This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brazil: Government and laws / History Start‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Start‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: National / South America / Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force South American military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Politics Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Reference Desk Article Collaboration Military dictatorship in Brazil was created or significantly enhanced by WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us. See original question.Reference Desk Article CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Reference Desk Article CollaborationReference Desk Article Collaboration articles

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: Did you know... that one cause of the 21 years of military dictatorship in Brazil was the support of president João Goulart for a mariner rebellion, led by a disguised CIA agent, Cabo Anselmo? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/August.

Could someone please re-word the section i marked as not NPOV (or rather, the whole article)? Right now the language does not meet all the criteria of NPOV and encyclopedic quality. I do not question the rejecting the military regime which the text here represents, but the way the author has done. We still need to be as neutral as possible.--Constanz - Talk 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite biased and does not mention at all the abuses of the military regime; that single issue deserves an entire section. The structure of the article is also awkward: what is the relevance of this long section of 'history of brazilian diplomacy'? The portuguese article is expectedly much more relevant and balanced in this regard.. Please do clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.248.208 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. (unsigned)

I don't. Less than 500 people were killed or tortured by the regime. Considering that at the time Brazil had a population of 90 million, that makes the "dirty war" almost irrelevant. The Dictatorship was all about power. To keep it, they created the "revolutionary war" myth.

Even if the atrocities committed by the regime do not compare to those in other Latin American countries, why are we using the misery suffered in these other nations as some sort of yard stick? Consider the people who were tortured, "disappeared" or fled; using numbers to measure the relevancy of oppressive means used by a regime turns the victims into just that, disregarding their suffering, minimizing their pain and distancing us from the reality of the situation. (unsigned)

Mr. or Miss. "I dont [agree]" up there, go fuck yourself. I am a Brazilian and I am so throughly offended by your stupidity and ignorance. You must be some slack-jawed yokel with little insight into the reality of people who have lived through oppression, so keep your mouth shut instead of imparting your rude and mostly uninformed opinion. (unsigned)

Of course it's relevant. In Brazil, the violence of the regime played a big role in demoralizing it. The murder of Vladimir Herzog was crucial in that aspect. Around 250 persons were killed, and a lot more were tortured. Sure, in Argentina or Chile things were much more violent, but that does not mean it's irrelevant for Brazil. 201.81.86.219 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With no reference whatsoever to Operation Condor, not to say other things, this can be only hopelessly biased... The article needs clean-up... Tazmaniacs 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 500? Wooo, where do you got those numbers? Even official accounts talk about thousands, not hundreds. In reality the number is much bigger; they just destroyed evidence. Here in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, a bit distant of the center of power, many "communists" in federal university mysteriously disappeared in 70's and 80's.. by the way, the university itself was built during the military regime and one core design was to keep people dispersed, without big "centers" that could attract a crowd and form some kind of motim. (among the only resistence against the coup was in an university, at PUC-RIO, the police had to force entrance there :). --189.12.151.36 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although my focus is in the Brazilian imperial era I would like to tell you all that the correct number of people killed in the military regime was around 350. That counting the communist insurgents killed by shooting in Araguaia and in the cities. The precise number of people tortured I don't remember. Even so, it was much less than in other contemprary dictatorships, such as in Argentina (30,000), Chile (5,000), Soviet Union (50,000,000) and China (30,000,000). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The communists are trying to take the control of the English Wikipedia too, it's simple ridiculous the manipulation of history in the hands of people who call herself "intellectual". The "Truth Commission" (Comissão da Verdade), realized recently in Brazil, founded factual evidences of around 400 deaths caused by the military government, being these number very questionable too, because the most part of people died, are really criminals and terrorists, not being able considered "persecuted politicians". And it's very important to contrast the numbers of deaths in the hands of the "communists" in the period, some number around 200 innocent people who die in terrorists attacks, including Americans in this number. Pedrix52 (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths should not be the only factor used to judge a regime's abuse; and even if one would use this as a measure, there are several accountings of civilians, such as journalists (and not "terrorists" or "criminals" as is mentioned above), being killed by the regime. To provide a wider view of the regime's abuses, I added a "Repression" section, highlighting human rights abuses and censorship; but the section could highly benefit from subsections on persecutions (political and civil) and exiles. Barbara hist (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Barbara hist[reply]

The "Role of the United States" section starts with "The role of the United States in these events was complex and at times contradictory," and then it proceeds to mention various things the US government did to help the military and how happy they were when Jango got coup d'eted, not explaining why that is "complex and contradictory." I know this wiki is in English and therefore admitting that the United States might not be the greatest country in the history of the universe is frowned upon, but I'd guess it wouldn't hurt to at least be internally consistent, right? --200.222.30.9 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chile and Argentina took cues from the Brazilian Military Government, in how to get rid of political dissidents. the total number of mising persons was never completely verified. One of the famous escapes was from Lenoel Brizola via Uruguay dressed as a Woman. Eventually Brizola returned to Brazil and became the Governor of the state of Rio de janeiro and active left wing activist.

During the failed terrorist Bombing of Rio Centro during a Festival to promote Labor Day. Several placements of bombs and locking of emergency exit doors at the venue were found. The primary bomb maker was a Capt in the brazilian Army a demolition expert who had one of the devices explode in his lap during final assembly in his car, a Puma. The Captain did survive his injuries, amazingly. SInce he had eviceration f the small and large bowel and injury to both arms and legs. Some information was retrieved from him and the suspicion of involvement by the president João Baptista Figueiredo in these bombings was in question. Since parts of the devices found were similar to the ones used to Blow up Newsstands that sold/ distributed Communist and/or anti government literature. The bomb placements use to cut the stands in half so they would look like open books after the detonation of the device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.94.86 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article doesn't give a pale idea about the torture and other aspects of Brazilian dictatorship. When you take away the history of a nation you are hurting it's people. But what can we expect of Wikipedia? Truth? Wikipedia is mainstream media and period.justana--Justana (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)--Justana (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)justana[reply]

Image:Geisel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says they "left the country." Weren't they forced into exile? I saw Gilberto Gil on Democracy Now just a few nights ago saying he was told to leave the country. "Self proclaimed" wasn't the adjective he used, to say the least.72.92.19.123 (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forced in the sense that they were forcibly boarded into an airplane, no, they weren't. They bought their tickets and left the country on their own will. That their decision was caused by the increasing brutality of police repression (another popular musician, Geraldo Vandré, was notoriously tortured by the repressive organs, for instance) and State censorship, is also true. Ninguém (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that they bought the tickets themselves. However, they only did so because they had been "invited" to leave the country by the military government. Indeed, the military government gave them special permission to hold a concert to fund their departure, which they could otherwise not have afforded.

It is also true that they were not physically carried onto the plane. They were, however, escorted to the plane, and it was clear that they were not going to be allowed to go anywhere else. And as they boarded the plane they were told never to come back.

So although their exile was organised in such a way as to appear voluntary, it was in fact forced.

A full account can be found in Caetano Veloso's book "Tropical Truth" (2003, original version in Portuguese 1997) pp262-269. Brumel (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An entry about the Brazilian military dictatorship should be called, in my opinion, exactly that. "1960s in Brazil" is wrong, as the military disctatorship started during the mid-1960s, and the early 1960s, a period of heady political debate, had an entire different ethos from what was to follow. Also, "lead years" (anos de chumbo) is applied to the period of increased, iron-hot, state-terrorist policies of the Medici government (1969-1974), that is, mostly the early 1970sCerme (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And "lead years" is not a popular expression, but just the title of a TV series about the times. The "popular" expressions are "ditadura" or "regime militar", or "tempo dos milicos". Ninguém (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone tries to use the word dictatorship is a lenghty processs for the word to be placed on an article (yeah, youll find armchair supporters for any atrocity you name). Brazil is still quite polarized about the dictatorship, particulary about how many brazillians fully embraced the dictatorship (Pelé comes to mind). If you wish it to be far more accurate (and in the only way wikipedia allows), perhaps you could conspicuously call it "Brazil through 1964-1985".190.160.142.65 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you move this page? Was there a discussion somewhere? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Illegitimate Barrister: "The article on Military government says that this type of government may be legal. So the title Brazilian military government was unduly legitimizing the period. I tried to follow the naming in the Lusophone Wikiedia article and rename to Military dictatorship in Brazil. It did not succeed because of the existing editing history, which would require admin privileges. So I renamed to Brazilian military regime, since Military regime redirects to Military dictatorship. fgnievinski (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frente Amplio in Uruguay is a left party, not a left politican as the article stated. Fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.250.45 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site: [IG] has a Brazilian site with something about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

This is a nearly complete version of the followign resource:

Brazil

a country study Federal Research Division Library of Congress

Edited by Rex A. Hudson Research Completed April 1997 Data as of April 1997

I suspect several other pages referencing the history of Brazil are also from that resource. It's a free government report so I'm not sure it's technically copyvio, but it is definitely not done by the hand of a wiki editor. aremisasling (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source can be found here: [1]

The article lacks sources and it is filled with vague assertions that require clarifications - for instance, the weird allegation that the coup movement was linked to anti-Vargas military conspiracies of the 50s. I will tag as in need of citation all assertions of which there are no sources and that contradict many standard texts on the subject. One example of such contradiction of classical interpretations of the military era, is the article's firm assertion that the 64 coup marked an end to the economic model commenced by Vargas, that of state-led industrializion and economic nationalism. I disagree. It is undeniable that the military government actually marked the golden age of state capitalism in Brazil. Though Castello Branco did try to adapt the Brazilian economy into a neoliberal model of reliance on foreign investment, the economic policies of the remainder of the military regime were directed towards the strengthening of national capital, both public and private, either by means of export promotion policies (in the Costa e Silva and Médici years) or import substitution (the Geisel and Figueiredo years). Typical developmentalist policies were implemented in full force throughout all of the period: e.g market quotas reserved to national industries and the imposition of conditions to multinationals that tried to start operations in Brazil, such as technology transfer to national companies. More state enterprises were created from 1970 to 75 years than in the 30 years before - that is, the Brazilian military dictators were more interventionistic and nationalistic in their economic policies than the civilian presidents who preceded them. The dawn of varguismo and the rise of neoliberalism coincided, not with the 64 coup, but with the return of civilian rule, specially with the Collor regime and those that succeeded it. 187.68.203.123 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it just me or is the first sentence ambiguous? The way it is currently written, it sounds like Sarney took office in 1964. Maybe there is another way to write it so that readers who are unfamiliar with the subject will know that Sarney wasn't a participant in the coup itself. --Lacarids (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a shot.--Dali-Llama (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Amor e Revolução, a brazilian telenovela with actual people, who are portrayed in the soap opera, shown in documentary segments. 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These terms include military junta or junta, or just was ruled by a military (presence). Please, feel free to contribute.

These terms include military junta or junta, or just was ruled by a military (presence). Please, feel free to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.51.246 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian military government. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426202301/http://www.surjournal.org/eng/conteudos/getArtigo13.php?artigo=13%2Cartigo_01.htm to http://www.surjournal.org/eng/conteudos/getArtigo13.php?artigo=13%2Cartigo_01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the history of this article shows, the original title was Military dictatorship in Brazil, and this page was created afterwards only as a redirect to it. Someone moved it manually without authorization or discussion. That being not only the most accurate name according to the Brazilian government itself and all Historians who wrote about the time, and with it also being the original title which was wrongly moved, I understand the article should be moved back to the original “Military dictatorship in Brazil. 92.184.100.225 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RM. You can post a request to move the page to title that you think would be appropriate. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Political opening. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#Political opening until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In the aftermath of the coup, however,by means of a series of so-called Atos Institucionais (Institutional Acts), complementary acts, a new Constitution, a revised Constitution, constitutional amendments and various so-called pacotes (packages of arbitrary measures), the military radically remodeled and severely undermined the democratic institutions, albeit limited and flawed, established in Brazil at the end of the Second World War.

For twenty-one years,until the transition to civilian rule (though not yet to a fully fledged democracy) in March 1985, Brazilians lived under authoritarian military rule... Unlike the two previous interventions for regime change in the twentieth century...the 1964 coup led to the establishment of a durable military regime." (in "Politics in Brazil under Military Rule, 1964-1985), by Leslie Bethell and Celso Castro, in The Cambridge History of Latin America (brazil since 1930), v. 9, pp. 165-166)

As I mentioned in the previous thread, there was a military regime from 1964 until 1985, established by a coup on March 31, 1964. It became increasingly authoritarian until it turned into a clear dictatorship in 1968 and lasted until 1978, when it slowly returned to democracy. Unfortunately, I have to listen to anonymous editors with not experience or knowledge in Brazil history and who prefer to waste time on trivial matters, such as how the lead should start. The title of this article is misleading and the article should be improved to FA standards. --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Don't deny someone's point of view as simple "revisionism" or something like that. In the case of the Brazilian Military dictatorship, i can speak with confidence that the majority of scholars in and outside of Brazil are pretty secured about the definition of "dictatorship" for the time period between 1964 and 1985. A dictatorship is a form of regime, in this case with the military in power, so the debate is kinda pointless. And a regime that don't answer to independent institutions or is not democratically elected, and the only reason why it got into power and stayed in power is through the force of arms, is, by definition, an autocratic government (ie, a dictatorship). I recommend The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985 by Thomas E. Skidmore (ISBN-10 0195063163) and Dictatorship and Armed Struggle in Brazil by Joao Quartim (ISBN-10 0853452024). Coltsfan (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]