Talk:2023 Brazilian Congress attack

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

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. Reywas92^Talk 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)

• Strong Oppose No way. This was clearly a violent attack. Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 12:20, 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)

• Comment. i think that "2023 Storming of the Praça dos Três Poderes" or "2022 Praça dos Três Poderes riot" would make sense, but protests not, as they weren't just peaceful protests, they were violent attacks on institutions. SnoopyBird (talk) 14:51, 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)
• 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)

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)

Suggestion

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

. 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)

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

• Bolsonaristas-invadem-congresso.jpg

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Manifestantes invadem Congresso Nacional e cercam Palácio do Planalto (1).webm
• O povo acaba de subir a rampa.webm
• Terroristas bolsonaristas subindo a rampa.png

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

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)