Talk:2023 Brazilian Congress attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

CNN says area has been cleared, very damaged

That removes some urgency Elinruby (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

Change the template {{current}} at the top of the article from {{current|date=January 2023|2= attack}} to {{current|date=January 2023|2=recent attack}}, because the point of the template is it being recent, not it being an attack. 91.129.98.21 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 04:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 (2)

Please remove this sentence from the introduction: 

Congress will convene in an emergency meeting to vote on the decision, as the legislature was not in session

and add this one to replace it: 

Because Congress was not in session, it will convene in an emergency meeting to vote on the decision.

Someone unfamiliar with Brazil could interpret "Congress" and "the legislature" to be two separate bodies, and saying "Congress" twice would be redundant. 120.21.65.18 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 (3)

Please remove this line: 

Right-wing political activist and former Trump administration Counselor to the President, Steve Bannon praised

and add this one to replace it: 

American right-wing political activist and former Trump administration Counselor to the President, Steve Bannon, praised

Since he worked with the Trump administration and doesn't have a Portuguese-sounding name, one can guess that he's an American, but it would help to add "American" to be sure. Also, a comma is missing after his name. 120.21.65.18 (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 (4)

In this phrase: 

who on 16 October 2022 published a video encouraging a truckers' general strike by truckers before the second round of elections.

Please remove one of the two "truckers" as redundant; either "a truckers' general strike" or "a general strike by truckers" is perfectly understandable. 120.21.65.18 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@120.21.65.18  Done in this edit. I chose the former phrasing because it's shorter. Thank you! LightNightLights (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 (5)

In this sentence: 

Left-wing figures and groups in Europe, such as the former Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras and former Leader of the British Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn expressed solidarity with Lula.

Please add a comma after "Corbyn", since his name ends a distinct clause that doesn't include "expressed". 120.21.65.18 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Thank you! LightNightLights (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request DONE

In the "Events" section's 6th paragraph change "an journalist" to "a journalist", because 'an' should only be used when preceding a word with a vowel at the beginning. 213.175.126.121 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. I will do that.Elinruby (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

@Mathglot: Haven't looked.at history yet Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

See Also

Why isn't January 6 United States Capitol attack listed under the See Also section? It is stated in the article that this attack was inspired by those events, so I think it should be listed under See Also as a similar attack on another nation's capitol. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It is already linked in the article, that's why. SnoopyBird (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Where, I´ve done control F, I couldn´t find it anywhere. StrongALPHA (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Look at the first sentence of the Background section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Former Senate president portrait

Portrait from the gallery of official portraits of former presidents of the Senate, in the Main Hall of the house

That's Renan Calheiros, isn't it? Moscow Mule (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. In the lower row of this photo from 2019 his portrait appears just after that of José Sarney, who he succeeded as president of the Senate. —capmo (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation! Moscow Mule (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've moved this image over to Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-Protected?

Given the nature of what this is, I think it might be worth making this semi-protected Genabab (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So far we did not have disruption, and we may not protect pages pre-emptively. However, I will still be around for a couple of hours and can protect the article if any disruption starts. If it starts later, pls request at WP:RFPP. Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Protected for 3 days Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 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. The consensus is that "protests" is not an adequate term for the event, closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress → 2023 Brasilia protests – 2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress does not make sense, as other buildings have been stormed. I propose 2023 Brasilia protests/riots or 2023 invasion/storming of Praça dos Três Poderes. -PanNostraticism2 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Either 2023 Brasilia riots or 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes riots. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait. Hold yer horses. We're too fast in deciding a name for the event. Give it some time. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a move to the 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes riots pending further development. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 2023 Brasilia attack, as "attack" is consistent with January 6 United States Capitol attack. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. But "2023 Brasília Federal Buildings Attack" is a more descriptive name. Gjvnq (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose, should be a name with "attack" or "riots", but more specific than "Brasilia": perhaps 2023 Three Powers Plaza attack, as I'd also suggest Praça dos Três Poderes be moved to its English name, which has been widely used in coverage of the attack. Reywas92Talk 04:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose calling these rioters "protesters". No strong feels about other proposals above Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Partially undid Special:Diff/1132421286 to fix malformed RM at 06:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC) to show move as originally requested. The article has been moved since. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An outright attack on buildings and even the police and reporters is not a protest. "2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack" is more appropriate as that's where the event occurred, though I'm not opposed to moving it to a completely English name. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above. Anda Brasília has a diacritic! RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an attack on the Praça dos Três Poderes (which is listed under its Portuguese name, not an English one). Also, if for any reason the word "Brasília" is used, make sure it has its accent.----~~
  • Oppose This was not “protests,” it was a violent riot/coup attempt. Even besides my personal opinion, that’s what RSes are describing it as. It would be deeply irresponsible to downplay events. The Kip (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - A separate article wouldn't be out of the question, but this specific article is about the attack on the government buildings, not the protests as a whole. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Opppose the wording of protests, but the current title doesn't make any sense either - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I find it rather telling that inaccurate language is governing the entries describing political actions undertaken by left-wing demonstrators. Even the George Floyd and BLM riots, during which hundreds of riots ensued and State capitols in the United States saw extensive property damages and arson, are described as protests. Those who are gatekeeping these entries are engaged in clear manipulation of public perception to discredit opposition and legitimize their own causes that advance their ideology. If you can describe what took place, then, as protests, then you most certainly can describe broken windows as such. VindiceLibertas (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Note that this user was blocked for edit-warring on other coup attempt-related pages for NPOV violations, including pro-Bolsonaro ideology-pushing. The Kip (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess there were no clashes with police [1] and no attacks on reporters then [2]. The difference between BLM and this is that it wasn't explicitly covering intrusion and attack on federal buildings and people. Your comments smack of obvious political bias and should be crossed out. I will be calling an admin for intervention. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to clarify that this proposal was written at the early stages of the event when it was not known how severe the rioting was. I believe 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack to be a better name than the proposal, although I also think the name is too long and is not easily searchable on an English-language wiki. Maybe 2023 Brasilia attack or 2023 Brasilia insurrection would be preferable. That is of course if a suitable local name for the event is not penned. -PanNostraticism2 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Severe? You only think that because so many people attended. Breaking windows and grabbing a copy of the Constitution is not "severe." Also, this nonsense about the civilians versus the military is over the top as well. I've got hundreds of videos, right here, where the military is guarding the protestors and walking with them and being cheered on by the protestors. I think rebellion or resistance movement is a far more appropriate term for this, because that's precisely what it is. The Brazilian civilians are protesting and rebelling against a Socialist ideologue, who is going to strip them of their rights of property and self-defense, and if they cannot engage in voluntary exchange under Socialism, then they will face famine, poverty, and genocide. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the oppression of the Brazilian people and the negation of their liberties. VindiceLibertas (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    None of what you said is going to happen, you can calm down. It was closer to a riot than a protest. D4R1U5 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    I can’t even begin to describe what’s wrong with your post, but I’ll leave it at WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NPOV. The Kip (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are massive and violent assaults on the headquarters of the three branches of the Brazilian State mere "protests"?? _-_Alsor (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It were not mere protests. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Rebellion is the only reasonably neutral language. This is being watched by numerous human rights organizations who are dismayed with the misinformation going on here, FYI.
VindiceLibertas (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The page should be moved, but to a title that is more severe than "protests." D4R1U5 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Riot" may just about be passable, but "protest" is lacking. I am in favour of "attack", given the magnitude and the amount of planning/coordination. –sootsmudge🗨 13:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rebellion makes more sense and is the most neutral and unbiased way to represent what is happening here. 172.220.10.86 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The page should be moved but not to one as mild as protests, it should be something like 2023 Storming of Praça dos Três Poderes instead of something else, because that is a more unbiased name from what I can see, and "protests" is a very mild term for the violent mob in this instance. As well it can be noted that some of the support votes on this idea instead move quite partisan on their opinion on other events. Also present name is fine if it is wanted as it is more consistent with January 6 United States Capitol attack. CIN I&II (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. These acts can under no circunstance be classified as protests. They were an organized, criminal act of insurrection. The terminology should be in line with the January 6 article. JoaumBoladaum (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah i really think we need to change the name now, the congress wasn't the only affected building, might as well change it to either the two i mentioned or move back to "2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack" SnoopyBird (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This was an attack on government buildings, not protests. Liljimbo (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Protests" is extremely vague. It pretty much reads as an euphemism.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. "Protests" understates what happened. Brazil Congress attack would be more appropriate, in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the congress wasn't the only building affected and the title should show this, though I think the term "protest" isn't the proper term to describe what was basically an insurrection
Roboprince (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The right to protest does not include the right to breaking and entering, vandalism, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Calling these "protests" is way underselling what happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAINEiac4434 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: invasion personally seems like the wrong language, I'm not sure if protests are the best choice either, but I agree less with invasion. Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose They have a reason to be called "2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress." Changing the name isn't a great option. Some random serbian (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, I would support a proposal for it to be called "2023 Brazilian coup d'etat attempt." Which makes more sense than calling those 'protests.' Some random serbian (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Again, there's a reason why we call January 6 an attack and not the "January 6 United States Capitol protests." This was a violent attack aimed at forcibly overthrowing the Lula government of Brazil, not simply a demonstration meant to show displeasure with it or expressing merely a desire for it to be replaced. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This coup attempt aimed at replacing the current democratic government with a military junta that the terrorists hoped would emulate the bloody, violent, dictatorship started by the 1964 coup. Please do not mock the Brazilian people by calling this a (mere) "protest". Persuasão (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The press has been comparing this to the January 6th insurrection in the United States. Neither event was merely a "protest." 68.43.231.28 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Definitely not a simple protest, a "riot" is what happen and article on them don't get whitewashed names, they call them what they really are. Keep the current name.LordLoko (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Protests is a drastic understatement of the events. Perhaps something along the lines of 2023 Brazilian government complex attack would be better. Using the English name of "Three Powers Plaza" would be more or less improper, but many may not understand the Portuguese name on English wikipedia.--Estar8806 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that naming it after the congress limits the event. It was an attack on the complex of the Praça dos Três Poderes as a whole. I disagree with the current name for that reason. However, calling this event a mere "protest" is utter whitewashing, so I completely disagree with that too. SecretName101 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Out of the realm of a mere "protest" at this point. L'Mainerque (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support The term "invasion" is an overstatement, given that the protestors had no known leaders nor were part of a collective organsiation i.e. political party, paramilitary unit etc. Using the term "invasion" is not in line with other Wikipedia naming norms of similar acts of unrest and violence in Iraq, South Korea, Venezuela etc. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose "protests." Neither the January 8 attacks in Brasilia nor the January 6 attacks in Washington DC were just "protests." The current title is preferable to the proposed one. If the title is changed, "attack" is the best candidate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While "invasion" might not be the best term, simply calling this "protests" is grossly oversimplifying the situation. Others have rightly pointed out the violence, and similarities to the January 6 United States Capitol attack. I'd actually suggest this be WP:SNOW closed, as there's clearly no policy reason to use "protests" in the name, and the overwhelming response is to Oppose the proposal.
— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this was way beyond a protest. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The word "protests" is a cynical understatement. It was an attack and should be labeled as such. See January 6 United States Capitol attack. However, the current title is also flawed as it implies only one building was invaded. It would be preferable to name this page 2023 Brasilia attack/riots. Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • [[File:Snowpyramids.jpg|thumb|[[WP:SNOW|Is anyone else feeling cold in here, or is it just me? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)]]]]Strong oppose. "Protests" suggests they were peaceful. This was a riot/insurrection comparable to January 6, 2021 in the US. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Support 2023 Brasilia attack or 2023 attacks on Brazilian government buildings similar to January 6 United States Capitol attack. It's an attack - too small to be an invasion but too violent to be protests. OCNative (talk) 01:49, 10 January 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.

Hey guys

Can we hold off on doing any more page moves until we get a handle on events?

I am somewhat in favor of a different name that.doesn't require the reader.to recognize the name of the presidential palace, fwiw. But I would like to do a copy edit and see if anything needs updating, and this is difficult when the article is a moving target. Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • maybe start an RfM if you feel a burning need to do something about this? Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
agreed, the situation is rapidly evolving, is there a way to apply some sort of edit review protection? 98.59.80.64 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The page was protected last night and afaik still is. But if you see stuff getting ugly, Ymblanter is an admin who's been watching the page, and would

be a good person to ping. If you don't know how to do that, no worries, just go into edit mode and look at the syntax just below here.Elinruby (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a RM above, one can add more possible targets if needed. Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: The name changed a few times overnight but it has settled down a bit now and is no longer randomly changing every minutes. Some of these very new editors seem to be experienced Portuguese Wikipedia editors. Others not so much, which is why I RfPed last night. Apart from my minor annoyance at the no-target errors, I was worried about the redirects. Do you think you could check on that? I think it might be easier for you than for me. I would have to start by looking up how to check it. If not, no worries, just let me know and I will ask someone else. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think redirects are good now, but in any case bots take care of broken redirects, so we do not need to worry too much. Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
ok good, thank for the look and the explanation Elinruby (talk) 15
46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Federal intervention in the Distrito Federal in 2023

To the person who took off my what and linked to this: thank you as that was an improvement. However what does this mean exactly? I smell weasel. Is this the equivalent of sending the National Guard into DC on Jan 6,.for example? Interfering in sovereignty is...pretty.euphemistic. That said, I don't currently have a better idea, but this bit of text needs improvement.Elinruby (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a news story that includes a Scribd copy of the order. I wonder if "state of emergency" would be a more idiomatic translation. XOR'easter (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If it is correct, yes it would. But what I really want to know is what he did after he issued it.Sent in the military? What does the constitution say about that? Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

my apologies: I missed that the @XOR'easter:cribd text was imbedded in a news article. This would indeed be usable assuming the publication meets WP:RS. Has somebody checked that out, do you know? Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely this order exists on some government website as a press release? we can't use Scribd because it is self-published. Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: you can find the order here. I researched about what a intervenção federal is and is something like that: the Brazilian Government removes authority of the local government (in this case, the Government of Brasília) in the event of a crisis and the President nominates an interventor (in this case, Ricardo Garcia Cappelli), with authority to request anything necessary and who have to reply directly to the President in order to deal with the crisis. It shall last until January 31, but there are past examples when it lasted for almost a full year. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Official source. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome! Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@UmChad: maybe your Portuguese can help here. Elinruby (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, hi, ok, so a ping is when I put a "@" in front of the username? Just found out about it.
Anyways, as I said, I'm not a political expert so I would rather not interfere too much on the article. I will only say and answer questions I can give the right answer to. UmChad (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. "@UmChad" is how it comes out but to make it work you have to type "@UmChad:. Do you see an icon on your menu that has a number on it? Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Syntax:<nowiki>@UmChad:</ nowiki> Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
without the nowiki part Elinruby (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any number icons, but I think I have finally understood how to ping @Elinruby UmChad (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That is why I am back here, to tell you I got the message. Something in your browser or app will change to notify you when I @UmChad: Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, do that when you have a question and I will try to help Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Empire of Brazil flag on the article?

The Pro-Bolsonaro people do not seem to be monarchists, but rather for some reason (likely an accident) they have put up the monarchist flag. UmChad (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Empire of Brazil flag is a symbol often used by the far-right in Brazil to express a desire to return to tradition (despite the Empire being relatively progressive compared to the first iteration of the Republic), similar to the Flag of the German Empire being used by far-right extremists in Germany despite many of them not desiring a return to the Kaiserreich. The flag flying does not necessarily mean they want the monarchy restored, though it sends a message that definitely isn't just "an accident." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we use the word here as it would be original research, but it sounds like the analogy to Russian irredentism might be kind of apt. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying: Bolsonaro supporters did this? Not an error of a wikipedia editor? If the former, not sure, might be a form irridentism? Nostalgia for empire? If a wikipedia editor, I suggest a reality check Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen footage showing that indeed Bolsonaro supporters put up the Monarchist flag (ON THE REAL PLACE, NOT WIKI ARTICLE, in case I poorly worded myself, sorry), and considering their goal is to have Bolsonaro back in power or a military intervetion, I really don't think their actual intention is to bring the Monarchy back, and likely the flag was put there for unknown reasons or by accident. I'm not sure if they support a monarchist regime (likely not).
Being honest these edits I made and the current state of the article are a bit rushed so it would be better if we could let stuff settle in and wait at least a day before doing actual work on the article. UmChad (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Bolsonaro supporters also do not seem to have any relation with the nazis or neo-nazism, so I think that's another evidence to refute this claim. UmChad (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Chiming in, I'm not sure what your desired change is. Currently, the only mention of the flag of the Empire of Brazil is "Protestors were seen with the flag of the Empire of Brazil.[28]", which doesn't mention their true motives at all (whatever they might be) and which is currently cited to a New York Times source. LightNightLights (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It's about an edit that has already been fixed, I was wondering why the flag was placed on the "Parties to the civil conflict" section but now it has been removed, no need to worry about it anymore. UmChad (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we get or invite an editor from the lusophone wikipedia to work on the article?
I personally can't suggest any name, and I also don't want to deny or prove anything regarding the protests themselves, however I'm concerned about the accuracy of the information on the article on it's english version. UmChad (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Paolo Simonoes or a name like that is helpful. @Mathglot: is he still around, do you know? @UmChad: I can read Portuguese a little but not fluently or easily. Right now I am doing a critical read of the text and haven't seen either the Empire flag or any sign of Nazis. I will start looking at sources as we go. Since it:s all over CNN I am guessing that there are sources in English, and these would be preferred if they are available. (you weren't unclear really, I am just surprised. We're talking about the Bourbon Empire?) Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Elin, I don't know who is Paulo Simonoes, this is the first time I do stuff on wikipedia since last year, I unfortunately barely know anyone, however I will do my possible to look for him.
I can read, write and speak both portuguese and english.
Regarding the Empire flag, it was put on location (Image:https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/476885065377513482/1061787983965069362/IMG_20230108_201216_149.jpg?width=317&height=473), however the reasons aren't known, and I personally think it was an accident (the protesters aren't very fluent on the concept of politics), however there are people who say it was intentional on their part.
Yes, there are indeed no Nazis involved, and this also why I think the probability of the Empire flag being there intentionally is small.
I'd recommend looking at articles from Brazilian news outlets if you want first-hand information: Globo, Record, Jovem Pan, just please make sure to be impartial, as brazilian media is known and accused of being partial when it comes to politics (Mainly Jovem Pan).
Jovem Pam is blacklisted in the Portuguese wiki, its mainly pro-Bolsonaro, so i wouldn't use it, Globo, Folha and Estado are reliable, although i advise a bit of caution with Record, because it has been quite biased in relation to politics before and has sometimes published slightly distorted news, mainly on accident though. (its owned by the Universal Church, which was in turn founded Edir Macedo, which was kind of pro-Bolsonaro for some time, don't know about his positions now though, but like i said, just be cautious). SnoopyBird (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware, they're very biased indeed and are known for being very misleading, while I think some information can still be extracted from some sources (Jovem Pan has showcased footage of the incident), I will try to follow your recommendation and refrain from using these sources.
In fact I see that the biggest problem with brazilian media nowadays is that they are very partial when it comes to politics. UmChad (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Is "O Globo" allowed? UmChad (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
No, were not talking about monarchy, just talking about the fact that for a weird reason the Empire flag was there. UmChad (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on Operation Car Wash and Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff and many associated articles. I you speak Portuguese I will happily leave the translation to you; Portuguese gives me a headache. I thought you were looking for language help. I found the following list on the OCW talk page: @Elinruby, Bageense, PauloMSimoes, American In Brazil, Vandergay, Lindenfall, and Jose Mathew: were interested in Brazil articles at the time. Somebody is saying the flag is cited to the New York Times, which means I believe it. Using Discord or Twitter is strongly discouraged --.althougj not *always* wrong. Rule of thumb, use a news source instead, or another secondary source. I don't have an opinion on whether Bolsonaro is a Nazi. Has he exterminated.any ethnic minorities? I think for now any such concept should be carefully cited.Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am pleased with your offer, but I'd like to refuse it, I'm still a beginner wikipedian (my only edit before the ones I made today was on the brazilian Nikola Tesla article with the purpose of fixing grammar and orhographic mistakes XD) and I don't want to take such big responsibilities yet.
I made a post on the "Talk" page of the Brazilian article of this Article asking for people there to come help, I hope someone comes here soon.
I did not check the NY times article yet, however I have some footage from the event and can confirm the Empire flag was indeed there. About me using discord it was more about because I couldn't think of another way to link an image here, and despite the fact this screenshot was taken from a discord server where I was discussing about the situation and my recent wikipedia edits of today, I can confirm that the screenshot I sent you comes from real footage as I have received the same (or a very similar) video to the one this image came from.
Bolsonaro is NOT a Nazi.
I just mentioned Nazis because I was trying to refute HadesTTW's claim of "The Empire of Brazil flag is a symbol often used by the far-right in Brazil to express a desire to return to tradition (despite the Empire being relatively progressive compared to the first iteration of the Republic), similar to the Flag of the German Empire being used by far-right extremists in Germany", and since I lacked context on what he was talking about, I thought he was referring (not sure if he was or wasn't) to the Neo Nazi groups who take apropriation of that flag, but as I just said, this is an issue i'd rather not discuss due to my lack of knowledge on it.
I'm mostly trying to help with writing this article and if possible keep this article up to date with it's lusophone counterpart. UmChad (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the English sources and they are very good overall. I say this as an experienced editor who knows the reliable sources policy fairly.wrll. The Brazilian ones I could use help with. G1 is TV? O Tempo is ok I sort of recall? What about Estado de Minas and Examene (sp?) I haven't seen the dispute you refer to yet. I think Bolsonaro is more like Trump than Hitler but in this kind of article we need to carefully cite everything so It doesn't matter what my current opinion is. If you have a wikipedia question feel free to ping me. If this escalates from here we will need all the help we can get.Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
G1 is a website that belongs to Globo, which is one of the examples of sources I mentioned.
I have never read an article from the other sources before. And yes, basically Bolsonaro is the Brazilian Trump but most people that don't like him compare him to Hitler out of hate.
I'm not a political genius either Elin, I just know "enough", I cant answer all questions here accurately XD.
Well, I'd like to know where can I discuss with other fellow wikipedians here on an environment that is more open and off-topic rather than this talk page. UmChad (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
G1 is part of Globo (pretty reputable and reliable source), Estado (known commonly as Estadão) is part of the Grupo Estado de Comunicação, it is also pretty reliable.
O Tempo, Exame and Estado de Minas are also pretty reliable, although i don't really read them so i don't know much about it (still, i have used only sources that i found reliable, so, for many sources that i couldn't check the reliability, i just didn't use them). SnoopyBird (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh I Glibo. Good. Well, you can help if you can easily read Portuguese. Pinging you at a question where Portuguese can help.Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help and I'll gladly do it! Vandergay (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as the Empire flag, is this even important enough to spend time here talking about? Wikipedia has the principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT (and also WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS) to take into consideration. I mean, is this something appearing all the time, in dozens of places, and constantly being reported by the media over and over? (Like, say, the 'Z' symbol that accompanied the Russian military in Ukraine, and that was reported endless numbers of times, but which nevertheless rates only two *very* brief mentions at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I think is about the right amount of coverage.) Put another way: how important is the flag to this topic? Even if it was important, if there isn't enough WP:INDEPENDENT coverage by WP:SECONDARY sources, then we can't cover it.

Another angle: there is WP:NO DEADLINE, so we could just wait a few weeks for the dust to settle, and see what happens. If nobody is using the flag, or talking about it in the media, then it was just a flash in the pan, and doesn't rate mentioning it in the article. On the other hand, if it starts appearing everywhere, or this one appearance gets continuing coverage for a few weeks, then it gains in WEIGHT, and could justify adding it. In any case, I see nothing to lose by just being patient, and taking another look a little while later. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Nod, thanks for explaining that. I think there was dispute about whether it should go in the infobox, is my understanding of it. I personally have never heard of this, but I haven't really been editing Brazil for a year or two Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: The explanation for use the Brazilian Imperial Flag by Bolsonaro supporters may be understand in this BBC article. As per article (apologies for automatic translation):


PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Paulo, I wonder if this is worth a mention on the article. UmChad (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if there's context for that. Personally, I don't see the relevance.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I wonder if this is somewhat relevant when it comes to giving context to the situation:
https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/eleicoes-2022/noticia/2022/10/deputado-principe-descendente-da-familia-imperial-se-reelege-deputado.ghtml UmChad (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no connection between the imperial flag in the protests and any demand for a change from regime to monarchy. The politician, who is a member of the imperial family, is a Bolsonarist and was elected by the same party as Bolsonaro, that's all.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait, the politician is a member of the imperial family? Bolsonaro? Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
oh you mean Ernesto Araújo, don't you. Still surprised; I didn't realize that that branch of the Bourbons stayed in Brazil. Elinruby (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh... no. I referred to this article of "O Globo", which UmChad cited above. I think he misunderstood that:


--PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

voter intimidation followed the 2022 Brazilian general election.

Something is wrong with the sentence since this was added. Surely voter intimidation preceded and police brutality followed? See sources. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What sentence are you talking about? UmChad (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's up in the section about the trucker protests Elinruby (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

1st paragraph of background section. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how the trucker protests are related to this. UmChad (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not dealing with content yet. Look at the sources and let me know. Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


Elon Musk posted a tweet about the situation, previously Macron also gave statements regarding the situation

Link to Elon Musk's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1612230045493248001 UmChad (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Find a news story about this if you want to use Macron. I am against giving Elon Musk any oxygen, personally. His tweets are also arguably self-published. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

yeah, I don't have sources to back up what Macron said right now, only television.
I will try to put a link here whenever I find something.
I don't know what you mean about Elon Musk though.
But being honest, is a "International reactions and repercutions" really neccessary or relevant to the current events? I'm afraid it will be mostly there to fill up space and add unecessary detail that the casual reader may not care much about.
But certainly brief mentions of the statements from both people would be a nice addition. UmChad (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

well. We did one at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and we were sorry. 'Fill up space" is a pretty good description of what happened. If somebody really wants to have one then Macron should be included. Pretty sure somebody will eventually delete Elon Musk, but I personally have bigger fish to fry than to argue about him if you really want to include him. Help us out on that question I just pinged you on first though, please, if you would. Elinruby (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware Elon Musk is a controversial figure, so I see how anyone would feel hesitant about putting him there, however, he is one of the richest people in the world, and a worldwide famous figure that has a certain importance.
I don't think i will add the "International Repercussions" section anyways since I don't think I have authorization to edit semi-protected articles, and as you said, when this addition was made on the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" it was considered just something to "Fill up space" so I'd rather not do the same mistake.
We could at least make brief mentions of who have so far made statements on the situation with sources.
Also, here are the sources for Emmanuel Macron's tweets, he made one in portuguese and another one in english:
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1612194081672658949
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1612194748239945728 UmChad (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@UmChad: I just processed that you said that you just started today, on pt.wikipedia ;) I am sorry. You must think I am really bossy, lol. To be completely clear, you do not have to do what I say. But if you want to work on this article, I will help you do that. I do not want to be the closest thing we have to a Portuguese speaker. Alternately, you could post at some articles on pt.wikipedia that we need help over here. If you want to help here, ask me a question about en.wikipedia. or answer one of the ones I am putting on the talk page, let's leave it at that, ok? If you want to go eat dinner first, that's fine too, but I was serious when I said that your help is welcome. Have you found those pings I sent you? Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Elin, I was unable to reply to you yesterday, but here I am now.
I'm not aware of anything you told me to do and don't worry, I don't have any negative first impressions about you, in fact you have been pretty helpful, I do feel a little overwhelmed by the excessive amount of questions though XD.
I'm not sure if I want to work on this article as I'm not ready to edit such a big article yet, but I'm thinking about it, despite all the negative events from yesterday, at least a good thing that came out of it is that it motivated me to work more on Wikipedia, since yesterday was my first day of activity since a year ago.
I do have interest in expanding english articles about Brazil, and I'm considering inviting a few other people to help me contribute on them, but nothing concrete yet.
I will make sure to reach out to you whenever I need help here, thank you very much. UmChad (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, thank you for letting me know. For what it is worth, I usually tell new editors that I meet on contentious articles that it is best to start with one that people aren't arguing over. History of São Paulo when I was there a while back. Or Operation Car Wash probably needs an update. If you want, of course. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were to update an article on Brazil here it would be this one: Electronic voting in Brazil, I have researched quite a lot about the topic and the brazilian article already has lots of information that the current english one doesn't. And it's not about a topic that is subject to personal opinions and/or misinformation like politics, which is where I would like my "comfort zone" here to be. UmChad (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.aosfatos.org

Is this a reliable source? Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a fact checking website, i have used it before, id say its quite reliable. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it is not an accurate website. It's a propaganda source for Communist supporters. VindiceLibertas (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
[citation needed]. Sigh. LightNightLights (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It is pretty reliable, at least more reliable than your "Bolsonaro 22" facebook group, also funny to point out that the poster got blocked for edit warring. SnoopyBird (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It is true that he is blocked. I didn't look into the reason. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
72 Hours for edit warring, although IMO he should have gotten permanently banned for vandalism and pushing POV/misinformation. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, personal attacks also, appears that the entire account is either a sockpuppet or a single-purpose account made to push certain narratives into articles, it has barely any edits and most of them are on an single topic (Brazilian politics). SnoopyBird (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The personal attacks did give me a chuckle when I realised that an "edit history favoring the Communist Party of China" really meant they saw articles on a Chinese author, a 1920s warlord, and an old rifle in my contributions and must have assumed that anything to do with China must be favorable to the CPC. Telling. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Could also use confirmation for Métropole, see question above about emergency order Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Metrópoles is also pretty reliable, as always, i don't really use it, but the Portuguese wiki lists it as reliable irc. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks for that info. We cite them a couple of times in this article is all. Just asking, good to know. Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this usn:t ok, will delete it myself. Does anyone at pt.wikipedia have a picture that they took themselves? Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just uploaded some videos on Commons, three of them made by one of those terrorists. Screenshoted it and it’s already on the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because you can something doesn't mean you should. Are they your work? Where did you get them and under what license? I don't think I am getting across that copyright is important. Also, despite the video on social media, the Supreme Court said that the copy of the original Constitution was *not* stolen, despite the video you are using as a source for the theft. I have asked someone else to look into the licenses of the images in this article. If it comes back as verified, well good. But I am skeptical, no offense. Elinruby (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Elinruby, at least one of these images, File:Terroristas bolsonaristas subindo a rampa.png, is taken from a video that has a CC-BY licence on YouTube. 120.21.65.18 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw that but it's pretty unusual and I personally would have waited until the license had been verified. That said, if you guys think you have the rights to use the images/video here, fine, perhaps you are right. I doubt that, but it's possible. Supposing you are right, it will still be self-published, which is another issue. But you do you; I just think you're mistaken, but you seem determined, so. I asked someone to come take a look and if possible expedite the review of the licenses. Meanwhile I have other stuff to do but I have pointed out the possible copyright and RS issues, and you think I am mistaken. Fine then. Happy trails. Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know much about licenses and copyright, but if it infringes any rules, go ahead and delete it. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop calling it a government intervention.

That may be a literal translation of what the government is saying. But see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. It sounds like they declared military law. Don't help them whitewash it (although I kind of think they probably had to). But "government intervention" could be an increase in the minimum wage. Completely meaningless in this context. Elinruby (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"military law" is more like our "estado de defesa" and "estado de sítio".

Perhaps a better translation is "federal takeover over public security in the federal district" or "direct federal rule over public security" or "suspension of the federal district autonomy on public security". Gjvnq (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good you speak Portuguese? The first one sounds best in English, except it would be "takeover of". I was mainly objecting to the euphemism, but that is good to know. While you are here, tiro de guerra is getting automatically translated as war shots. After a bit of digging it looks like it's something along the lines of the ROTC, a military training group for young adults? Do I have that right? Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Brazil is a Federal Republic, and the 1988 Constitution defines specific areas in which the Federal govt can intervene in any of the federative units (i.e., a state, or the capital). Normally, cities, states, and the Fed. gov. each of their own silos of responsibility and are protected from interference from any other entity, but the Constitution defines specific exceptions, for security reasons, in particular, the Fed Gov may step in in order to prevent serious disturbances to public order. No doubt, the intervenção federal is referring to this part of the Constitution (whichc has been in effect since 1891). See more details at Entenda a Intervenção Federal. In the 1960s, J.F.K. sent federal marshals into Alabama to enforce laws about integrated schools, when the local state law enforcement wouldn't do it, but I don't know what the constitutionality of that was; but maybe there are terms that were used in English at that time that could be borrowed here, because the concept seems similar. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Although literal translation can be a minefield (per false friends), in this case, it may be satisfactory: "federal intervention" could be a good translation, because the federal government is intervening in what is normally off-limits to them, namely, the control of a municipality, state, or federal district (Brasilia). The D.F. showed itself due to its governor (either incompetent, or complicit with the attackers) being unable to quell the attacks, so due to article 34 of the Constitution, the federal government has implemented the "federal intervention" (i.e., intervention in what is normally Brasilia's business of keeping the peace). Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I used a wildcard search in Google, and it looks like English sources call it "intervention" or "federal intervention: Lula decrees * in Brazil's Federal District. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thank you for that analysis. I think the US equivalent would be sending in the National Guard. I have not looked at the prevalence of its use in sources and I don't for minute doubt you, but I submit that they are echoing Lula. (?) And perhaps this is a specific term of art in Portuguese constitutional law. In any event, you have masterfully answered my question about martial law, which of course came to mind given the history. I am glad Lula was within the law. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and that made me think of perhaps an even better one: U.S. states have state-controlled guard units, such as the Alabama National Guard, which I believe was federalized in 1963 during the crisis there. Not identical to the situation in Brazil, of course, but somewhat analogous. Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
exactly Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Bolsonaro supporters started concentrating in the vicinity of Brazilian Armed Forces facilities.

Does this mean " crowds gathered" ? "Concentrating" is not quite the right word in this context Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: This seems okay in AE to me; is it not okay in BE? You could probably use massing in the vicinity... if concentrating is not acceptable in BE. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Since nobody seemed to have strong feelings about the matter I think I changed it to "gather". Concentrate makes me think of chemical solutions. Possibly it's just me, not AE or BE specifically Elinruby (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Followup: this was just a copyedit, about which I would not normally post to the talk page, but the event was still in progress and I expected the editing here to be a lot more contentious than it actually turned out to be. I would not call the original wording actually *wrong*, just possibly a bit distracting. I believe that my change was an improvement but will not get upset if somebody changes it back. I am not certain how to answer Mathglot's question since I've operated in so many varieties of English that I am not sure which one I speak. Franglais with a Scottish accent maybe ;) Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Gather is even better than either one, and should work in all English varieties; good call. Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wall of blue in lede

somebody didn't like that I split that long paragraph up. I think the whitespace is needed and all the links make the lede difficult to read. Please see WP: BRD. You are.supposed to state.your objection now ;) I am now working further down in the article, and.not.terribly fussed, but please do explain what you don't like about whitespace. I might agree with you ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

I believe the infobox is too crowded. I propose either reducing its size or removing the section regarding "parties to the civil conflicts" like on the page January 6 United States Capitol attack. The article and the initial paragraph address the "sides" to this event already. Plus most of the inclusions of agencies, even if they were there, are neither sourced in the infobox or the greater article. Plus I do not think the relevance of their inclusion is significant. -PanNostraticism2 (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(Note: I propose a compromise could be that instead of listing all agencies in the infobox, just refer to them as "law enforcement". The agencies could be listed in a section of the article instead to reduce the crowdedness of the infobox). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanNostraticism2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was gonna say the same thing, although we do have proof that these agencies/units took part in protecting, its just too much stuff, so we should probably remove them or reduce the amount. SnoopyBird (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I have never seen such a long infobox. Also, the long list on one side but not the other gives these rioters a David-and-Goliatb gloss that am not sure is warranted. Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed the "parties". It is totally obvious what the parties are, and spending so much space on them in what should be a simple concise overview is overdone. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the list of leaders should be removed also. The protestors had no organised leadership, a fact which is not relevant to be listed I believe and takes up unnecessary space. The list of Brazilian government figures is arbitary and unnecessary also now that the parties are removed. -PanNostraticism2 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

False Allegations of Electoral Fraud Promoted by Jair Bolsonaro and his Allies

Jair Bolsonaro has not made allegations of electoral fraud and, unlike Trump – who appears to be rampant in this article – allowed for a peaceful transition of power. This article is extremely flawed and reactionary. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies in citations of reliable sources. The New York Times, deemed generally reliable, says in an article that "For years, Mr. Bolsonaro had asserted, without any proof, that Brazil’s election systems were rife with fraud and that the nation’s elites were conspiring to remove him from power". If you have sources that support your claims about Bolsonaro, please give them here. LightNightLights (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Or you can hear it from the horse's mouth, in his speech here, at 00:40, where he says (in Portuguese) that "the current social movements [read: protests/ riots/ blockades] are the result of indignation and a sense of injustice at how the electoral process unfolded". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Mattia332 here, as they removed the "false allegations" wording in the infobox on this edit. LightNightLights (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday did not look very peaceful to me. Elinruby (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It was me who added that motivation sentence and I carefully looked at the source before doing so (I didn't add the "false" part, that was added by someone else but I don't oppose it). There's nothing flawed and reactionary about it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not true. He has undoubtedly 'made allegations of electoral fraud'[3] and not just once. He was already claiming voting machines are unreliable and his opponents would try to steal the elections long before the actual elections. In fact, he said the 2018 Brazilian general election was stolen even though he won. Bolsonaro tried to invalidate votes recorded by certain machines and to convince the Armed Forces to take action (hours before his first post-election speech in which he did not directly comment the results). Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@SnoopyBird: the phone is for you, bud Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not the one that uploaded them, if yall want to delete them, go ahead lol. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@SnoopyBird: you need to do more than argue with the automated message Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I already said: i didnt upload the images or videos nor i recorded or photographed them, i just added them here, i dont care if they get deleted. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help with CC license status at Wikimedia Commons, was Request for replacing Lula's video

File:Lula decreta intervenção federal no DF.webm is way shorter than the one which is currently on the article and only show Lula's speech. Inter-rede (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Who made the video? Elinruby (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The video is from TV Brasil and it was uploaded on Youtube with CC licensing. Inter-rede (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Huh. There are three others like that that somebody uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (against my advice) that the admins over there want to talk to someone about. I repeat: all these videos you guys are using in the article look like copyright violations. Did TV Brasil say you could use it on Wikipedia? In any event, if that is an edit request, my answer is no way. Not touching it and you shouldn't use it either until/unless @Diannaa: says the CC license is good. Elinruby (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I just put in the images that i could find in wikimedia commons and the portuguese wiki, in the case that they are not properly licensed, its not my fault. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I told you the license wasn't verified yet ;) and you pretty much said "ok Boomer." but I'll never tell. I would suggest you go to the link. You actually might find out you were right. Either way, this will go down better if they don't have to come looking for you, seriously. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You didnt? i dont remember that, well, still, if there is a problem with the images, go ahead and remove it, im not the uploader nor the person that recorded it, not my problem. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not versed in copy vio. My proposal at the time was to wait. Now I am not sure what the correct steps are. I hope @Diannaa: will respond to the ping, but she is a busy lady. This is unfortunately the problem of anyone who is aware of it, but I have other stuff I need to check on also. Anyone who is reading this and wants to help should go check over at Wikimedia Commons whether the license blurb still says that the CC license isn't verified. (Apparently YouTube historically isn't good at getting license?) It is also possible that the copyright holder will give permission, but somebody needs to ask them. I have promised to help various other people with various other matters snd don't want to take charge of this, but it's very important and somebody should. Given that the image information does claim a CC license I don't think anybody is going to get in trouble over this, beyond perhaps a lecture on the importance of reading the fine print. Particularly if that editor is new to en.wikipedia. But it is very important that the editors who add these images be certain of their status. I am going to change my mention above to a ping and go deal with some urgent RL matters. If nobody has dealt with this by the time I come back I guess I will have to do something besides just warn about the hole in the road. Houston we have a problem, here. On reflection I will also change the section header.to draw attention to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, it would be better if you ask an admin on the Commons whether or not the license is okay. But following the YouTube link for File:Lula decreta intervenção federal no DF.webm, it shows a compatible Attribution 3.0 Unported license. I have corrected the license and tagged the file for admin review. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer Diannaa. @SnoopyBird: this is highly relevant to the argument you are making over at the deletion review discussion.Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Arrest counts

Currently, there is conflicting information in the infobox and prose about how many people were arrested. Part of this is due to out-of-date information in the prose but another part of this is that the sources of the counts themselves (the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, the governor of Federal District/Brasilia, the Brazilian police) contradict each other. I might've missed some, but among the counts mentioned by sources are 300 (The Guardian), 400 (The New York Times, Washington Post), 1,200 (Associated Press via CTVNews.ca), and 1,500 (AFP via France 24). For the conflicting counts, which ones do we mention? LightNightLights (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, those are all reliable sources. A rewording of what you wrote above would probably fly if you referenced it. Maybe you could look at timestamps also. I suspect that some are more recent than others and that might be the problem Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

oh this is for the infobox. I suggest you discuss the nbers in the body until the matter becomes clearer Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct name is "terrorist attack"

All information being published in Republic Federativa of Brazil´s sites is calling acts as "terrorist attacks" - plain simple. The videos clearly show people breaking into government buildings, smashing windows, smashing tables and chairs, destroying works of art, burning buildings, stealing computers, stealing weapons and ammunition, defecating and urinating inside the Presidential Palace, the Supreme Court of Justice and the National Congress. And all the people calling for a legitimately elected government to be overthrown by guns. The name of this is terrorist attack. Period. Tim.smith.237 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

While I concur, this is likely to be debated for a while on Wikipedia (exactly like the debate over 1/6/21 in the US) due to the inherent position behind terms like terrorist and insurrection. Mainstream English media will have to use those descriptors before Wikipedia can use them, likely different for the Br-Pt Wikipedia. TheStarOfTheNorth006 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is too much of a loaded term in any case, but "attack" is more than appropriate. It's descriptive without being prejudicial. "Invasion" also carries connotations in English of either the act of a state militarily violating the borders of another state, or of the criminal act of entering a private dwelling without permission by force, especially while the occupants are present (a "home invasion"). It's not incorrect, and I realize that "invasion" appears to be the preferred term in Brazilian media so far, but I don't think it's ideal here. I believe "attack" strikes the right tone for the English article, just as it does for January 6 United States Capitol attack. WP Ludicer (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on invasion. On "terrorists" too< for that matter. Ukraine calls the Russian Army terrorists, and while I can understand why they feel that way, we.do not. Elinruby (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note you only speak for yourself here on that point, Elin.
HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Like i said on many cases, we should not use loaded language here, Ukraine calls Russia a terrorist state, so should we put that in Russia's article here? its simple, local media tends to use more loaded terms when talking about something that happened there. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The right expression is indeed "terrorist attack", as several media outlets, and organizations, have used it, such as UNI Global Union and the Government of the United Kingdom. Didimilk (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Didimilk, you are not actually mentioning any "media outlets". Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you use whatever en-wikipedia is using in the article about the January 6 rioters. It would be hard to claim that this was not a riot, for example. I do understand your feelings, but ask yourself this. Do you want to get this article written, or do you want to spend the next couple of weeks explaining your feelings on the drama boards? Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 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.

2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress → January 8 Brasilia attack – The title is consistent with January 6 United States Capitol attack and the word attack is much more common than the current title. Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  • We shouldn't have 2 move discussions on a talk page at the same time. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 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.

if the RfM that is still open is the one where everyone agreed that "demonstration" was the wrong word and so was invasion, I suggest getting an admin to close it for you. Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

is that the case? Elinruby (talk)`

Requested move 10 January 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: Moved to 2023 Brazilian Congress attack. The current consensus is that the word "invasion" is not appropriate for the event, and that "attack" is better fit for describing it. Since there is no consensus as to what term should be used to describe the buildings stormed, "Brazilian Congress" will not be changed. See also: WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. The article is move-protected, so I've brought up a request at WP:RM/TR. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress → 2023 invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes – The invasion happened on all three buildings of Praça dos Três Poderes and not just the National Congress, so 2023 invasion of Praça dos Três Poderes would be a better name. Many Brazilian sources also call it an invasion and say Praça dos Três Poderes was invaded [4], [5], [6] The Portuguese Wikipedia article also uses a similar name to one I suggest [7]. It was certainly an unauthorised invasion of property regardless of whether everyone was violent or not, and it was coordinated, so the title would be appropriate and more in line with local language sources. Also I don't think Anglicised names should be used, native names should be preferred. You won't call Los Angeles "City of Angels" in formal titles. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


Survey

Comment: My opinion on the naming has changed to calling it an attack. See below. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Finally someone suggested this, that's what i have been saying for ages. SnoopyBird (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Although id suggest putting a "the" before "Praça dos Três Poderes". SnoopyBird (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Second this and support moving it to 2023 invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes over the current name.
Might prefer an alternate term to "invasion of" (such as "breach of", "riot at"), but a move to 2023 invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes would be an improvement over the current title. As I have said before, the current name is too limited as it was three key government buildings that were breached, not just the congress. SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Support Roman's second proposal Due to listed reasons Pot (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: It's best if we changed the name, but not the one that has been chosen because even though it is "somewhat" connected to the January 6th attack, it's still considered an "invasion", also, putting that certain name (2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack) is kinda hard to spell, even for this English Wikipedia article. I request changing it to "2023 Brazilian invasion of government buildings" or a similar name to the attack on January 6th. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Support a move back to 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack. Was disappointed by the earlier move away from this title. SecretName101 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Suport: basically because all the main top buildings of the three branches of power have been attacked and sacked; using words such as "Congress" implies that one these powers is more important, which shouldn't be the case (they're supposed to be equals). If "Praça dos Três Poderes" is deemed too non-English, then use "Three Powers Plaza", or any other translation.
Persuasão (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • support the attack wasn't only on the congress and the title should reflect that, if Praca dos Tres Poderes is seen as not working for English Wikipedia we can change it to its english translation (three powers plaza, or plaza of the three powers) or rename the page to something like "2023 attacks on brazillian govermental buildings"
Roboprince (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Close the discussion: As the person who opened this move proposal, I'll like to get it closed as I think the word "attack" might find more traction than "invasion" and this isn't going in my proposal's favour. I request a non-involved user to please do it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for that. If consensus builds for "attack" in this RM the closer will move to that, regardless of what the original proposal was. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
People are going to respond more in support of a name on a proposal directly proposing that name, than a proposal not using it. I would like this to be closed if the rules allow that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
A speedy close for a withdrawn nomination would be inappropriate in this instance, as multiple other editors have expressed support !votes. I would suggest striking your rationale in your nomination and recasting your new opinion as a !vote below. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 07:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move to 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack - Upon seeing opinions of some other editors, I believe calling it an attack would make more sense. If this proposal fails due to people mostly supporting or opposing the "invasion" wording, I might request another move this time solely under the "attack" name after asking the admins. The invaders vandalised the buildings [8], fought the police [9] and attacked journalists [10]. And it was cleaely coordinated per sources, not something spontaneous. Many Brazilian sources also call it an attack [11], [12], [13]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
    Support per nom and per precedent at January 6 United States Capitol attack. إيان (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose this variation of the name. I believe the current title is inadequate but including Praça dos Três Poderes does not make sense, as it is not a common name in English. I instead propose 2023 Brasilia attack, 2023 Brasilia insurrection or 2023 Brasilia riots instead. Some may ask why the similar Jan6 Capitol page has Capitol in the title but this should not is because solely the Capitol was targeted in that attack (so Congress doesn't work), Praça dos Três Poderes is quite long term to include in already long title and I think there is precedent for usually naming events after the city on Wikipedia (January 6's page being the exception not the norm). -PanNostraticism2 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not that long of a title. It's just 6 words and a year. The attack variation will shorten it to 5 words. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the best choice of words for the English Wikipedia (not search friendly). Rather 2023 Brasília attack. But the name you suggest is still better than the current one. The article was at a similar title before an admin moved it without establishing consensus. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support they attacked all three arms of government, not just the Congress. If the January 6 criminals did the same, the title would refer to the National Mall, not just the US Congress. It's the main site of government in the capital of a democracy of 200 million people. If tomorrow, protestors took the Wyoming legislature, supreme court and governor's mansion, I bet you the title would refer to the square they're all on (if theoretically they are), not just "2023 invasion of the Wyoming legislature" while ignoring the other two. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this will never be the common name in English. About 99% of people speaking about this invasion in English would not call it the Praça dos Três Poderes attack/invasion, partly because they can't pronounce it & don't know what Praça dos Três Poderes is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
What ordinary people call is not how it always works. WP:COMMONNAME only applies if there's a single name far more used than others. The Congress name invasion name is used by many sources, but many don't use it either [14]. Btw per Google Trends there isn't a huge difference per which name is preferred [15]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Congress shouldn't be in the title either. If you mention this event to people who speak only English, you don't introduce it by saying Praça dos Três Poderes or Congress. You wouldn't use those as search terms either. 2023 Brasília attack is concise as well as descriptive. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The whole of Brasília wasn't attacked and that term is vague. Besides having a relook, it's actually Congress attack that is being far more used after the attack. My mistake, I included the results before January 8 [16]. Praça dos Três Poderes attack is used more than Brasília attack. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Many of our articles about attacks use the year & city format, including 2014 Kunming attack, 2017 Edmonton attack, 2020 Vienna attack & 2022 Abu Dhabi attack. There's no implication that the whole cities were attacked. Far more searches are for Brasilia attack than Brasília attack - most Anglophones don't know the first i has an accent on it. Far more common than them all is Brazil attack - millions are unaware that Brasília is Brazil's capital. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Google Trends clearly shows Brasilia attack or even 2023 Brasilia attack doesn't have more searches, it's Brazil Congress attack that does. [17] And in the cases you cite, the motive was not one specific target. Sorry but per policy I can't agree. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The search numbers for Brasília & Brasilia need to be combined; many people search without the accent. Brazil attack has by far the highest number of searches. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
In that case you'd need to combine search numbers for "National Congress attack" as well which is nearly around the same. [18] Brazil attack and Brasilia attack are two different terms. That's asides from vague terms like "Congress attack" whose regular use massively spiked after this attack on the plaza [19]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a move to the proposed title or one using the word "attack", with preference for the latter. It is very clear that the current title is factually inadequate. This overrules COMMONNAME, which only applies to a choice between multiple equivalent titles. Here, the WP:CRITERIA of precision takes precedence. A title including "Praça dos Três Poderes" fixes this issue perfectly. Toadspike (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: That is the common name in English language sources, and the current title is not accurate. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Although "the" should be inserted before "Praça".--Estar8806 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mention of Praça dos Três Poderes, but move from the current title as not encompassing the full breadth of the attack. An invasion or an attack could suggest that this was not a publicly accessible area and intruders suddenly gained unauthorized access. In fact, the square in front of the seats of the three branches of government is publicly accessible and generally manifestations are allowed there. The issue here is the attack on government buildings, where the mob definitely did not belong.
Proposing 2023 Brasília government buildings attack, or something along these lines. No strong preference for either attack or an invasion, as both are true. Basically in English media I've mostly seen "attack" (anectodal evidence), but in Folha de S.Paulo, for example, they are called "pro-coup (golpistas). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
TBH, I also support January 8 because I see plenty of resources in Brazilian and English-speaking media referring to it that way. Just type in "8 de Janeiro" and "January 8 Brazil" in Google and switch to the news tab.
  • Support: Well, in fact, as pointed out by other users, the title may be misleading or inaccurate because it was not only the congress that was attacked but a complex of structures so the proposal makes absolutely sense and applicable. Centonero (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am unsure what the current proposal is, but fwiw, I have worked on quite a few en-wiki articles about Brazilian politics, and I had never heard of Praça dos Três Poderes. It's definitely not the common name in English. Other proposals: I support attack and oppose invasion. I support rioters and oppose terrorists. The concern about the í in Brasilía is well-taken but can be handled with a redirect, so this should not be the deciding factor. It's still a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL I think, but for purposes of discussion may I suggest "2023 Brazilian coup attempt"? Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Title should be more intuitive for English speakers due to the language version of this edition of Wikipedia. Killuminator (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a move to change the title. I am brazilian, 38 years old, always lived here and didn't knew that in Brasilia (federal capital of Brazil and seat of government of the Federal District) there was a "Three Powers Plaza" that includes three separate governmental powers around it: the Executive, represented by the Palácio do Planalto (presidential office); the Legislative represented by the National Congress of Brazil; and the Judiciary, represented by the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Federal Court). But I knew there was a Congress there, but the attack was not restricted to it, since they ransacked the Supreme (Federal) Court as well, and the Executive (presidencial palace). That's why the brazilian portuguese version mentions the PLAZA, because it encompasses the 3, while in the U.S. as I am aware only the Congress was raided in January 6, 2021. Leaving the title as it is now would also be wrong. So, I propose this: - January 8 Brazilian Capital attack -. Note: the (federal) capital of Brazil is "BRASÍLIA", not Rio de Janeiro (this was the case until 1960, when "Brasilia" was built, to host everything, since then it's not Rio anymore). Perenista (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    You are Brazilian, didn't know there was a three powers plaza and yet you support the name change. I see you just joined Wikipedia. Welcome! Although I have to say that in this discussion it is useful to cite relevant Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Titles of articles here are not to educate the reader but to make it easier for the reader to find the information. Check WP:TITLE. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Move to January 8 Brasilia attack - this title is in sync with January 6 United States Capitol attack and should reference what city it was in as well as the type it was. Interstellarity (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Move to 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack. The title does seem to be somewhat inaccurate and "invasion" sounds like it was done by the military (this was a protest, not a coup d'état!) Clyde!Franklin! 22:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yea, but nobody is gonna search up "Praça dos Três Poderes" because, not only is it hard to spell (in my opinion), but it's not very relevant to the English Wikipedia. Something like "January 8th Brasilia attack" or mine idea, "2023 Brazilian invasion of government buildings" would be a better idea unless we do a translation of the attack/invasion to "Praça dos Três Poderes" like how people in Brazil would say it. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and move to January 8 Brasilia attack. Nobody in English knows what "Praça dos Três Poderes" is or means, and it will never become the WP:COMMONNAME in English. "Invasion" is generally reserved for a planned, military maneuver of a sovereign nation. This was an attack, and per WP:PRECISION, it is, and always will be clear what this refers to, as well as "distinguishing it from other articles", per article title policy. I'm not really a fan of WP:CONSISTENT in this case, and afaic it's just random that it's similar to "January 6 United States Capitol attack"; but other considerations are sufficient to rename this to "January 8 Brasilia attack". In sum: Short and sweet; everybody will understand it. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Move to 2023 Brasília attack or January 8 Brasília attack, with preference to the former, per WP:CONCISE. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 03:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, move to January 8 Brasilia attack instead, in line with January 6 United States Capitol attack. Silikonz💬 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • oppose per common name, and WP:ENGLISH. Most of the English reliable sources on globe use "Brazilian congress". All of the Indian sources use English name. What even is Praça dos Três Poderes? I have no idea, and most of the English speakers wouldn't. Is it related to Ricky Martin's un dos tres, ale ale ale? I have no problem changing the title to something else in English. The French wikipedia has an appropriate title: "Invasion du Congrès national du Brésil". —usernamekiran (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to meet the WP:CRITERIA better than the current name, especially the criterion of precision. The "January 8 Brasília attack" proposal is silly, given that that is both nowhere close to the common name of this incident and that it lacks definite recognizability and any sort of precision. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    I will note my reservation regarding the word "invasion"; while it makes sense as a literal translation of lots of Brazilian sources, the word "storming" or "riot" would be much better. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, if I as a reader who don't know Portuguese look up in Wikipedia about this event, I won't be looking for an invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes. Second, per WP:ENGLISHTITLE, "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." Third, per WP:TITLE, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I don't see English reliable sources calling it "invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes". Thinker78 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISHTITLE. English readers will not be searching for a Portuguese name when looking up this event. It makes sense to have it at the name that is most common among English-language sources. Keivan.fTalk 00:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Praça dos Três Poderes" but Support "attack" and "Three Powers Square". How many English sources are using this Portuguese name? I would however support a name that uses Three Powers Square, which is used in many sources and to which I have moved that page per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Reywas92Talk 14:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    I believe more English-language sources are using "Brasília" or "Brazil". - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 00:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Have read about the event, but don't know what "Praça dos Três Poderes" is, never heard of it, haven't seen it, can't pronounce it. Despise me all you like, I'm a typical reader, why bamboozle me on purpose. If you feel the title must be more inclusive, then say "...Brazilian National Congress, Presidential Palace, and Supreme Court" or whatever. But I don't think many readers will look at the shorter title and be all "The heck? This can't be the article I want". We go with the shortest title that describe the article well enough. Current title does. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as name will never be WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking sources. Also, the real title of the plaza on the English Wikipedia is "Three Powers Plaza". I wouldn't oppose a move to 2023 invasion of Three Powers Plaza. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
moved from discussion section below. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISHTITLE. This is the English-language variant of the Wikipedia project, not the Portuguese-language variant of the Project. WesSirius (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral: As I Support a name change to ANYTHING other than what it is now. My problem is the description: It was not an "invasion" (wrong syntax.) Use "disruption", "storming", "attack", —something besides 'invasion.' Oh, and I Oppose the propsed title as the object of the event in English Wikipedia should not be "Praça dos Três Poderes", per LEADLANG and ENGLISHTITLE: "Brasilian Congress", "Government Headquarters", or just ""Brasilia" are just fine. "January 8 Brasilia attack" (as proposed above) would work, too. GenQuest "scribble" 17:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Note to closer: because of the wording of the request, and the alternate proposals or move destinations favored by some commenters, please take care to evaluate the entire description, as some voters who bold Support and others who bold Oppose are actually in agreement with each other. For example, the "support" !vote of 15:55, 11 Jan., and the "oppose" !vote of 00:53, 12 Jan. are both in favor of the same outcome. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Congress seems to be used more than anything I've suggested. This discussion should be closed as people are supporting various options instead. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say we just move this to "January 8 Praça dos Três Poderes attack", "January 8 invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes", or something along these lines, similar to how we call the 2021 US capitol attack "January 6 United States Capitol attack", especially because the attack wasn't directed only at the congress, but also to the Supreme Federal Court building and the Planalto Palace. SnoopyBird (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: If in foreign language reliable sources the event is known as "invasion of the Praça dos Três Poderes" but not in English, then said name can be included in the first sentence of the article as an alternative name. Per MOS:LEADLANG, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." Thinker78 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Brazilian_Congress_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1143077021"