Talk:Judiciary of Brazil

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judiciary of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525140044/http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp to http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Good reference
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/legal-research-guide/brazil-legal.php?loclr=bloglaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization
If it is the Supreme Court, capitalize. If it is "a" federal court, do not. If there is more than one instance possible of a thing (appeal for example) then this is a common noun and is not capitalized. This is a rule of English and is always going to be true regardless of Brazilian practice. Elinruby (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Useful court system diagram
There's a very useful diagram of the Brazilian court system here, which can be found at this article at Folha de S.Paulo, which is one in their series on "Understanding the Law". We should do some research at the website of the Conselho Nacional de Justiça (which is where the author of this article got the raw data to build their diagram, from tables 5, 6, and 7 at this pdf at the CNJ), and come up with a similar table, and either propose it to be created at the Graphics Lab, or just create it ourselves as a wikitable, which would be easier to maintain, once created. Note: the CNJ document appears to be from 2009, so we should look for updated figures. Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. See next section. Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Article section re-org
I've been reorganizing the section structure, to make the article more comprehensible. Before, it was organized as a flat list of top-level (H2) sections with no subdivisions (e.g., in this version). I've restructured it by adding some new, top-level sections, notably "Federal courts" and "State courts" (which perhaps should be federal and state "judiciary", because it isn't just about the courts), and altered some of the existing sections so they form a hierarchy that makes more sense, moving a few sections up or down to follow the new hierarchy. In this organizational structure, I've been guided principally by the diagram of the Brazilian judiciary with its top-level division of "federal" and "state" as found in this diagram from Folha de S.Paulo&apos;s Brazilian Justice website, a diagram which they source to the Conselho Nacional de Justiça linked above. Our template Courts of Brazil diagram adapts this table.

The re-org involved mostly a hierarchy of H2 top-level sections, and with some nested H3 and H4 subsections under them, organized by federal and state. This isn't the only possible organization, and Article 92 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (along with later amendments), which lays out the 9-part division of organs of the judiciary, is another way to do it, and closer to the way the article was organized before, but it was very difficult to follow.

Neither way is perfect, and one weakness of the new re-org (if 'weakness' is even the right word) is that Article 92 defined some of the organs across federal-state boundaries, such as item VI, "Tribunais e Juízes Militares", but the actual organization includes some federal military courts and judges, and some at the level of the states, so whereas in in the earlier, "flat" organization, the military courts were all in one section, now they are in two subsections, one under "Federal" and the other under "State" because are the major, top-level division. But imho, this is an acceptable price to pay, because it makes the organization comprehensible, and because the military courts really are organized that way (you can see that reflected in the diagram, where you can see the "State military justice courts" in the "State" column, but the "STM" ("Superior Military Court", a federal superior court) in the "Federal" column).

But I'm open to suggestions if the new, top-level structure doesn't seem clear to some. Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive capitalization
There's a massive amount of over-capitalization at the article. Someone who was active at this article introduced a huge number of incorrect capital letters, almost looks like German or Ben Franklin's English, in some cases. I've started to remove some of them around the edges, as I work on other things, but I'm sure I'm missing most of them. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Historical context
The article lacks any historical context. The judiciary is defined in the 1988 Constitution, but that didn't come out of nowhere, and there were precursors. There should be a #History section, that explains how the current judiciary or parts of the Constitution that defined it, evolved from earlier experience of the Judiciary in Brazil. Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * yeah haha like oh by the way this used to be a military dictatorship and before that it was a lawless plantation oligarchy built on the slave trade. Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Plantation economy
 * Slavery in Brazil
 * Brazilian military dictatorship
 * 1964 Brazilian coup d'etat
 * [https:/,/www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2713718.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiU_O_oxeX_AhUUJ30KHWECD4AQFnoECEcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ya3T91uTmwUqseGLOCjEa] Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)]
 * Operation Brother Sam Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I'll be able to get to history here, but the National Council of Justice was in even worse shape, and I've done some work there, including a small section on history. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)