Talk:2023 Brazilian Congress attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think that this can be related to January 6 United States Capitol attack

They are attacks commanded by different people but on See Also i think it could be added the January 6 United States Capitol attack wikipedia article about it Goliv04053 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

While the characterization is supported by some .3

outlets [1], maybe a page for Storming of Political Offices due to Perceived Electoral Fraud (or something less verbose)? I don't know it it warrants a direct link on the Jan 6th page. CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 03:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

for the 2425121541541th time, it is already linked in the article, no need to add to see also. SnoopyBird (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Capitol attack is already linked in the article, that's why it's not in the "See Also" section. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence of the Background section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The events have similar characteristics. However, they are not connected. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Tise exists (cool) What about, 2023 Brasilia Plaza/plaza storming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tise exists (cool) (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Many sources are saying that it relates to the January 6th United States Capital Attack.Cwater1 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If you do Ctrl + F for "January 6" you won't see it but if you do Ctrl + F for "6 January" you will. "6 January", altho inconsistent with the article name for "January 6 United States Capitol attack" is internally consistent with the date scheme that this article employees.. TerraFrost (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress (split proposal)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a Consensus to split after 30 days of discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I think we should split the reactions off into a separate article as its cumbersome and takes up a good portion of the article. The focus here should be about the event itself and not the reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: A split feels inevitable and this seems like the most obvious/reasonable way to fork at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Don't oppose however, I would like to mention the experience with 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where we split off a long section of repetitive quotes expressing disapproval. I am here to tell you that this was very tedious to edit and update, and probably to read. However, I don't have a better suggestion Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Support making a sum-style split – I don't see how this article needs more than just a summary of the most important reactions. The reactions that notable yet not relevant to the full picture should be split into their own article. DecafPotato (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support making the split article because it's taking up a lot of space on the article and would benefit from being more in depth on another article. Would also help remove any WP:UNDUE on the main article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support I support splitting the reactions into a new article. It has been done before on many other articles before because it got too long on the main article.Cwater1 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per WEIGHT and NPOV. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support this takes a really big chunk of the article, so it really should be split, with only the more important reactions shown here. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support; not only do I personally support it, but it also looks to be a near-unanimous case of consensus after 30 days. I think we're ready to get to work on splitting this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:37, 8 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.

Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks

Page watchers may want to help improve Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks (possible rename required for consistency?)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Invasão de 8 de janeiro - estragos no Senado.jpg
• Invasão de 8 de janeiro - rampa do Congresso.jpg
• Invasão de 8 de janeiro - visão ampla da rampa do Congresso.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok this is ridiculous, Agencia Brasil says that anyone can use the files as long as they credit it, and its properly credited in wikimedia, can people stop marking every image they see about this as copyvio? SnoopyBird (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They can't hear you when you post here. Click the link and go to the discussion Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

by the way, I haven't marked any image as anything, and I don't think anyone else has either. This is a bot run from Wikimedia Commons. Elinruby (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There you go, I see you commented on the page. It may be as simple as needing to credit them, which it doesn't look like we did. Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, we do give credit. Anyway, it looks like yours answers might clear this up. Glad to see it. Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that they can see it here, i just felt the need to comment, i know it is a bot from wikimedia commons, also, we did credit them i think, someone has contacted their representative to see if their images are licensed anyways, so we should hold from any decisions to delete or keep until the answer is given. SnoopyBird (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sure the copyright issues are getting worked out at Wikimedia Commons if somebody is responding to these notices. I'm not. But the last I one I looked at was saying that TV Brasil's use policy was in fact essentially a Creative Commons license equivalent. But I'm not keeping track of the images or their licenses.Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Coup attempt?

Do most mainstream media and reliable sources describe this event as a coup attempt? If yes, I will add it to the appropriate list articles and templates. If not, then I will remove the category. StellarHalo (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we actually know that yet. Crystal ball, as I said. Just something to keep in mind if we are still looking for consensus in a week or so, when I suspect they will be starting to charge someone with pretty much this. Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:COUP is worth reading in this regard. At the end, this has been very similar to the US Congress storming. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not. A couple of hundred inbred buffalo-hat-wearing goofballs breaking into Congress is in no way related to a massive amount of support the opposition has here - this is a real insurrection/rebellion, with the possibility of "success."

HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There are evidences, such as: 1. the invasion was facilitated by some police officers; 2. the army denied and stopped the police to dismantle the camp in the front of headquarters few days earlier; 3. there are suspicious movements ignoring threats in the day before the invasion; Anderson Torres travelled to the same city in Florida as Bolsonaro; --Ciao 90 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Law Nº 14.197 predicts the crime of coup d'état ("Attempting to depose, by means of violence or grave threat, the legitimately constituted government"). I'd say to wait and see if the people who took part/invested in the event will be charged for this crime. If yes, I would suggest to move the article to "2023 Brazil coup d'état attempt" (but this discussion is still in the future). Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I just commented on this point in the "Different name" section. Bottom line, not enough use of the term in reliable sources yet. If that starts to change we can reconsider. I say this even though I myself used the term, and believe that that is what this was. But it isn't my opinion that counts here. My best current suggestion for the article name today is "2023 attack on the Brazilian government" since Congress is wrong (it was more than Congress) and I question whether anyone outside Brazil would recognize the name of the plaza. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to put this here: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/key-bolsonaro-ally-arrested-on-return-to-brazil-over-alleged-coup-attempt-anderson-torres

I strongly suggest at least two more like this.

Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

“Selma’s Party”

Apparently, those involved in the attack used this phrase (and other code words) to refer to their plans on social media without arousing suspicion. See [2]. Definitely deserves a mention. It’s similar to the way some people in the USA have recently been using the words “Boogaloo”, Big Igloo, Big Luau, etc. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Arrests

should we make arrests its own section in aftermath? Because there have been a few high profile arrests such as Anderson Torres (the former public security chief of Brasilia) and the former commander of the military police. Also the sheer number of arrests related to this (1500 at the time of this post) is important enough to deserve a section imo. Roboprince (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But didn't I see that Anderson Torres was in the US? Was I wrong about that? Elinruby (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Reuters, an order to arrest Torres has been issued, but he is in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification Elinruby (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A good video timeline by Folha de S.Paulo

[3] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Invasões na Esplanada dos Ministérios (DF).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Different Name

I believe this should be named as 2023 Brazilian coup attempt, as it is very similar to the 2021 American coup d'état attempt Wikieditor019 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The article's name is January 6 United States Capitol attack i think, not "coup attempt", even if the mob did want a coup, it wasnt an organized one, so it wouldn't really classify. SnoopyBird (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Brazilian law predicts the crime of coup d'état, but we have to wait and see if someone is charged for this crime. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally suspect it *was* a coup and it *was* planned, but my suspicions are not what counts here. Since I'm the one that raised this question of a coup d'état a few sections up, I want to emphasize that I do *not* think that we should be using the phrase just yet. I just think it's something to keep in mind. Erick Soares3 is probably keeping closer watch on this than I am, given my very rough grasp of Portuguese, so if he says nobody's been charged with that crime yet, he is no doubt right about that, and yes, that would make this too soon, for sure, and it probably will be too soon even once somebody has been charged.

Wikipedia doesn't like to get ahead of the facts, and probably will consider that it's too soon until such time as there is a conviction. I was just trying to break up the logjam of ideas on the article title. So coming back to that, I like "attack" best of the other ideas, and there might even be a consensus for it. Attack on what, is the question. I agree that Congress too is wrong, and also that nobody outside Brazil has ever heard of that plaza. I hadn't, and I did a lot of work on the article on the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, and with Mathglot on Operation Car Wash and all of the many followup operations, so I am probably more familiar with Brazil than 90% of English-language Wikipedia editors.

"2023 attack on the Brazilian government" maybe? I don't think anyone has proposed that one yet. I am not going to get my adrenaline up over the article title in any event, but I agree that all three branches of the government were attacked, not just the Congress. HtH Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I did some research and it seems that Anderson Torres was charged by Alexandre de Moraes on, among other things, "violent abolition of the democratic rule of law" and "coup d'état" attempt (page 3 - original source). Is a matter of time to see if anyone else will be charged or even convicted by the same thing and considering the delicate nature of the event, I'm not sure if the Wiki (be English or Portuguese versions) should follow what the media is saying (I have seen the terms "terrorismo" or "tentativa de golpe" being used here in Brazil) or if is better to wait for the trials and convictions (specially if the investigations shows, without a doubt, that it had been planned by people in position of power among politicians and the armed forces).

Maybe "2023 attack on the Brazilian Federal Government Headquarters" could work? Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds a little like a single building. But it isn't all that different from my current proposal. I could support "2022 attack on the Brazilian federal government." What's the purpose of "headquarters"? To make it clear that this is a physical attack maybe? Wikipedia is very hesitant about "terrorism" and probably also would be about coup d'etat. And yet the rule of thumb would be to follow what a preponderance of reliable sources call it. In English or Portuguese. Are the news sources using word O Globo or something similarly reliable? Yet I haven't seen the designation in English-language media, not that I have looked very hard, and not that the US news cycle doesn't have a really short attention span. Is Torres still in the US, and is he fighting extradition? If the answers are yes and yes, I think that hearing is likely to get covered. Maybe we can see what it gets called then. I will look into this a little later today. One thing English-language media have done, a lot, is point out the parallels to January 6, which is pretty much considered a coup d'etat at this point. Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind - I see the answers are no and no. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On the headquarters my intention is to make it clear that those aren't any regular offices buildings, but the bases of the 3 branches of the Brazilian government. O Globo is part of Grupo Globo, one of the oldest media group in Brazil (imagine something like BBC or CNN) and probably one of the more influential/powerful media group in Latin America. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, on O Globo I realize that. I was asking if the Brazilian news sources using "coup" are sources that are that good. The Guardian source I labelled "Never mind" above is a gol-star reliable source on en.wikipedia, and it uses the word in the headline. Elinruby (talk) 15

44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind you I agree that it still a little early to use the term. I wouldn't even be discussing it if it weren't that we still need a better article title. I hear you on headquarters. The problem I have with that is that it sounds like one building. I thought of "government buildings" but that doesn't make it clear that these are *the* buildings that are the seat of power, not just random archive buildings or warehouses for surplus military inventory or whatever. Maybe just [[2023 Attack on the Brazilian government"? Apart from that I am currently out of suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you sent me some questions on the talk page, I'm replying there! Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Might I suggest 2023 Storming of the Brazilian government complex? "Attack" works, too. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd propose "2023 Brazil's capital attack" [4] fgnievinski (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

a couple of hundred nutjobs acting rashly/stupidly/hopelessly at the Capitol building is no 'coup' HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

By hundreds you mean over a thousand? plus the fact that trump knew that the people there were armed and heading for the capitol? yes, it was a coup attempt, even if they were all "stupid nutjobs" (which, well, they were). SnoopyBird (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

User:SnoopyBird made an edit removing the Reichstag fire from the "See also" section, with the apparent explanation that it is unrelated. Maybe the heading is not self-evident but the Reichstag fire was an arson attack against the German parliament. Therefore, I consider it a related topic, considering that the invasion of the Brazilian Congress is considered by many an attack. Thinker78 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldnt really say that it is related, mainly because the reichstag fire may have been done by the nazis themselves, it also wasnt an protest/riot at the region, but an arson case. SnoopyBird (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The See also section is further not a place to list all tangentially related historical events. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Snoopy here. The Reichstag fire is still a case of "no one know who did it". Plus, we know what happened after the Reichstag fire: the Nazis took power. We also (sort of) know what happened after January 6: Trump and the rioters got investigated to death. We don't know what will ultimately happen after this, and Wikipedia isn't the place to speculate about it (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). But even with what we already know, being that Lula is in power now, and Bolsonaro isn't, it already contrasts from the Reichstag. Hitler, at the time of the Reichstag fire, was Chancellor of the Reich. So I don't see how, after a further investigation, this could merit inclusion into this article's See Also section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename building per WP:RS

The name is not Three Powers Plaza. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Three Powers Plaza is the plaza where the 3 buildings (National Congress, Supreme Federal Court and Planalto Palace) are located, that's why. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 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. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Brazilian Congress attack → January 8 Three Powers Plaza attack – the national congress wasnt the only building affected by the invasion, the supreme court building and the planalto palace were also invaded during the attack SnoopyBird (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, i opened this as the last discussion showed a pretty much even split of supports and oppose, with most of those opposing suggesting the use of a English name version, so, we can rename the page and make it so the other name proposals (like the current name, plus a few others like 2023 Brasília Attack, 2023 Storming of the Praça dos Três Poderes, etc) redirect to this page, as i find my proposal the most accurate one (reason provided above), and has a title similar to the January 6 United States Capitol attack (invasion/attack with many similarities to this one here). SnoopyBird (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Your proposal will be challenged very quickly as the failed proposals during the previous move to have Portuguese language in the title are working to rename this location to make a stronger case for take two. --Killuminator (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What? SnoopyBird (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Can you provide an RS which lists the attack as "the Three Powers attack"? Wikipedia is intended to reflect society's wishes, not decide it for them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

its "Three Powers Plaza" attack, not "Three Powers attack", also, these three () mention that the attack happened in the three powers plaza, not only the congress, i know that most people arent familiar with the name, but we can just make the current article name redirect to the new one, Three Powers Plaza is more accurate, as, like i said, the attack was against 3 buildings there, not only the congress, the current name ommits that. SnoopyBird (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, as a COMMONNAME doesn't seem to have been established unanimously. It took a while for January 6 to become the COMMONNAME of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. The sources provided in reply to my comment don't seem to be enough...none of the sources seems to directly name the attack "the Three Powers Plaza attack". We should be seeing more English and potentially non-English sources use the name "Three Powers Plaza attack" or "January 8", and not just in Europe or Brazil: US media, Indian sources like the Hindustan Times, Australian news, etc. I'm not saying that the move can't happen in the future if we all rally around that name the same way that January 6 came to be, but it's simply too early to tell what name it should be deemed by. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We could maybe hold out this for some time, until it starts to be used more widely by media outside of Brazil, but, as of right now, almost every single media in Brazil calls it "Invasão da Praça dos Três Poderes" (Invasion of the Three Powers Plaza) ou "8 de Janeiro" (January 8), reason why the portuguese version of the article is named like that, but if everyone here wants to wait, so be it. SnoopyBird (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment I do not like the January 8 part of the name. People called the Capitol attack the January 6 capitol attack because that IS their common name. People aren't calling this the January 8 blank attack. Your argument of "we might as well change the capitol attack article to 2021 United States Capitol attack" makes no sense because not only is it the common name but there was an entire move request that changed the article's name from the 2021 capitol attack to the january 6 capitol attack. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Its the common name here in Brazil, it may become so in other media in the future, but, as of right now, other RS aren't even talking about the attack, some even forgot about it (reason why this article lost activity), that's why the name is not being used (even though most newspapers here are already calling the event "January 8") SnoopyBird (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose Most readers will be more familiar with "Brazilian Congress" than "Three Powers Plaza" as the location of the event, especially given media reporting of the incident in English language media. Additionally I think it makes more sense for the year to be present in the title, similar to other such events. aismallard (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. More obvious title. January 8 when? Where is Three Powers Plaza? And note that an RM for the renaming of the latter is also underway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

January 8 2023, in line with the capitol attack article, if we are going to do the way you want, we might as well change the capitol attack article to 2021 United States Capitol attack, plus, three powers plaza is the place where the 3 attacked buildings are located. SnoopyBird (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

My point is that most people will not know where Three Powers Plaza is. The Capitol attack should indeed probably have the year in it, but it does have the country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe 2023 Brasilia Attack could fit then, anything but the current article name. SnoopyBird (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that Three Powers Plaza has now been renamed to Praça dos Três Poderes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References

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.