommunicato, i wasn't talking about one term being more used than the other, was about one being just as valid. At Google Scholar the term dictatorship appears more than "regime" or "government", but then again, that is not the point of the discussion. At no point, the article denies that Brazil during that period was a dictatorship, nor i'm challenging that. That's not the point of the discussion at all.

The point that i'm trying to get across is that, in the intro, it doesn't look good, or rather, encyclopedic, to see "X dictatorship was a dictatorship". So to avoid unnecessary repetition of words, the intro says "the X military government of country Y was an authoritarian dictatorship". That's what we're discussing: the phrasing, not nuances. Coltsfan (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

My question wasn't about "nuances". I asked about "military government" because it's very rarely used compared to "dictatorship". That's why I think the introduction should begin with the latter, not because "government" minimizes it, simply because it's not "widely used", unlike "dictatorship", which is already in the article title. To avoid pleonasm, it could be rephrased as: "The Brazilian military dictatorship [...] was the authoritarian military regime that ruled Brazil from 1 April 1964 to 15 March 1985". Also, as Dan Palraz already pointed out, there have been other military governments in Brazil that, even if authoritarian, weren't dictatorships. Excommunicato (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If your issue is to differentiate this one from other dictatorial periods or military regimes in Brazil, i don't see how the proposed change you propose would "clarify" this. I'm also having a hard time seeing how the word government "minimizes" the meaning. So it wasn't a government?! I don't follow. Anyway, if "The Brazilian military dictatorship [...] was the authoritarian military regime that ruled Brazil from 1 April 1964 to 15 March 1985" is the consensus, i'll abide by it. Coltsfan (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that "goverment" does not minimize anything, that's what I meant earlier, and I think I made it clear that my proposal to use "military dictatorship" is first and foremost because it's the most common name. Apparently you didn't understand the second part of my comment, so again: "military government" is ambiguous because there were other governments in Brazilian history which may be defined as such, while "military dictatorship" refers only to the 1964-1985 one. It does clarify but, still, that's not the main issue here. Excommunicato (talk) 16:06, 7 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)

Just as a fyi, what you said goes against almost all scholarly work on the subject. Coltsfan (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps I should give up on being a historian and change career since I seem to know so little about Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you could be a firefighter instead, that wouldn't make much of a difference here, considering that in articles about history we follow scholarly sources above everything else, per WP:SOURCETYPES (and WP:RS/AC). Coltsfan (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes, just diregard this person's claims. As the article points out there are many negationists, and we've got one ourselves. Their claims aren't rooted in History, just in their personal political agenda.

Not everybody that challenges a historical consensus does so based on some "agenda". Sometimes is a legit criticism of the status quo, though misguided a bit. So, don't make assumptions. Coltsfan (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We say this as Brazilians living under a government that pushes this negationist agenda, and specially recently tried to rewrite the way we perceive this going against historical documents about the era. We can tell by their words what their intentions, so it's not a case of "challenging a consensus". Feel free to theorize about the academical nature of the article, but if you don't know the context of these deniers, it's not much your place to question when we point them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.205.246 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not through Wikipedia that you can demand change in society or something, specially though Wikipedia in English. Remember, the cogs of the world will spin no matter what wikipedia say or don't say. Coltsfan (talk) 18:56, 8 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)

Introduction

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)

@Dan Palraz: I'm sorry; I didn't see this before I readded it and was confused as to why you removed it in the first place. The source states there have been six republics. The six bullet points imply each one is an epoch, or "republic". It would also be easier for readers to navigate the different periods by going from the First Brazilian Republic to the second, third, and so on. You can also check the Portuguese Wikipedia to confirm this is a thing, the source is just a compliment. FredModulars (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz: Please don't start an edit war without discussing it on the talk page. FredModulars (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Talking to the wrong person, it wasn't me who reverted your last addition of unsourced material.Dan Palraz (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz: I know. I pinged because you reverted the edit without an explanation and didn't bother to go on the talk page. The other user I have contacted on their talk page. FredModulars (talk) 21:35, 5 September 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:

"All material must be attributable to reliable, published sources".

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:

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". To add to that, it is also said: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

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)

@Coltsfan: (Responding to your request for another source) The Chamber of Deputies divides the history of the Republic into six. See here. If you would like other sources purely off of a Google search, there are others.FredModulars (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather have academic sources. A lot more reliable. Coltsfan (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are seeking books or appraised sources, that I cannot provide, and if that is only what you will accept, then I apologize and will not persist. I edited this page only to make a minor improvement, not what looks to be an edit war. FredModulars (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spot this Dan Palraz. Good job! I missed this discussion, but the edit war accusations by a confessed ORer sounds familiar in this subject and makes me proud. The term is used only by deniers as weasel to dictatorship. These numbers about tortured and murdered by brazilian military are the best supported by sources. But I aggree that this deserves a better wording. Ixocactus (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ixocactus: You can label me whatever you want. You can say I am a denier, pro-dictatorship, Bolsonaro supporter, whatever. I don't even have an interest in this part of history (and, if anything, I certainly don't support the dictatorship). I was just making a minor edit and a source I thought would satisfy the standards on Wikipedia. There is no need to drag it out after I have already acquiesced. FredModulars (talk) 02:25, 6 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)

Why does the armed forces dispute the deaths of indigenous people?

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)

Requested move 24 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Comment Very strange argumentation. Plenty of sources in the article back the current name and this supposed "standardization" (and this examples, in particular) thing is ridiculous to begin with. Coltsfan (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Estar8806 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not a proper name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest speedy closure, as this has a highly questionable rationale, unanimous opposition, and no chance of acceptance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Coltsfan (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other responses. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translation

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)

I wouldn't have a problem with some parts being translated, but it's better to leave the body of the article unchanged. I say this since most of the sources used there are in Portuguese, while most of those used here are in English. Armando AZ (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius: 187.20.0.211 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

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)

The regime was dominated by the presence of the National Renewal Alliance, a far-right party directly descending from the Brazilian Integralist Action, a fascistic party. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The ARENA wasn't directly descended from the AIB, it was rather descended from the right-wing groups which supported the coup. There were Integralists in it (including Plínio Salgado himself), but they were a minority. 2804:248:FB19:1600:2C7F:2B4E:638F:320A (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

AIB was succeeded by the Popular Representation Party, which was one of the 3 parties that merged to form ARENA. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes but that wasn't my point, again, it is true that Integralists were a part of the ARENA, but they were a minority, most members came from the National Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party instead. 2804:248:FB19:1600:2C7F:2B4E:638F:320A (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Party is still sourced as far-right. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn't, the source in question doesn't even mention the ARENA. 2804:248:FB19:1600:806C:D21B:10E4:BB18 (talk) 21:43, 29 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)

The article is about the dictatorship itself, not figures that were a part of it, a category has to be a defining characteristic of the topic. Also, any content that is unsupported can be removed, and so far no source supporting the category in question has been provided. -- 2804:248:FBD4:F600:F80F:3998:48D:D26D (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't article content, it's a category. The consensus from article edits and this talk page is clear that it ought to remain on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

But a category is supposed to be verifiable and also defining of the article topic. Again, so far nothing supporting it has been presented. 2804:248:FB6A:C700:ECAF:3FFE:1068:443B (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Both useful guidelines, but not hard and fast rules. The operant policy is WP:CONSENSUS. The question to be addressed is whether it would help someone interested in the subject of Far-right politics in Brazil to read about this topic. The current consensus is that yes, it would. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)