Talk:2010 Rio de Janeiro Security Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

That's not a war, nor a military conflict, I don't understant why the use of this nomenclature or that infobox. --viniciusmc 15:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

When terrorism threats cities and the police and the army are summoned, I think it can be called war. The brazilian TV and media think this way too. The drug dealers are also using militar weapons.Brazilian Man (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia does not use colloquial terminology to describe such events unless it is historically known in both English and other languages by the colloquial description. We would generally call this "2010 Rio de Janeiro violence" and then append the Brazilian Portuguese description as an alternate name (in both Portuguese and English). Plus it would not be a war unless it was prolonged and taking place in more than one city or state. This current article name, as it stands, is hyperbolic and is a poor translation of the actual weight of the conflict in comparison to similar incidents internationally. --Toussaint (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Amended the article because of overt bias in vocabulary. --Toussaint (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)