Talk:Brazilian Army

Brazil: Government and laws / History High‑importance

	Brazil portal 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: National / South America C‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	South American military history task force

The article is still not complete

There is a section concerning Military Regions, but there is no section to the Army Divisions, which are the proper combat units of the Brazilian Army. Someone has to expand the article and add this information, because Military Regions are solely responsible for logistical duties. Without Army Divisions, they would be pointless, for there would be nothing to offer the logistical support to. Furthermore, the picture of the Southern Military Command (Comando Militar do Sul) is not really from the Southern Military Command, but from the Salvador Military School (Colégio Militar de Salvador. Since both share the same acronym in portuguese (both Comando Militar do Sul and COlégio Militar de Salvador are "CMS"), the editor probabbly exchanged the coat of arms. Someone should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampaio5325 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has undone my editing

There is no need to repeat all the time that Brazilian Army Regiments are Battalion Sized. Also, the SubUnits (Subunidades in portuguese) of Brazilian Cavalry Regiments are called Squadron, not troops. Furthermore, all brigades but Infantry Frontier Brigades and Jungle Infantry Brigades have at least one Artillery group. Someone has simply erased my editing in that section. Besides that, the Light Infantry Brigades are Airbone Brigades, nor Airmobiles. For instance, after serving for at least 5 years in a light infantry brigade or in the parachute infantry brigade, you receive the "Airbone Medal" (Medalha do Mérito Aeroterrestre), so they share the same name and the same doctrine, although there are differences in their modus operandi. Please, stop erasing my editting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampaio5325 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my edit get partially reverted ?

It was referenced.(albeit in brazilian portuguese which could of caused some confusion,which could easily get solved up to a certain point with use of a automatic translator.).I will let this stay here for some time (actually,for more than 10 days,because im going to travel.).And if no justificative is presented i will undo what was undone.i will still obviously leave the "fixes" made on the writing and etc ,though.This is in order to try and avoid edit-wars. This is about the Number already in service of the ec725 super cougar in the brazilian ARMY,by the way.and the refference in question which was used was this one.Which is the site of the Brazilian Air Force ,but it is about the search and rescue of a downed brazilian Air Force aircraft ,which was aided by the Brazilian army.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.128.8 (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of the Article

Since the History's books used in Brazil as well as quotes from new generation of army's officers refer to the events of 31 march of 1964 as a coup d'état I don't known were it could be a partiality in my edit, it seems the contrary... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.228.172 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting to discuss this! I undid the edit because of this line: "The noxious effects from this regime on Brazilian Society are still ringing today." In Wikipedia we have a very strict guideline about a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Calling a regime noxious, no matter how true or untrue, is not a neutral statement. You're more than welcome to add in any sourced material - just keep an eye out for those kinds of statements. Thanks! --mboverload @ 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription

I removed the phrase: "Generally, those from the upper class and upper middle class find ways to defer, and as a result the ranks are made up primarily of lower-class and lower-middle-class recruits". Forced conscription is actually extremly rare. Several cities don't even have the possibility of conscription and everyone imidietly goes to the reserve. The phrase implies that lower class boys end up conscripted due to lack of enough influence to avoid it, but the truth is that, even among the lower classess, conscription is rare. 177.182.244.247 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible

This is the first Wikipedia article that I would call "horrible". It was obviously written by someone whose first language is not English. The second paragraph (which is one sentence) is so terribly written that I can't even tell what it's trying to say -- otherwise I would edit it. But the article is full of incorrect words, missing articles or prepositions, etc, making it very hard to read. Can somebody who knows the subject matter, and who also knows correct English, just go through and clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMaru (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent vandalism at Opening Section

The present revertion (21 June 2016) aims to draw attention to the recurring vandalism in the article's opening section, carried out by Brazilian militarists, who insist on denial and revisionism in relation to the role played by the Brazilian army in the 3 military dictatorships which the country suffered.
First, it is possible to observe through the "Revision History page", that over the last years without any justification, they simply tried to delete the 2nd paragraph of the opening section.

Related to the latest two attempts (done through IPs 200.97.170.124 and 189.81.204.182):
200.97.170.124 tried doing so giving an exculpatory varnish claiming "wiki neutrality" in the attempt to substitute the present text (which match with its references), by a simulacrum of military statement which finds no support in the reference books.
The attempt done by ip 189.81.204.182 (in the 1st §) is even more bumbling, since not satisfied in simply try their "old way", deleting the stretches which didn't pleased them, added a claim that hasn't any support in the MINUSTAH weblink that has been pasted as its supporting reference!!!.

Now, it is worth to remind that, besides all reference books meets the wiki standards, they're pretty explicit on the interventionist role of Brazilian army, as cited in the text repeatedly vandalized by militarists revisionists. 191.248.161.118 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and haven't a political agenda. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article tone remains neutral and under equally neutral references, including a recognized Brazilianist recently deceased. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a personal opinion. The article is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for "personal opinions", which are your points by the way, as shown above... Contrary to the present text that are based up on reliable book references. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book's author has his political views. The article is for everyone: left, right, center... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not even argue according with the rules. BTW, it is worth remembering ONCE AGAIN that the weblink you posted in the 1st paragraph have a claim that hasn't any support in the MINUSTAH weblink that you pasted as its supporting reference!!!. That's the kind of your "arguments" and respect for Wiki rules... 177.9.140.87 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oficial United Nations Website with all information: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, contrary to the stretches in the present text which are clearly at its book references, your claims doesn't match with any text of the web link you posted. And even if it match with your sentence in the 1st paragraph, why delete the referenced 2nd paragraph, that has no relation with such link??? 177.9.140.87 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) BTW,[reply]

No, the reference is correct. The United Nations link has all documents. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So paste the direct link, since this one doesn't provide such information. And Again, even if it will match with your sentence in the 1st paragraph, this doesn't justify delete other referenced stretches!!! 177.9.140.87 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All information preserved, only personal opinion removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be cynical! You have deleted reference book information, and try to introduce your own personal opinion through sentences that doesn't match with the references that you insist in using. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own first post. You have a political view. You don't like militaries and used this article against them. Wikipedia is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to impute to others your own practices.

Don't try to shift the focus of your flaws trying to change the fact that your statements don't even match with your references.

The text is here for some years, has reference US Brazilianists authors, one of whom freely circulated among the military leadership of the last Brazilian military dictatorship.

So, before returning here, first go study the subject which clearly you don't know have a single clue even on the basic authors.

And for Jesus Christ, also learn at least to sign your f... deliriums!!! 177.9.140.87 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only author's opinion and reflect his political position. The article is for everyone and must be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, first the authors whom You trying to ignore are several, not just one...

Second, besides ignoring the subject, you also have shown doesn't know what Wikipedia is about. Here no single opinion has equal weight to that of reliable sources. Read What Wikipedia is not About before back. 177.9.140.87 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the article against militaries. The article must bring information. Readers have the choice to get their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC) I will post this article in all foruns. You will not do it again. (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? 😏 Go ahead

Arguments, proofs, reliable references, Any of those require above? None I see...

You are completely out of balance. So, I suggest you take a vacation from this space, and only come back when you learn and willing to follow the rules of this space, as sign your comments at each leave 😏 177.9.140.87 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against a text which include Eurico Gaspar Dutra in military rule? A text with an asterisk? Where did you see an asterisk in an article? Your text is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) If Eurico Gaspar Dutra, Floriano Peixoto and Deodoro da Fonseca are military rule, Ulysses Grant and Eisenhower are military rule too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.182 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Really? Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto were elected in free elections YEARS after leaving the army, in a nation with big electoral tradition, as Grant and Eisenhower??? No, they arose through a coup d'état, and Floriano Peixoto refused even comply with the then new rules written by the own army, which caused conflict with the Navy, then mostly monarchist, which had never quite never accepted the 1889 coup. This led to the naval revolt and to the 1893 federalist revolution etc. etc. But it seems that you ALSO ignore selectively these well known historic facts. And why not is doesn't surprise me as well? 😏

The reference to Dutra's period is another case (despite him unlike the cited US generals, was not retired for years, but just have left the command of the army, which was in charge during the 15 years since the coup of 1930). Obviously is related not as a military dictatorship, but as a sequence to keep controlling the local political arena by the Army (is there in all cited references, easily to check on google books, as well as other digital libraries - BTW the very references you have ignored 😏). Ie, it is a consensus among historians of the period, included those mentioned in the article, as well as the stretches of their authorship. Btw, AGAIN: a fact can be attested in views of google books, for example. A fact that we can not say about your links, huh? 😏

Now, that this your attempt to divert the focus of your own lack of references, have failed, have you something useful into the rules to show, or you will continue trying to shift the focus of the question? 😏 191.8.11.192 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brazilian Army. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/1%2C%2CEMI14440-15273%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712135236/http://ommb.com.br/ to http://www.ommb.com.br/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian Army. 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/20070604013506/http://www.cigs.ensino.eb.br/ to http://www.cigs.ensino.eb.br/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712135236/http://ommb.com.br/ to http://www.ommb.com.br/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian Army. 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/20070712135236/http://ommb.com.br/ to http://www.ommb.com.br/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Seems to have been written from a strongly pro-military POV. I mean, the section on indigenous people in the army reads like it's from a recruitment brochure, with no mention of the army's role in the genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pelotões do Curso de Sargentos de Infantaria - Gericino 1921.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being vandalized.

The page is being vandalized by trolls, an editor needs to come here and lock the page before the damage is irreversible. João Vítor Teixeira Bento (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Opening & History Sections

Unbaratocha and Cybershore are the same person. Discussion without sockpuppetry can continue below this box. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

For a few years, there was a certain dispute on the page in the Opening & History sections among reactionaries (along with former officers of the Brazilian army), versus neutral narrators, with the former trying to erase the authoritarian stains carried out by the institution in Brazilian history.

At the end of 2018, an undeclared truce was established, in which the Opening & History sections plus the bibliography related to them would remain NEUTRAL and lean, while the militarists would take care of the updates related to the descriptive sections referring to the units of the institution addressed in the article.

Apparently throughout 2024, not satisfied with the neutrality of the Opening & History sections and their related bibliography, the reactionaries defeated at the polls in the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections and in their attempted coup d'état in January 2023, returned to the charge polluting the Opening & History sections with irrelevant bureaucratic info and omitting important historical facts. Such behavior will no longer go unchecked!

Cybershore (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybershore:: since I'm the one who single-handedly rewrote this article on the Lusophone Wikipedia in January 2024, which this translation is based on, I'm the editor all of your accusations fall on — namely, that I'm sponsored (financially?) by the Army's PR deparment and a "reactionary", maybe even involved the January 2023 attack. Putting all of this in my shoulders might very well infringe some rule on personal attacks, but quoting and commenting excerpts to debunk your claims will be enough for me.

A large workload is dedicated to the doctrine, planning, preparation and execution of law and order operations - and all of this time and effort does not go into preparing for external defense. This is one of the main points in academic critiques of the controversial garantia da lei e da ordem.
The army has a long history of internal defense and state structuring, defending political regimes and addressing threats from unresolved social issues that have resulted in internal conflicts - "defending political regimes" is very easily seen in an unfriendly light, if any reader wishes to. It's implicit that the "threats" which the Army addresses are thus threats to the regime. And when these threats to the regime come from unresolved social issues, you can even read this in a Marxist light if you want to. There's just enough ambiguity for everyone, laying bare the unquestionable reality that the Army can be used against either external or "internal" enemies.
Throughout Brazil's republican period, it is the most politically powerful of the three forces due to its past positions, its presence throughout the country's territory and its larger strength - has this political power been used for good or for evil? Let the reader decide. What is never said is that the Army is purely apolitical and professional.
Subsidiary roles are constant. Possibly at the expense of preparing for war, the army operates in the scientific-technological and socioeconomic fields, carries out engineering works - just as with law and order operations, this a standard critical position. Even the Army's benevolent humanitarian efforts may be a distraction from its primary role in national defense.
There was still no "Brazilian nation" or Brazilian Army, however, and no current military organization in the country has institutional continuity with those that fought in 1648 - this is a direct counterpoint to the 1648 mythology and prevents it from being taken at face value.
When the office was abolished, the chiefs of the Army General Staff (Estado-Maior do Exército; EME), created in 1899, and the Ministers of War began to compete for primacy of command. The Ministry of War won the dispute - the Army Command (heir to the Ministry of War) would never mention this.
The hierarchy had feudal aspects. Military service, stigmatized, was known as the "blood tribute". Lack of training and politicized recruitment limited the military capacity of the 2nd line. the army did not maintain large formations in peacetime. The army did not have a monopoly on legitimate violence - none of this is "irrelevant bureaucratic info". The History section continually places the military within its societal context and shows how a backwards economy and society produced an obsolete and inefficient army. Blue links to impressment and blood tribute will let readers discover how brutal and inefficient recruitment was in this period.
when it faced logistical obstacles and a high desertion rate, the campaign was long and exhausting - see above.
The army was initially an instrument of emperor Pedro I's authority, closing the Constituent Assembly in 1823 - this not only describes an undemocratic action, but the military as an instrument of a higher power's aims.
which put down the Cabanagem, Balaiada, Sabinada and Ragamuffin uprisings. It is for this reason that the Duke of Caxias, the patron of the army, is known as the "Peacemaker". The army's official history emphasizes its role in ensuring national integrity - "ensuring national integrity" is clearly shown to be only the official version. Can you read this as Caxias becoming "Peacemaker" by crushing fellow Brazilians in battle? You can.
The curriculum, unrelated to military disciplines, did not produce good troop commanders. By the 1890s, the army's operational capacity had fallen to a level sometimes inferior to the insurgents it faced. The organization of these forces in peacetime was rudimentary until 1908 - the History section is very sincere about the Army's failures and limitations even at its core purpose.
Throughout the century, each new organization was somewhat fictional - and, since you claim I write "irrelevant bureaucratic info", this sentence is a direct assault on the Army's bureaucratic structure.
The war concluded with the settlement of Belo Monte, in the interior of Bahia, burnt and littered by the bodies of thousands of inhabitants - the Army's PR department would never write this!
Army units rose up in the Communist Uprising of 1935, which was quickly put down - take note that the "unbiased" early edition you praise mentions the army quelled the communist uprising, but not that the ones being quelled were part of the army itself. The Army's PR department, too, would rather condemn them to damnatio memoriae - the Army quelled unspecified, vague "communists", not officers and NCOs from its own ranks who decided to be communists.
According to EME studies on the 1932 Constitutionalist Revolution, the army had evolved in its doctrine and organization, but was still unprepared to face an external aggressor - every single Army PR piece will tell you the Army is ready to face any external aggressor;
The Brazilian government promised three infantry divisions for the war effort, but due to mobilization difficulties, it was only possible to send the 1st Expeditionary Infantry Division - failures and limitations.
The Battle of Monte Castello, which it fought in 1944–1945, was not the most important of the IV Corps - this puts the FEB in context as a single division in a secondary theater of the war. A PR history would leave it out of context to let its readers gloat about the FEB's relevance to a world war.
The army had changed a lot, and in addition to its technical modernization, had become politically autonomous and convinced that it could form a well-trained elite - this shows the Army was no professional apolitical state institution but an ambitious potential ruling elite.
The new structure was sophisticated, but the doctrine did not correspond to reality - again, not "irrelevant bureaucratic info" but a criticism of it.
Military personnel aligned with the deposed government were purged, including 22.5% of the generals serving in 1964 - PR stories would rather not talk about rifts between the military and much less admit a chunk of the army was leftist or pro-Goulart.
the center of political power was occupied by generals, although the institutions formally remained those of a liberal democracy - now we're getting to the heart of your accusations. You call me a reactionary and associate me with people who would claim the 1964-1985 political regime was a democracy, not a generals' dictatorship with a rubber-stamp Congress.
Military personnel were responsible for illegal detentions, torture, executions, forced disappearances and concealment of corpses - need I say more?
Large-scale use of conventional troops for counterinsurgency occurred rarely and was ineffective - and even now, a mention of failure.
But not all goals were met, and there remained a technological delay in relation to the Argentine Army. the Brazilian Armed Forces would clearly be out of date in a similar conflict. Basic equipment was lacking and operational capacity was very low - even when reforms and improvement happen in the military field, there are still limitations. No triumphalist tone.
By the end of the 1980s, the social and economic standards of officers had declined - and now the Army's prestige is on the decline.
below the large quantitative expansion planned in the 1980s, due to budget restrictions - always a dialectic between ambitious bureaucratic plans and harsh material reality.
The guidelines for the Army Transformation Process had just been published, with ambitious goals for the year 2030, just like the planners of the 1980s, who had defined 2010 as the year in which the "army of the future" would exist - harsh! And we know the "army of the future" will not exist six years from now, either. If there is any doubt, shortly afterwards I write: "Strategic projects suffered from contingencies and cuts in military spending resulting from the economic crisis of the mid-2010s, and by 2019 their deadlines were already being extended, some until 2040"
They recognize the difficulty of police work, in which they are not specialized and there is a risk of collateral damage. There were protests by local residents against abuses of authority, torture and excessive shooting and use of tear gas

And the sections after History are as balanced as I could write them, too. Let's take a look:

According to the army, the training is rigorous, but ill-treatment, violence against lower ranks and bodily injuries are isolated cases and the instructions are controlled to avoid risks. Cases of violence by instructors exist. Critics point to the institution's corporatism as an obstacle to complaints. The aggressors are tried in the Military Court, but the compensation is paid by the federal government - the Army's official claims are contrasted with critics. The reader can very well agree with the critics that the tight-knit officer corps will sometimes close ranks and shut off society from scrutinizing the harmful actions of some of its members.
By the end of the process, around 5% of those enlisted are sent into active service. In 2012, 92% were volunteers, according to the Army. this social function only applies to a small minority of enlisted personnel called up for service - is the entire conscription system futile? You might think it.
The ideal of compulsory military service as a republican leveler, in which all social classes serve, does not correspond to reality - whose ideal? As presented in the previous paragraph, the Army's ideal. In this case the article has to say the army is wrong.
A recruit's pay, however, is less than minimum wage.
In the case of the Tiros de Guerra, the low frequency of military exercises, leaving most of the time to cleaning, maintaining facilities and civic-social activities, can be a factor of frustration - Google "Exército pintando meio fio". This is Frank McCann's indirect reference to a source of endless mockery by civilians.
It is not clear in which part of the year the entire army would be trained and ready - this puts MASSIVE question marks on the very ability of the army to defend the nation from an external aggressor.
According to historian Frank McCann, the reserve is immense, but there has never been a full call-up, and therefore, it is not known whether it would be successful. There is no organized reserve like in the United States, with reserve units responsible for preserving the skills of these soldiers - ditto.
conservative, traditional, hermetic, austere, reserved and averse to investigations, Military values are based on a distinction between the "inside" and "outside" worlds, To protect itself from external influences, the army offers services so that "upon entering it, its member [can], within and throughout his life, in isolation and protected in a familiar and sufficient world, see a good part of his needs satisfied, and those of his dependents" - an inquisitive mind with a negative view can and will link this to what was said about injuries in training and even to human rights violations in the History section. The army segregates itself from society and lives in its own world, is this good or bad? Let the reader think.
To reinforce established practices and behaviors, giving them the respectability of the past, and to assign identity to the army and specific units, the institution worships traditions, usually symbols, rites and ceremonies - this describes the army's mythology with an anthropologist's cold, distant voice.
the actual formation may differ from the doctrinal one, and several brigades are incomplete - once again, what I've said about "irrelevant bureaucratic info".
This differs, for example, from the Chilean Army, which has become compact and mobile since the 1990s - the "Presence Strategy" the Brazilian Army clings on to is at least a partial refusal to ever form a "compact and mobile" army.
The other historical area of troop concentration is in the South, targeting the border with Argentina, Brazil's traditional rival on the continent - and why is the Army's order of battle structured for a blitzkrieg against Argentina, even though this neighboring country has been friendly for decades? This article mentions historical factors, not the army's claims that Santa Maria and Ponta Grossa offer the best possible geography to headquarter its armored brigades.
The other forces, known as "Operational Military Organizations", would have greater shortages of personnel and materiel, and would be mainly responsible for forming the reserve - for every fancy paratrooper battalion you get a dozen outdated battalions of motorized conscripts with ancient FALs.
Recruits at border posts are largely local indigenous people, but there are tensions with the local population
The parachute brigade, in turn, is focused on airborne assault, although it has never carried out a mass parachute jump outside of exercises and maneuvers. Its great usefulness lies in the immediate transport of its troops, and its recent employment situations tend to be in an urban environment - always dropping some cold water.
Quantitatively, the Brazilian Army has the largest fleet of MBTs in South America. However, only the Chilean Army has modern MBTs, The spread of anti-tank missiles in the armies of neighboring countries is already a threat to Brazilian armored forces. The Armored Forces Subprogram Implementation Guideline, in 2020, recognized that the majority of the armored vehicle fleet was already close to the end of its life cycle, In terms of technology, modern missile launchers coexist with howitzers manufactured in the 1950s, The Brazilian Army does not have a medium-altitude anti-aircraft defense system, The transport capacity of the aircraft based at the Taubaté Aviation Base in 2020, close to the 12th Light Infantry Brigade (Airmobile), is not enough to transport an entire infantry battalion in one wave - I made it a priority to let the reader speculate on the Army's real capabilities against an external enemy, and hence, to show its limitations. What it can't do is just as important as what it can do.

You are also invited to read the talk page on the Portuguese version. The old version of this page is shallow on the History section and full of outdated and even incorrect information on present military topics. Serraria (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Serraria:

Well, first of all I would like to remind you that this is an encyclopedic article, which should be succinct by nature.

The dispute in question concerns the Opening and History Sections, although I personally believe that the sections on the units should also be succinct and include links to specific articles that deal with their histories, emblems and current composition in greater detail, without polluting the main article.

I know the Brazilian army well and from the inside, and I know the "tradition" of its internal writing style, which, in relation to history, seeks to focus on bureaucracy and internal composition, ignoring, omitting and treating with euphemisms its wars history and interventions in national politics - which is by the way the anachronistic, outdated and purposefully shallow writing style!

So, feel free to update the "technical sections", but under no circumstances go around rewriting the Opening and History sections without deep discussion Cybershore (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybershore:: this article is already succint; if you open Brazilian Army in the First Republic, you will find my version of this article's History#First Republic subsection is a brief summary of a massive topic with deep, long-lasting changes whose legacy is felt to this day, such as conscription (see: Sortition Law) and professionalized officer training (see: Military School of Realengo). If you read the Portuguese-language talk page you will find I do have a framework for which facts to include - 1) overall societal context and 2) military capabilities in a real setting. Those two are related, Brazilian society causes the Canudos war, the Army is used to crush Canudos, this shows officers how inefficient their army is, they implement modern recruitment and training and this spawns a more ambitious officer corps which decides to shape society in its vision. It is possible to cut corners, maybe even go for a radical restructuring by looking for sources which make broad claims spanning many decades, but the History section must cover the Sortition Law and Military School of Realengo. This is not a focus on bureaucracy and internal composition, ignoring, omitting and treating with euphemisms its wars history and interventions in national politics. Illegal detentions, torture, executions, forced disappearances and concealment of corpses, burnt and littered by the bodies of thousands of inhabitants - those are not euphemisms. This article could go even more at length and cover, say, the hundreds of civilians killed in the 1924 bombing of São Paulo, but I decided mentioning Canudos, with its higher death toll, would be enough for the section. I have already proven this article does not take an army PR perspective. It sincerely shows several human rights violations as well as historical and present failures and limitations in its role in national defense.

This is an article on the military and it can and should have some technical military information, just as Clube de Regatas do Flamengo should have some technical sports information. Again, it must cover conscription and the professionalization of the officer corps, among several other topics. They are both extremely relevant to wider Brazilian society and extremely relevant to the Army's technical military capabilities. They are not "irrelevant bureaucratic info"; I have even shown this article repeatedly points towards gaps between military bureaucracy and military reality. If you find them boring (your scare quotes around "update" strongly suggest so), that's fine, you can go edit articles about gardening and ice hockey.

Your claims are that this article was sponsored by the army's PR department and written by reactionary coupmongers - and as I wrote this article, that's what you accuse me of being. If you have any doubts, I also wrote 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. My point-by-point analysis with excerpts taken from the first section all the way to the last proves I wrote things neither an army PR writer or a January 8er could ever write without turning his stomach (and getting reprimanded and transferred by his superiors, for an army writer). I have a section by section defense of what I wrote; you have blanket claims. Serraria (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gentlemen, I think it's best to take it slow and take it one step at a time: But looking at both versions of the Opening Section for example, I really don't know how you, @Serraria: can hold your claims that your version would be more succinct, to say the least. The version defended by @Cybershore: is incomparably more succinct in size with neutral sources in English.

Tomorrow I will analyze the History section, in which I believe you and Cybershore with due dialogue and patience can reach a fair consensus, but there really is a certain bombast in your style, an excess of sources in Portuguese and a focus on the internal details of the institution. Unbaratocha (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. "Unbaratocha", looking at your edit history, you seem to be the same individual as Mr. Cybershore. Cheers. Torimem (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Torimem:

I could also go down the path of claiming that you and Mr Serraria (or any user I may disagree with) would be the same person, and...?! Unbaratocha (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are administrative procedures to prove or disprove this. Serraria (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbaratocha: Another third party should analyze this, as you have already taken a stand at his side: "proven through historical and journalistic sources" (is my version, mostly based on academia, not proven?). You even made a point to capitalize "talk page" exactly as he did. As far as succintness goes, a single-sentence stub would be even more succint. You cannot compare pure page length without considering what content ought to be included. This article's history section is a shallow political history, mostly a list of wars and military dictatorships. What is it that enabled the army to seize and directly rule the country for two decades? The 1890s army would never have the cohesion, mindset and raw power to pull this off, many internal transformations would have to take place. And these internal transformations are precisely an academic field of study covered by authors such as Frank McCann and José Murilo de Carvalho - an external POV, I must stress. To quote McCann, "The events and struggles of the turbulent 1930s, and the subsequent trends that culminated three decades later in the military regime of 1964 to 1985, are more clearly understood against the backdrop of the army's experience in the Old Republic". And "It is easy to forget that every army's mission is to be ready to wage war, to exercise controlled violence in the name of a state. An army's structure, doctrine, equipment and training exist for the paramount test of the battlefield. A history of an army that does not deal with its ultimate mission would be partial at best". "I believe that we should not separate the army's barracks life, internal politics, and relations with society from its exercise of violence". This article should cover all four of these topics. Yes, "barracks life" is not "irrelevant bureaucratic info" but an academic field of study.

This article is a perfectly valid place to summarize such internal transformations, just as Federal Reserve should summarize the Federal Reserve's internal transformations, external consequences and external pressures. Should you open the Federal Reserve's articles on other wikis, you will find they still mostly rely on English-language sources and there's nothing wrong with that. As far as bombast goes, I would seek an even colder and more academic tone if I could, and would be grateful if someone tried it. But it is not triumphalist or PR-run, as I have shown.

I would suggest arbitration by WikiProject Military history. Serraria (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Serraria: Despite the fact that I disagree both the way you edit and the @Cybershore:'s approach to the discussion, I support your suggestion. Unbaratocha (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you two ultimately seem to believe this article shouldn't cover topics such as the introduction of conscription and the professionalization of the officer corps, I can also give you all the "deep discussion" you want - plenty of excerpts from academic literature stating the importance of these internal changes, as well as plenty of examples of their second order effects. You could also read Sortition Law or Military School of Realengo which are lengthy pages (featured articles in their Portuguese originals) explaining the long-term relevance of these topics. Serraria (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be as clear as possible:

The example you gave of the Federal Reserve was pretty cool (I am not talking about the related article, which is another story). So, what happens in relation to the 2 items you mention, for example, the beginning in Brazil of the equivalent of the extinct American draft and a supposed or deeper professionalization of the officer corps, at no time did I oppose them (I ask other users to also give their opinions with the appropriate arguments),

what I emphasize (and this is an encyclopedic principle) is that the citations be as succinct as possible with the appropriate sources (not only but preferably in English) and with the links to the respective topics already accessed.

This applies Or should be applied to any article (On Federal Reserve too Lol), and their subjects like the participation of the Brazilian army in internal and external conflicts, as well as to its historical normative or structural changes, but reminding users to maintain common sense even on a topic that can easily slip into the subjective, that there is a consensus that there are actions and events triggered by the Brazilian Army that have had more impact (whether in Brazilian society or abroad) than others.

I believe that in this regard, although Brazilians live with an institution that is, for better or for worse, equally interventionist, Brazilian users are in a better position to reach a consensus on this issue than Pakistani, Egyptian, Myanmarese, Venezuelan and Indonesian users. Although, in my opinion, on this matter Brazilians are somewhat still behind Argentines and Chileans. Unbaratocha (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.