Talk:Military dictatorship in Brazil/Archive 1

[Untitled]

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)

No mention of military regime abuses?

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Uh...

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)

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)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Geisel.jpg

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)

Gil and Veloso

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)

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)

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)

Title wrong

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

Frente Amplio

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)

Brazilian book

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

Copyvio? Unencyclopedic?

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)

The source can be found here: [1]

Sources, anyone?

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)

Ambiguous Intro?

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)

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

potential resource, see Amor e Revolução

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)

Other terms that are used...

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

Other terms that are used...

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)

External links modified

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)

Original title was Military Dictatorship in Brazil, was wrongly moved without discussion

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)

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)

Requested move 1 October 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Specifically, the earlier undiscussed move is reverted, without objection. bd2412 T 13:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian military government → Military dictatorship in Brazil – The article was originally created as Military dictatorship in Brazil. Someone afterwards moved the article manually - in violation of Wikipedia rules, as manual movimentations are not allowed; the move was also done without any discussion or reasoning. As the article itself states in its first sentence, it was a dictatorship - therefore, it should be moved back to its original title, Military dictatorship in Brazil, and not Military government, as a military government might even be democratic, with a military president elected by the people (it might even happen in Brazil this month, actually - that would, differently from 1964, not be a dictatorship though - but in 1964-1985 that was indeed the case. 92.184.117.89 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. it's a more suitable name, just like the pt-wiki counterpart. The change in the first place was already skewed, the proposed title reflects the reality better, it's in accordance to the sources and consensus among historians, and restores the original title changed without previous consensus. Coltsfan (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Instead of creating this move request, the nominator can simply put the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves and then the article could be moved without discussion by administrator or page mover. The nominator may also request this article to be move-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hddty. (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 October 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: technical close. The request seems moot after the reversion of the copy-paste and bold move without consensus. wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Military dictatorship in Brazil → Brazilian military dictatorship – The move by Pedro8790 is against above consensus and duplicated the content. Ixocactus (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I reverted the copy-paste "move" which duplicated the content. And no, I did not create a circular redirect Brazilian military government → Brazilian military government – that was the work of a WP:page mover "round-robin" moving the pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Ixocactus: per per this technical request Brazilian military government was moved back to Military dictatorship in Brazil. You haven't given a rationale for why you think Brazilian military dictatorship is better than Military dictatorship in Brazil. Please explain your reasoning, or, if you are content with the article being restored to the previous title, feel free to withdraw this request. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Wbm1058:!! Your revert and the technical request solved the problems. Obrigado! Ixocactus (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Political opening" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Military Dictatorship or Military Regime

"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)

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)