Talk:2023 Brazilian Congress attack

Discrepancy Detected

As recent leaks show, there was involvememt from the GSI in regards to the 8th, as one of the high ranks from GSI, Gonçalves Dias was handing water and opening doors to "pro-bolsonaro" protesters inside the building. Not to mention, he made the whole GSI (an army branch) retreat BEFORE the whole chaos abrupted.

Flavio Dino KNEW about the attacks before they started, and did nothing to atleast inform of the threat.

There's a CPI (an investigation) planned to be voted, and for the most part PT who seemed to support it at first decided to back off and go against it, strange am I right? 177.124.122.220 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy 2; The whole attack wasn't incentivised by Bolsonaro, but instead from other parties. 177.124.122.220 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bolsonaro completely involved

see https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/13/americas/brazil-federal-police-election-result-bolsonaro-intl-hnk/index.html Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Invasion

I suspect invasion is a too-direct translation of a Portuguese word. Doesn't seem like the right word here. Usually countries invade other countries, mobs don't invade buildings. Should probably change to "attack", since that is what the article is called. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Perhaps, the right word here would be "storming". Perhaps, something like "2023 storming of Brazilian Congress" or "2023 Brazilian Congress storming". Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be fine with that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Sorry the delay to answer you. Should we move the article? Which do you prefer? "2023 storming of Brazilian Congress" or "2023 Brazilian Congress storming"? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It can stay at its current title if you want. Other storming articles also use "attack", such as January 6 United States Capitol attack. My main concern is changing "invasion" to something else such as "storming". Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae So, pretty much, only changing "invasion" to "storming" wherever it appears in the text? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alert: incoming details

Brazilian editors have produced another article based on recent events. Mathglot and I have been cleaning up the English, and at this point aren't quite done adding in the some of the more analytical English-language sources. El País has a timeline of events for example. (yes, in English)

The two articles do not need to be merged as this article covers the day of, and the new one covers the conspiracy, which really cannot be questioned at this point. But when for example the lede of this article says that the rioters hoped to set off a coup -- Bolsonaro's aide has made a statement that Bolsonaro had already tried, but the Brazilian Army refused to cooperate. There is video of Bolsonaro telling his ministers to question election security. Etc.

I am not sure who if anyone is watching the page, but those are just two of several important development being described over there which should at some point be interlinked into this page. Elinruby (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

2022 Brazilian attempted coup plot Elinruby (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

also relevant:2021 Brazilian military crisis Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

January 6th in see also section

Greetings all. I have made the bold decision to add the January 6 United States Capitol attack to the see also section of this article, per WP:IAR and MOS:SEEALSO. I am aware that this decision is in violation of MOS:NOTSEEALSO's guidance against including articles that have already been mentioned within the article.

In my opinion, it is very clearly obvious that the January 2023 events in Brazil are extremely similar to January 6th, and therefore reasonable to include under the "common sense" principle within MOS:SEEALSO on a basis that outweighs the aforementioned guidance within MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Both were right-wing to far-right insurrections (or riots, depending on your interpretation) based on false claims of voter fraud (and other overarching conspiracy theories) in order to extend the expiring presidential term of a boisterous right-wing populist. Furthermore, both were hilarious failures in an identical way, as walking around an empty government building and posing for pictures is not enough to seize power of a liberal democracy. Anyone who has any sort of idea regarding what happened during these two events can connect the dots and see that they are parallels of each other.

I find these connections too overbearing to not include it in the see also section. It would be a more reasonable exclusion if January 6th was mentioned at length within the article, but the mentions are far too short for them to have a huge impact over the article. Many readers of this article will not read these sections, and rather just skip to the see also section, so it is reasonable for it to be mentioned here. Excluding January 6th from the see also section is merely an appeal to authority that does not recognize that MOS:NOTSEEALSO is largely irrelevant to this article. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should always follow WP:NOTSEEALSO. That keeps things simple. I agree that the events are very similar, but I don't feel that is an argument for or against because either way the event is included on the page. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "simple" and should not be treated as such. Other arguments were made besides the similarities between the events. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here. Please self revert until you have consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)