Talk:1964 Brazilian coup d'état

Hello Ptah, Can you please explain to me how come a conutry with democratic left-wing presidents could have also faced widely social democratical movements? I also want to know who are these left wing democratic presidents? As far as I know, Lula da Silva is the first left-wing to governe the country.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I think you may have misunderstood one edit. The original statement, "as the nation had been democratically governed by a string of populist left-wing Presidents," is, in fact, correct: Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira, Jânio Quadros and João Goulart were all populist left-wingers. As the intent of the statement was not clear, I have rewritten it: "As the political climate had become more divisive under the populist left-wing administrations of Juscelino Kubitschek, Jânio Quadros and João Goulart,..." Surely you agree with this new version? --Ptah, the El Daoud

It indeed look better, in my opinion, to say the names of those socialist presidents. Janio QUdros offered a medal to Che Guevarra at his office, which caused much shame to the majority of brazilian society. Although I stiil believe that they are not left-wing, but had "more" social worries. --Ludovicapipa

Perhaps it is an issue of translation: in English, left-wing refers to all branches of the political left, from the extreme (Communism, Anarchism) to the moderate (Social democracy, Trade unionism, Social liberalism and Environmentalism).--Ptah, the El Daoud

Secondly, my recent cited additions regarding the mobilization of the left (by Brizola and others), explain that this mobilization was openly taking place in order to protect the left-wing President Goulart (and therefore the federal government and the constitution) from a military rebellion or a right-wing civil insurrection. I also pointed out, with a citation, that these pro-government left-wing militias failed to form and resist when the right-wing civilians and the military came together for the '64 coup we are discussing. --Ptah, the El Daoud

Finally, I have cut your new paragraph, quoted in full at the end of this edit, for several reasons:

1) the military's belief in a supposedly imminent communist threat is already mentioned in the second sentence of the article. An additional citation is welcome, but should be added to the citation already present at the end of this sentence;

But I´d like to maintain because this is a very important part of history, no one denies the communist threat; your citation talks abt a revolution that never happened, but my citation talks abt insubordination and a world reality that is very important to remember in order to make readers of this article know the world´s context and the meaning of the word threat; --Ludovicapipa

I agree that it is a very important part of history, that is why the second sentence of the article explains it. Insubordination is indeed very important, but, unless there is specific information which has not been translated into English, the military and naval officers involved were not tied to the communist party or communist activists. That link was never proven. Therefore, it is very important that we mention the effect of this insubordination on the military within the Political climate before the coup section (it is already included in one of my block quotes), but, at the same time, avoid stating it in a way which equates insubordination with communism. The globalsecurity source explains that "Goulart carried his populism too far when he backed proposals for noncommissioned officers to hold political office and when he appeared sympathetic to rebelling sergeants in September 1963. The officer corps believed that the president was undermining discipline, thereby threatening military institutions." This is true, and worth mentioning in the article, but it is also important to note that, if the military believes that the President is involved, it is the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro that is involved--not the Communists. --(Ptah, the El Daoud

2) military insubordination was tied to the populist socialist, not communist, politicians. If you disagree with this point, I would like to see a direct and explicit quotation which identifies the ties these insubordinate soldiers and naval officers had with communist politicians or activists;

The same link: Passarinho talk sabt the need of taking a decison towards pro or against communism. There was no populist socialist, as we agreed Fernando Henrique Cardoso was considered a communist. There was use of "social something" by that time...You are or you are not communist. Well, I ask you the same: can you provide a quaotation? If mariers are against their "boss" or there is a militar insubordinatio, there we considered communists.--Ludovicapipa

You are correct when you state that "you are or you are not communist," and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro were not a communist party. Goulart was a proud Catholic who, like Vargas and Quadros before him, promoted populist socialist social programs. Communism is absolute. For communists there will be complete "collective ownership" of the means of production; there will be the abolition of religion; there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro were left-wing populists working to accomplish socialist objectives within a preexisting democratic republic. They did not the extreme and incontrovertable goals of Communism (be it Marxist-Leninist, Maoist or any other form). As for the mariners, yes, I can provide a quotation identifying their rebellion, but I must repeat myself when I state that insubordination does not equal communism. Military rebellions have taken place time immemorial. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

3) while Cuba, China and the Soviet Union all sought better ties with Brazilian leftists, they did not provide arms to the government (which, again, was populist socialist and not communist) or to civilian communist activists (who had no control within the federal government). The fact that the Brazilian government participated in diplomatic relations with communist governments does not prove that there was going to be a sudden shift to communism;

No I just think it helps reader to understand the meaning of the word threat. It was a global view and helps to understand what was happening in the neighbourhood. --Ludovicapipa

China and the Soviet Union are not in the neighborhood, and the Cubans wrested power through guerrilla warfare, not legislation which was promoted by democratically elected presidents or through Brizola's militias (as Brizola was quite openly in favor of the democratically elected president and the legislation he was trying to get passed regarding social welfare, etc). Were the conservative civilian politicians and a majority of military officers afraid of the specter of communism? Yes. But diplomacy with communist states only fanned the long standing flames of discontent. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the grievances of the conservatives and the military, but we should not simply present them as justification for military action. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

4) while one could suggest that a civil war in Brazil could have been similar to La Violencia in Colombia, that is outright speculation (after all a civil war did not take place: it turned out that the populist socialists were not organized at all, and that the communists were only capable of carrying out isolated acts of terrorism), and, as such, should not be inserted into an encyclopedic article;

Ok, but this was the goal of AI-5, to maitain order and end all possible communist threats. All quotations, even citatins, can be considered speculation. :--Ludovicapipa

Again, the situation was completely different from Colombia. The vast majority of leftists were members of Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro, and, while Brizola claimed that he had mobilized 200,000 to defend the federal government from the conservatives, this proved false (admittedly, through hindsight). The communists did not launch a counterstrike, and, when they did mobilize, they were only capable of isolated acts of terrorism. This was not the case in Colombia. In the end, one civil war should not be used to explain (let alone justify) another civil war. Attempts at such an analogy only obscure the facts of the situation. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

5) the point that the Brazilian censorship was "softest" because "Congress was still working" is unscientific: a weakened congress continued to exist throughout Stroessner's 35 years of power in Paraguay, as well as Castro's 47 years of power in Cuba. This does not alter the fact that the citizens, the media and even the congresses themselves were subject to some form of censorship.

I don´t agree, still a soft censorship, and brazilian media, tv, newspapers such as, Rede Globo, Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S Paulo supported the coup. They were against censorship --but not against militaries. They were also against communists. This is also a very important feature of a soft censorship and a bloodless one. :--Ludovicapipa

I do not see how the junta's censorship was any softer than Stroessner's censorship, nor does it make a difference that various media outlets supported his coup (Stroessner was as well). Every dictatorship or junta allows some media to thrive--the outlets that agree with them. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Please respond below to any of my points which you would like to contend, and do not feel the need to rush (after all, this article is a work in progress, it does not matter how long it takes for us to resolve any of our disagreements)... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Your paragraph, quoted in full:

According to Jarbas Passarinho, 1964 coup d´etat aovided the imminent communist threat represented by several world and local manifestations, such as: militar insubordination in 1963 in Brasilia, mariners in 1964; Fidel Castro´s, Che Guevarra´s , China, Soviet Union and Cold War. Even militaries wanted to move forward with democracy, since economy was growing and Medici was a very popular president. Passarinho states that Colombia still faces civil wars, because there was no AI-5 and that Brasil could have had the same fate if it was not the miliary government. He also point out that althoug censorship was severe, it was latin america´s softest since Congress was still open and working^[1].

I have cut your new section (quoted at the bottom of my comment in full), and will explain point by point my reasoning. I have added a new sentence to the introduction which states: "Some historians, including Jarbas Passarinho, argue that the threat of both global and local communist movements was real." I included your citation... If we are going to bring up Castro, Guevara, Mao or Stalin and/or Khrushchev, we will need to explain each inclusion specifically. If you think a paragraph should be dedicated to explaining this, I think we could easily make room for it in the political climate section (although it will probably have to go through a few drafts before either of us are content with it). I object to the inclusion of Passarinho's views on (La Violencia), for the initial waves of violence took place between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The communists took advantage of a "normal" civil war (liberal reformers versus the established conservative establishment) and made it a three-way conflict. Could this have happened? Perhaps, but it ignores the fact that the initial cause of concern was civil war between liberals and democrats who supported different versions of capitalist democracy, not communism. Your last sentence, "He also point out that although censorship was severe, it was Latin America´s softest since media" was incomplete. Did you mean to say "since media outlets continued to operate?" If you did, we can include that, but I need to point out that I will provide citations which show that media outlets continued to exist under all of the juntas, and journals under all of the juntas (in Paraguay, in Argentina, in Chile and in Brazil) were shut down when they went to far in criticizing the government... I have to work late tomorrow, but I'll respond to any new edits of yours later that night or on the following day. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

According to Jarbas Passarinho, 1964 coup d´etat aovided the imminent communist threat represented by several world and local manifestations, such as: militar insubordination in 1963 in Brasilia, mariners in 1964; Fidel Castro´s, Che Guevarra´s , China, Soviet Union and Cold War. Even militaries wanted to move forward with democracy, since economy was growing and Medici was a very popular president. Passarinho states that Colombia still faces civil wars, because there was no AI-5 and that Brasil could have had the same fate if it was not the miliary government. He also point out that although censorship was severe, it was Latin America´s softest since media ^[1] and the Congress were still open and working^[2].

Jarbas Passarinho, a historian?!?!?!!? Ninguém (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ptah, Well, as for "explaining" may be once we talk abt Passarinho, as you yourself said, we have to provide quotations and citations just as I did --just as you want to provide from your historian, from liberals xx democrats (this also requires quotations and citations), etc. Passarinho´s statemets concern global context. I think it´s very important for the reader to have a world view and not only a local one. That´s the exact meaning of te word threat. I don´t agree there is the need to offer details to the global view, as you suggested. The article is abt Brasil and a world threat. Those who want to know abt Cold War, Castro, etc. should clikc on link and search these articles. You can provide, yes, citations abt media´s resistence. The citation I provided states a letter from Folha de S. Paulo on which it acknowledges support to militaries until freedom of speech was threathned --then they supported democracy and Diretas Já.

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation:

• Militares "linha dura":só existem comunistas e não comunistas

--Ludovicapipa ^yes? 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a big problem with the following:

According to Jarbas Passarinho, 1964 coup d´etat avoided the imminent communist threat represented by several world and local manifestations, such as: militar insubordination in 1963 in Brasilia, mariners in 1964; kidnapping of an American embassador (1969) ^[1], Fidel Castro´s, Che Guevarra´s, China, Soviet Union and Cold War. Jânio Quadros's tribute to Che Guevara (August 19, 1961), Goulart's trip to China, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Soviet Union were among possible threats to the status quo. Even militaries wanted to move forward with democracy, since economy was growing and Medici was a very popular president. Passarinho states that Colombia still faces civil wars, because there was no AI-5 and that Brasil could have had the same fate if it was not the military government. He also point out that although censorship was severe, it was Latin America's softest since media supported the coup ^[2] and along with the Congress was still open and operating^[3]. This public support, which lasted until mid seventies (1974), was extended to entrepreneurs, business people, mid class, who also supported the ARENA, the situationist party.^[4] Thus throughout Brazilian history,^[5] one observes a steady tradition of conservative governments, and severe repression against social revolutions, since monarchy, right-wing republicanism and today's neoliberalism.

How can one say that the coup avoided the "imminent communist threat" by citing the Elbrick kidnapping--something that happened 5 years after the coup took place? It seems like a pretty obvious anachronism. I've tried to remove that and Ludovica has reverted me. Anyone else have an opinion?--Dali-Llama 04:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will later add this fact whithin a post event context which will be entitled something like "the threat was real" Ludovicapipa ^yes? 07:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if you add something like that, it begs the question of causality: Would they still have kidnapped the ambassador if the coup hadn't happened? One can't predict that, and even saying that the "threat was real" citing this event is WP:OR.--Dali-Llama 08:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That´s a question with no answer. The facts speak for themselves: they did it, and they were communits --so, the threat was real. The other fact is that as time went by, they kdinapped other embassador, and then by 1969 they had to stop because the army worked on it. It makes one think that if there was not a military action they would have continued --as they were in fact planning. And make one guess that if there was no military government, Brasil would now be like Cuba, S. Union or China. It´s not up to me to guess anything, only to write. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're bending yourself backwards to defend the dictatorship. You're arguing that they were planning the kidnapping in 1964. Again, my point stands: causality is the problem here.--Dali-Llama 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to a request for a third opinion (WP:3O). Assuming that the source shows that Jarbas Passarinho explicitly mentioned the kidnapping, then perhaps the best thing to do is to reword the section to clarify exactly what Passarinho said and to indicate somehow that it is only a speculation. Unfortunately I cannot read the Portuguese source. Phonemonkey 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. The link for the Jarbas Passarinho quote is dead, apparently, and it accounts for half of the paragraph. Without that half sourced, the rest of the section falls apart. I do think this section is important, and needs to be re-written. I'm removing it until an NPOV (and "live") source can be used.--Dali-Llama 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - a source doesn't necessarily have to be NPOV, it only needs to be cited in a NPOV manner. I agree that an alternative source should be found. Phonemonkey 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree--Hence why I added the disclosure to the previous (now non-existent) source.--Dali-Llama 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose the first citation, from Joseh Page (aome historian) should also be deleted. It states teh revolution that never was. I ask: how can he say that the revolution would never have happened? A reasonable answer is that: the revolution never happened because of the military intervention. So this is anachrnism --he can´t say, after it happened (no revolution) that it would never have happened and it was just a military excuse. So, comparing my citation from Passarinho to the one from Page, Iam sure, it´s better to deal with facts: the kidnapping happened (and was just a feature of a real communist threat).

• -- this is an alterntive link.

1969 kidnapping can be mentioned as a post military coup --as many others. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious your intention is to push your viewpoint, and not to improve the actual article. It's an almost childish "tit-for-tat" where because you had a broken link (still do, in fact) and your paragraph fell apart structurally because of it, you feel inclined to remove the one paragraph which disputed your espoused viewpoint. You revert things just for the sake of reverting, in one of the most blatant displays of ownership I've seen in my 3 years of Wikipedia. You literally just reverted a paragraph with a broken link (and thus unsourced statement) just because you think it's "right".

I'm tagging this article as NPOV, as by removing Joseph Page, it becomes monolithic in its defense of the dictatorship. Tomorrow I'm re-writing the entire article, incorporating existing material where possible, with the help of the PT Wikipedia version of this article, which is far larger and of higher quality than the EN Wikipedia version we have right now. Although the PT wikipedia version uses offline sources, it relies mainly on Elio Gaspari's account of the dictatorship years, which is arguably the benchmark with which all others are measured, and I'll try to corroborate with online sources where possible.--Dali-Llama 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No it´s obivous now that you want to push yr point of view: you linkd an image of a Veja cover which said: The year we got rid of him.

I didn´t notice the link was broken. So i shoed another one, which is already on the text, since beggining.

Elio gaspari is known as a pro-Lula, pro-PT --against FHC, against Collor. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

===Joseph Page was cited just to offer you an example of a an even worse and unfouded anachronism --which is obvious. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter in relation to the dictatorship.--Dali-Llama 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As promised, here's a radically expanded and fully sourced version of the article. Some points which I'd like us to use from now on:

• Keep analysis to its own section. Notice that in writing this, I've kept it facts-only. No analysis. No "why it happened", just "what happened". I've retained the Jarbas Passarinho quote, as it provides an insider's perspective on things. "Context" is tricky, so let's just make sure any discussions we have are confined to a section specified as such.
• For the love of god, no original research and no synthesis. Having a list of events and concluding by saying there's a trend is not permitted unless it's been stated as such in a reliable source.

We'll see how it goes.--Dali-Llama 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I´d like to see more commets on the social support: as it was mentioned on the previous article, society (media, mid-class, entrepenerus wanted the coup in order to avoid communis threat). Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide more links on public support? Ludovicapipa ^yes? 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a whole section missing about the newspaper headlines and how the CGT strike in support of Jango never happened. There's also the student protests on the 1st and the removal of Miguel Arraes. I'm gonna work on it later today, as well as integrate your contributions into it. The problem is, again, I'm trying to keep analysis to its own section.--Dali-Llama 12:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And the first paragraph of what you just added is complete WP:OR, by the way. The second paragraph contains useful info I'll be moving into the analysis section: again, let's keep any justification or analysis to its own section. I want to stick to the facts as much as possible.--Dali-Llama 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Iam talking abt public support to the Coup, for hte militaries. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I´d like to see Gaspari´s citations all deleted or diminished, since he is a communist supporter. Can you find a more diversified range of citations, not only frm one single author. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need. He's only describing facts--not providing opinion. He's not (and neither is the article) saying the coup was good or bad, but describing the sequence of events. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online source which provides the same degree of depth as he does, so at this point he's not replaceable.--Dali-Llama 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaspari a communist supporter?!?!!!??!?!?!? Sorry, but that's a huge LOL. Ninguém (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I added this POV tag to warn readers abt the excessive Gaparis´s citations which represents a partial communist point of view (POV). Ludovicapipa ^yes? 13:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would want to vist this page: I could find several links and provided a very diversified research, fully cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello Ludovicapipa ^yes? 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how it works. When you're adding a POV tag, you need to mention specifically what you feel is POV in the article. You have to get off this whole "communism" thing--you're painting as if there's this huge conspiracy. I used Gaspari because he's the most comprehensive historian of the events of 1964 that I could find. The article can't be POV because it only describes facts: it makes no conclusions or offers no analysis about them (with the exception of your analysis of Jarbas Passarinho at the bottom). I'm removing the tag until you can specifically mention what you feel is POV.--Dali-Llama 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, I just finished reading Walter's autobiography, SIlent Missions, as well as the American Involvement section of the Wikipedia article. Re the latter: I can't find in Kornbluh's article any mention of Walters' communication with LBJ. Indeed, Walters cites Amb. Gordon's testimony under oath in 1977 that the coup was "100% Brazilian" (p.389(. Walters adds that the first he heard of "Brother Sam" was in 1977, and in the same chapter dismisses all US moves as routine military contingency planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwgoldb (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following:

The 1964 coup was fully supported by society: mid-class, entrepeneurs, media. A public manifestation, A Marcha da Família com Deus e pela Liberdade (The march of Family with God for Freedom) is one of the most remarkable ones. This march marked a social attitude against the imminnet communist threat. This threat was detected locally and globally since that period was marked by a national and international context of growing invigoration of authoritarian tendencies contrary to the political liberalism and to the representative democracy, so much to the left as for the right. The disbelief in democracy was generalized. No matter how much it was exaggerated, the perception of a "communist threat" in Brazil was not just a phantasmagoria: there was real intention of the communists of arriving to the power for revolutionary means..^[1]

The source provided does not discuss or justify the coup. It only mentions the revolts which ingrained an anti-communist sentiment in the armed forces. As such, it's WP:OR and was removed.--Dali-Llama 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what the source says:

O golpe militar foi saudado por importantes setores da sociedade brasileira. Grande parte do empresariado, da imprensa, dos proprietários rurais, da Igreja Católica, vários governadores de estados importantes (como Carlos Lacerda, da Guanabara, Magalhães Pinto, de Minas Gerais, e Ademar de Barros, de São Paulo) e amplos setores de classe média pediram e estimularam a intervenção militar, como modo de pôr fim à ameaça de esquerdização do governo e de se controlar a crise econômica

Now let's see what you wrote:

The 1964 coup was fully supported by society: mid-class, entrepeneurs, media. A public manifestation, A Marcha da Família com Deus e pela Liberdade (The march of Family with God for Freedom) is one of the most remarkable ones. This march marked a social attitude against the imminnet communist threat. This threat was detected locally and globally since that period was marked by a national and international context of growing invigoration of authoritarian tendencies contrary to the political liberalism and to the representative democracy, so much to the left as for the right. The disbelief in democracy was generalized. No matter how much it was exaggerated, the perception of a "communist threat" in Brazil was not just a phantasmagoria: there was real intention of the communists of arriving to the power for revolutionary means

Let's start with the first NPOV issue: fully supported by society. Is the whole of society composed by the middle class, entrepreneurs and the media? What about the lower ranks of the military, the poor and the disenfranchised? I don't know if they opposed the coup, but the source doesn't mention it. Stick to what the source says. The source again, doesn't mention the Marcha. In fact, I've already mentioned the march in the article. Then comes this:

This threat was detected locally and globally since that period was marked by a national and international context of growing invigoration of authoritarian tendencies contrary to the political liberalism and to the representative democracy, so much to the left as for the right. The disbelief in democracy was generalized. No matter how much it was exaggerated, the perception of a "communist threat" in Brazil was not just a phantasmagoria: there was real intention of the communists of arriving to the power for revolutionary means

The source does not mention any of this. The closest thing to it it says is:

Os militares que apoiaram o golpe justificaram seus atos afirmando que seu objetivo era restaurar a disciplina e a hierarquia nas Forças Armadas e destruir o "perigo comunista" que, imaginavam, pesava sobre o Brasil. Eles também acreditavam que o regime democrático instituído no Brasil após 1945 não fora suficiente para se contrapor a esse inimigo. Os militares, no entanto, sempre enfatizaram, com razão, o fato de que "não estavam sós", isto é, que o golpe de 1964 não foi de sua exclusiva iniciativa, e sim resultado da confluência e do apoio de importantes segmentos da sociedade civil, preocupados com a possibilidade de que a esquerda conquistasse o poder no Brasil.

Notice the author is careful to say that the "communist" danger was perceived by the military, and that the military perceived the democratic institutions of Brazil would not be enough to halt that. There's a world of difference between saying that the military rationalized their actions as such and your passage, which states as a matter of fact that this danger was real. The only point where the author agrees with ("com razão") is that the military were not alone in this (and it is properly addressed in the text with the march reference). My point is: it is not for you or I to decide whether the danger was real or not. We cite sources, accurately state what they say (no more, no less), and let the reader decide. You're jumping to conclusions by misquoting sources and adding your own interpretation, or are you going to tell me that "the perception of a "communist threat" in Brazil was not just a phantasmagoria: there was real intention of the communists of arriving to the power for revolutionary means" is not you misinterpreting what Celso Castro tacitly refused to endorse that opinion when he said when he said the military thought the threat was real?--Dali-Llama 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All you did was copy the same thing I did and re-translate it! I'm hoping this was your attempt at a compromise edit. Let's compare:

My version:

José Guilherme Merquior, a Brazilian diplomat and sociologist defined the causes of the 1964 coup as "governmental instability, disintegration of the party system, erroneous attitudes by president Goulart (if not none at all) towards presidential sucession; the threat represented by a poorly-planned agrarian reform; military restlessness towards government tolerance to insubordination; and a growing radicalism, by both left and right wings (...) all compounded by high inflation and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution.^[1]

According to Celso Castro of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, the perception of a communist threat in Brazil became increasingly tangible until it reached its climax with the 1935 Revolt. He cites events leading to a growing anti-communism in the armed forces, such as: the Russian Revolution (1917), the foundation of a communist party in Brazil (1922), the conversion to communism of "tenentista" leader Luís Carlos Prestes (1930), and his departure to the Soviet Union; the appearance (March of 1935) of the Aliança Nacional Libertadora, dominated by communists, the sargeants´s revolt (1963), the sailor´s revolt, Jânio Quadro giving a medal to Che Guevara, Goulart's trip to China, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union by Goulart as being threats to the status quo. ^[2] Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN) the business class, land owners, the media and the Catholic church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.^[3]

Your version:

According to José Guilherme Merquior: "Government instability, disintegration of the system supporting, virtual paralysis of the capacity of the Legislative, misleading attitudes on the part of president Goulart, towards anything with regard to the succession; the threat acted by a land reform badly defined; military inquietude in face of the tolerance of the government to the sergeants' mutinies; and growing radicalism, as much of the right as of the you are, everything this complemented by the inflation in discharge and, for the frightening ghost of the Cuban revolution". ^[4].

The perception of a "communist danger" in Brazil went by a process of growing "materialization", until reaching its climax with the Revolt of 1935. Like this, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, they had room in the country the creation of Communist Party of Brazil (then Party Brazilian Communist. PCB) in 1922; the conversion of the leader "tenentista" Luís Carlos Prestes to the communism, in May of 1930, and his/her departure for the Soviet Union, the following year; and the appearance, in March of 1935, of the National Alliance Libertadora, ruled by communists.

However, the military blow was greeted by important sections of the Brazilian society. Great part of the business community, of the press, of the rural proprietors, Carlos Lacerda and Lamb of Farias (1955). of the Church Catholic, several governors of important (as Carlos Lacerda, of Guanabara, Magalhães Pinto, of Minas Gerais, and Ademar of Barros, of São Paulo) states and wide middle class sections asked and they stimulated the military intervention, as form of putting end to the communism threat. If in 1917 the communism in Brazil was still seen as a remote danger, "alien" and "exotic", little by little he was if turning closer. ^[5]

These local manifestations were insufflated and justified by a world political scenario, which consisted of several communist revolutions taking place in China, Cuba, Soviet Union.

I'm flabbergasted, but encouraged. This was not your original contribution (far from it, this is, indeed, a literal translation with no original research or conclusion). You literally translated the same thing I did, but moved it to the middle of the article! There are several translation and grammar problems involved in your version ("Lamb of Farias" ?), so I'm merging both and placing them in the analysis section, as again, there's a narrative which you're breaking by inserting a random section named "The historical meaning of the words "threat of communism" in the middle of a narration that describes the specific events that happened. --Dali-Llama 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You said I could not conclude anything, so I only translated. An dyou deleted. Yr artcile does not explain teh causes --it omits the causes of the coup --you don´t want to tell the truth: communists are to blame and omit history. Wikipédia is a fun!! Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From my latest edit, I've only deleted the last two lines which are opinion and somewhat redundant. It's not that the article omits the causes of the coup: It gives ample mention to the events that preceded the coup, such as the sailor's revolt, Goulart's promise to nationalize oil, etc. You wanted to add a general "cause" being "communism". That's fine, but it's a historical perspective which is an analysis of the events (not a description of the events). That should be included, with authors disclosed and in a separate section . There's a difference between providing facts and letting the reader decide for themselves and what you originally did, which was conclude the cause for them. Right now the article accurately describes what happened in the coup, and at the end provides perspective by saying what three different people feel the causes of the coup were. I can't see how that's omitting history. And I don't think communists are to blame. I don't think the military is to blame, either. It's not for me or you to say who's to blame, that's the point. So now we've added sources both of us find reliable, are properly cited and are identified at the end of the article, addressing the causes of the coup. Is there anything else you feel we should discuss?--Dali-Llama 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tá bom. Um dia quero ver vc escrever um argio sobr eo legado de Lula. hahahaha Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There in the first line...I know Goulart is populist, but do populist=left-wing in English? He was capitalist n' lovin' it, from what I know, being friends with Vargas (fascist sympathizer populist). He wasn't even a social-democrat! He fully supported the United States government diplomatically during the missile crisis, and he was a wealthy landowner. He was, at most, a centrist, and that's only because he promised (we can't even know for sure if that would really happen) to modernize the country's (capitalist) economy to avoid economical collapse, and give some benefits to workers in exchange for political support. Hardly the Godless commie-lovin' dictator-wannabe anti-American bastard the supporters of the coup wanted the world to believe he was. --200.222.30.9 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From your reasoning I reckon nobody can be a left-winger AND believe in a market oriented economy at the same time. We're not sticking to Soviet orthodoxy here, are we? Or are we equating "left-winger" with "Bolshevist"?

I think the important point to retain here is that Goulart was perceived as a left-wing alternative at a time when the Brazilian Communist Party was semi-clandestine. Unlike his opponents in UDN or PSD, he had the backing of the labour movement (whether trade unions in Brazil were free from state intervention is a totally different matter). His government had the support of many a left-wing intellectual, many of them from the Brazilian Communist Party. And his "basic reforms" were the brain child of social democratic economists such as Celso Furtado and Maria da Conceição Tavares.

I think this article could be much improved, and portraying Goulart the way he was perceived back then would do much to improve it.

By the way, I have edited the first half of this article last week only to find all my changes and additions completely scraped off. And I don't believe I have added anything controversial that would justify such a harsh measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.148.70 (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, Goulart was moderate/center-left, and hardly radical, let alone a communist, but the U.S. apparently perceived him as one. Josh (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This subtitle´s issue for all three scholars is the communist threat:. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Sources usually phrase it as the perceived communist threat-- saying there actually was a threat isn't NPOV and is in fact quite controversial.--Dali-Llama 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no controvery at all --all coups in Latin America hd communist threat as its major cause. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All of these link,including the three cited within the subtitle are talking abt a real threat of communism --whihc is the major cause of all coups in Lat. Amer.

http://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/divulgacao/BDNUH/NUH_3291/NUH_3291.html

http://www.midiasemmascara.com.br/artigo.php?sid=5272

http://www.midiaindependente.org/pt/blue/2005/07/324170.shtml

http://blog.estadao.com.br/blog/zanin/?title=memoria_da_ditadura&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/060109dc.htm

http://www.objetivo.br/portal/frm_conteudo.aspx?codConteudo=81&tituloanterior=Roteiros+para+Estudo

http://www.aprendebrasil.com.br/reportagens/golpede64/verniz.asp

http://www.sbpcnet.org.br/livro/58ra/SENIOR/RESUMOS/resumo_539.html

Lulu Margarida ^yes? 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is where the difference in English and Portuguese may be catching you off-guard. There's a difference between saying a coup was caused by "the threat'' and "the perceived threat" of communism. In the former, you are implying that the threat was real, in the latter, you're not judging whether or not it was real, but you are merely stating that people at the time perceived it as a threat. It's fair to say, in the context of this article, that the military moved against Goulart due to what they perceived to be the threat of communism. It is not fair to say that there actually was a threat. And I'm not disputing the latter: My point is we don't need to justify or condemn the coup according to whether the threat was real or not. All we need to do is what what happened and how the military justified it. This is a clear case of NPOV.--Dali-Llama 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Iam sorry, I don´t understand. For me it´s very simple: there was a threat and this is what these all three authors have in common.Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my point: you're saying there was a threat. What I'm saying is that whether the threat existed or not, is up to debate. What is not up to debate is that the military perceived the threat. By saying "the threat of communism", this makes the article imply that the threat was real, which is debatable. By stating that the the threat was perceived, you're saying that regardless of whether or not the threat was real, the military saw it as real. I'm trying to keep this article to the facts, and not go down into a historical debate about whether or not the threat was real. The military thought it was real--that's all that needs to be said to explain what their motivations for the coup was. Let me try it in Portuguese:

Imagine o caso do Irã e o programa nuclear: Os Estados Unidos acreditam que o programa nuclear iraniano é uma ameaça á sua segurança, então eles querem sanções econômicas. No artigo, nós não diríamos que o programa é uma ameaça, quando há pessoas e países que podem discordam se é ou não uma ameaça--para explicar as motivações dos EUA, basta dizer que os EUA acham que é uma ameaça. Falar sobre "a ameaça" seria endossar a posição americana de que há de fato uma ameaça, o que não é necessário--independentemente se está correto ou errado. No caso do golpe, não precisamos abrir uma discussão sobre se a ameaça era real ou falsa. Basta dizer que para os militares ela era real, e está alí o motivo deles em conduzir o golpe.

Hope that helped.--Dali-Llama 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The threat was real, yes, for teh authors cited, for the militaries, for me, for the americans --and they all based thsion local guerillas, Cuba, Soviet Union, China, etc... A real threat. The issue here is that whether ot not you wnat to make of all these articles a "wonder land" of communism, changing very basic historical facts. The fact is that all coups in LA are due to a real threat --this is the core of this subtitle. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point is saying it's real doesn't add anything in explaining why the military did what they did. Saying it was real would be tantamount to defending the coup and a grave violation of WP:NPOV. That the military said the threat of communism was a motivator for their actions is fact. That the threat was or was not real is an opinion--one may agree or disagree. It's not necessary to violate NPOV to make the same point: that the military did what they did because they saw a threat. And you really need to stop questioning my motivations and getting personal--it doesn't further discussion and you're already one step away from arbitration for your past behavior. I'm not going to be as patient this time as I was in the past. As always, we can bring in a third-opinion to weigh in if you'd like.--Dali-Llama 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article with the following rationale: 1)"Coup" vs. "maneuver"/"revolution" - While it is perfectly reasonable to mention the dichotomy of coup vs. revolution between the different sectors of Brazilian society, the bottom line is that this was in fact a coup d'etat, whether one was in favor of it or not. To call it a "maneuver" is euphemistic.

2)Interpretation of Goulart's policies and "Historical Context" - per WP:SYN, we try not to add synthesis of sources to the text. Unless sources are provided which can illustrate "mistaken" assumptions or conflicting viewpoints which meet WP:RS, we should strive to keep personal analysis out of the text. The same goes for the last portion of Historical Context, which while may very well be true, does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion.

3)Lincoln Gordon's history and further details about the dictatorship - This article is related to the events that immediately preceded and immediately followed the military takeover. We should keep information about persons and future events to their respective articles (which are already in Wikipedia).

Feel free to comment or respond! Cheers.--Dali-Llama (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose the elimination of the whole "Historical Context" section. It does not provide any meaningful "context" to the coup; instead, it repeats the pretexts offered by the gorillas in a rather acritical manner. Whether these people "believed" in a "communist threat" it immaterial; such "threat" did not exist, and the real rationale for the coup was internal, located in the internal conflicts among the Brazilian ruling class. The coup, while certainly approved and supported by Washington, was not a foreign intervention in the context of the Cold War; it was an internal movement in the context of the adaptation of Brazil to the new international division of labour. Ninguém (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That section was inserted in order to acommodate a long-departed editor with a very particular viewpoint. However, I think that with the exception of Jarbas Passarinho, both historians mentioned meet WP:RS. It would be nice to include some more left-leaning historians, but I tried really hard to write that section in a way that it does not endorse those historians' points of view. I'll actually go ahead and remove Jarbas Passarinho.--Dali-Llama (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised at how airbrushed the tome of this article is. Most Brazilian's refer to the period of military rule as ditadura militar (military dictatorship) or simply ditadura (dictatorship). This article makes it look like it was a walk in the park. (It wasn't.) Morganfitzp (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a random anonymous editor who is trying to whitewash this article. You just caught one of his edits. Look up the history of the article and you'll see the original. Cheers.--Dali-Llama (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article writes:"The friction between the military and João Goulart boiled over with his intervention in a revolt by sailors of the Brazilian Navy led by José Anselmo dos Santos, historically known as Corporal Anselmo, and later exposed as an agent provocateur. On March 25, 1964, nearly 2,000 sailors assembled in Rio de Janeiro, petitioning for better living conditions and pledging their support for Goulart's reforms. The Minister of the Navy, Sílvio Mota, ordered the arrest of the sailors leading the assembly. Mota sent a detachment of marines to arrest the leaders and break up the assembly, led by Rear Admiral Cândido Aragão. These marines ended up joining the assembly and remained with the other sailors.[6]" In fact "Corporal Anselmo" was an agent of Fidel Castro and the "Sailor's revolt" was did under direct orders of Fidel Castro.This revolt that began the military revolt."Corporal Anselmo" was designed as leader of Vanguarda Popular Revolucionária - a marxist organization- for Fidel Castro himself.After being arrested, "Corporal Anselmo" became linked to brazilian policeman Sérgio Paranhos Fleury and betrayed his former leaders in left, but this happened in 1971. Agre22 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Next opportunity, can someone please substitute "Bay of Pigs Invasion" (an event) in place of "Bay of Pigs invasion" (a location), thanks.PeterWD (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article's introduction, based on the Portuguese version of the article. --201.10.159.138 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.arquivonacional.gov.br/memoria/crapp_site/presidente.asp?rqID=8
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:53:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.arquivonacional.gov.br/memoria/crapp_site/presidente.asp?rqID=23
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:53:29, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.pdt.org.br/personalidades/brizola.doc
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:54:25, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cpdoc.fgv.br/nav_jgoulart/htm/7A_conjuntura_radicalizacao/A_revolta_dos_marinheiros.asp
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:54:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cpdoc.fgv.br/nav_jgoulart/htm/biografias/Joao_Goulart.asp
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:55:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cpdoc.fgv.br/nav_jgoulart/htm/6Na_presidencia_republica/Os_militares_e_o_governo_JG.asp
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:55:43, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cpdoc.fgv.br/nav_jgoulart/htm/biografias/Olimpio_Mourao_Filho.asp
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-05-25 03:49:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 1964 Brazilian coup d'état on 2011-06-06 12:56:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this a "coup d'etat" or "military coup"? Was it a "golpe de estado" or "golpe militar"?

The military overthrew the standing government and replaced it with a military government and rewrote the constitution. For 20 years, successive military presidents were chosen by and from the military.

With this in mind, why is it a state coup and not a military coup? --Lacarids (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The military coup in 1964 began in March 31 and ended in April 1 (sources: 1, 2, 3). As the article says, in the section "The coup", the military overthrew the civilian government. The IP wants to change that to say that it was the Brazilian congress that overthrew the president. He is using this source to back the claim. The source says "The National Congress approved, early this Thursday (21 November 2013), cancellation of the session of the Congress of 2 April 1964 that declared vacant the office of the President João Goulart". According to the chronology presented in the article, the coup happened in March 31 - April 1 1964 period. The following day, with the military already in control of the country, Congress then came in support of the coup (that had already happened) and legalized it by declaring vacant the office of the presidency. But, as the article and the sources say, the president had already been ousted. Coltsfan (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just plain vandalism, incredible how this page was not protected. Will keep a eye on this article too. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"the coup happened in March 31 - April 1 1964 period. The following day, with the military already in control of the country"

Except they weren't. On April 2 1964, Ranieri Mazzilli, the Speaker of the House of Representatives became President. It wasn't until April 15 that the congress voted in Marshall Humberto Castelo Branco. NPOV is calling it for what it is, Goulart was ousted by the Congress.

If the democratically elected Congress came in support of a military government, can it really be called a Coup?

Let me Remind you that the ousted president João Goulart was never president elect. He was a loser in the 1960 election. It just so happened that in the 1960s electoral process, the runner up in presidential elections would occupy the vice presidency. But after President elect Jânio Quadros renounced, Goulart never had popular support or congressional support. He was seen as a communist threat by a majority of the brazilian population as well as congress. marcobjj (talk)

So there was no military coup? Thanks for rewriting brazilian history and for contradicting every source in the article. Coltsfan (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to correct an unhistorical statement for anyone who may read: Goulart never lost the Presidential election because he never run for Presidency. He ran for Vice Presidency and was elected as that. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I take it you've already conceded the fact that Goulart was ousted by the congress, seeing how you've now resorted to moving the goalpost. Whether it's really a Coup or not it's a matter of POV entirely. The overwhelmingly left-oriented media sources calling it a Coup doesn't make that an historical fact, you are confused. The only facts are that the congress voted to oust Goulart and later for military intervention. I personally don't see it as a Coup, considering it didn't violate the constitution and had popular and congressional support. You'd have a much better case calling the 1967 military constitution a Coup than the 1964 intervention. marcobjj (talk)

By trying to disqualify a source by simply calling it "left-wing" (without showing any solid/valid source of your own that would contradict the article) already show a POV intention. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Coltsfan (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

One of your sources is the BBC. I don't know how anyone can argue they are not left wing. BBC is the state controlled broadcasting company in the UK, Around date that your source was published (2004), the UK parliament was Labour Controlled from 1997-2010. Completely non POV objective reasoning. I'll revert the 1964 Coup Article now seeing that you're no longer disputing the point of who ousted Goulart. marcobjj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but that is just POV pushing. And things don't work like that. Coltsfan (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to rubbish the BBC (which you clearly don't understand) as a source is not the same thing as providing a reliable source to support your highly personal view of history. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just give up man, what you suggest don't make any sense. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted an article from the House of Representatives of Brazil, try to keep up. Do you seriously believe that a media source like the BBC or a history blog are more reliable source and more NPOV than an admission from the congress themselves that they ousted the president? you've already lost the argument.

AdjectivesAreBad, do you plan on contributing instead of just cheerleading anytime soon? thanks for you time. marcobjj (talk)

The source you posted does not contradict what's in the article. Your arguments don't make sense. Coltsfan (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Goulart ousted by the congress =/= Goulart ousted by the military. It's a direct contradiction, grow up. marcobjj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy: http://imguol.com/blogs/52/files/2013/11/DCD03ABR1964.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNjRtgLm4Sk

marcobjj (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, these sources only prove what is in the article already. Congress only acted after the military had already forced Jango out of Brasilia and out of the office of the presidency. (new sources in english: 1, 2, 3; and portuguese: 1). Facts are facts, and revisionism don't work. Coltsfan (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. 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://www.dominionpaper.ca/international_news/2004/04/06/us_role_in.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703095612/http://www.cliohistoria.hpg.ig.com.br:80/bco_imagens/ditadura/para_ouvir.htm to http://www.cliohistoria.hpg.ig.com.br/bco_imagens/ditadura/para_ouvir.htm

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) 07:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1964 coup.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

>Within two years, in accord with concessions promised to the U.S. government for its financial support of the overthrow, foreign companies gained control of about half of the Brazilian industry. This type of foreign intrusion was often accomplished through combined fiscal and monetary measures, "constructive bankruptcy" that caused the choice of selling out or going broke. By 1971, of the 19 of Brazil's 27 largest companies that were not state-owned, 14 were foreign-owned

Any other source other than the book? I don't think it's actually true, but I might me wrong, someone should be able to check it quite easily. It may just be the result of a more liberal policy and not an intrusion per se, don't know, the wording sounds too much political and the correlation isn't sound.

The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état occurs during the Easter Octave of 1964 because its Easter Sunday was a 29 March and its Low Sunday (Quasimodo) was a 5 April. Injust reversion!

2804:18:F2:CA9F:1:0:62C8:4C5D (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect CIA activities in Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 18 § CIA activities in Brazil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the "Foreign involvement" since it had maintenance tags since 2021. I confirmed that the section had several problems, including original research and primary sources. I've placed inline tags, removed unsourced or repeated content and merged the section with the rest of the article. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

is there any evidence that the US was even involved? the only thing that supports that was that Kennedy and Goularte had a "tenes" relationship Kingllama100 (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Operation Brother Sam. Coltsfan (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

the first 2 paragrpahs have zero citiations Kingllama100 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

When it is an introduction, it isn't so necessary. See 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, which its first 4 paragraphs having zero citations. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

then that should be taken with a grain of salt then too Kingllama100 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Kingllama100: Quoting from MOS:CITELEAD, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". All information in this article's lead section synthesizes what's in the body. Most lead section information in Operation Brother Sam is in the body, except for cited sentences (this is actually a minor issue, as information shouldn't be brought up in the lead and ignored in the body).

There's an entire article focusing on this topic (Brazil–United States relations during the João Goulart government), which is much broader than Brother Sam. Asking this in article talk wouldn't be necessary if you could just be patient enough to read a little more. If you want a recent, open acess, English-language secondary source, there's this. You could also take a direct look at primary sources in the National Security Archive (1 and 2). All of this is cited in the aforementioned article. Serraria (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See also: The U.S. Government and the 1964 Coup, "Phyllis Parker was a graduate student at the University of Texas, doing research for her master’s thesis, when she stumbled across recently declassified documents at the LBJ library detailing U.S. support for the Brazilian coup". Torimem (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)