Talk:Operation Containment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Containment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Operation Containment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 October 2025.

Wikipedia

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brazil 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Low‑importance Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of the corresponding article in Portuguese from the Portuguese Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors.

	Intertranswiki/OKA
This article has been created, improved, or expanded by a translator from the Open Knowledge Association. See the OKA task force page of WikiProject Intertranswiki.

Despite

@Coltsfan: I was going to say the same thing, "the source is king; stick to the source, don't adapt it unless you have to". The source via Google Translate says:

A major police operation ..., was considered successful , despite reports of casualties among the security forces.

I interpret "among the security forces" to mean "police deaths", while the current wording of "high death toll" misleadingly implies "civilian deaths". 172.97.220.91 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are translating just the lead of the article. Coltsfan (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deaths

For now, the officially reported death toll from the operation is 121. In fact, most sources are sticking to this number. There may have been more deaths, but until there is confirmation, for greater stability, I recommend sticking to the official figures and updating them as they become available. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The official figures yesterday were unusually low, saying only 64. The latest sources say 119 or 132. I've included both the police and public defenders' numbers in the infobox, as is typical for a conflict with two sides. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The total acknowledged is 121. The Public Defender's Office of Rio de Janeiro claims there were 130. But it's necessary to follow the investigations more closely to ascertain the correct number. As most sources prefer to adopt the official figures, I recommend that Wikipedia also follow the official numbers.

Although I see no problem in also citing the Public Defender's Office's number, it should be made clear that it is the number from that entity. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian vs total deaths

@A.WagnerC and Schwede66: The headline says "passes 130" but the second paragraph says "128 civilians and four police officers have already been recorded, for a total of 132 victims". The right side of the infobox is for the civilians, not the total. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it confusing. They did this on the Portuguese Wikipedia. So I edited it to make it clear that the 117 was the number of civilian deaths. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I used the article name in the infobox and someone undo. 🤦 VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable neutrality

This article is uncritically reproducing the narrative pushed by the Carioca government without even entertaining more critical and dissident voices. A large number of human rights, community activism, and left-wing organisations (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Marielle Franco Institute, among others) are actively challenging the state-sanctioned narrative and labelling this so-called "police operation" as a "racist massacre" directed against the marginalised population of the favelas, while highlighting the racist and classist character of the Brazilian police. There's also no mention at all of the proven and well-documented connections between the Brazilian state police forces and the drug trafficking right-wing paramilitary militias in Rio, whose rivalry with street drug gangs is extremely relevant to this story. 2802:8012:EB:8B01:1D98:2BC7:7A00:BC1C (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information was added, including the reaction of left wing groups. The problem you mentioned, was dealt with. If there is any other point, you can say, but the narrative is pretty balanced now. Coltsfan (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath content under Reactions heading

Need to be edited and seperated ~2025-30861-97 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images deleted

Well, the fair use images got deleted and forced to this article to uses free media? This is a politicly correct to delete this media! VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]