Ok, before we start, I just want to make it clear once again that I don't have anything against (and would be irrational so)  anyone personally.
And, although I believe there is no historical version that can be completely neutral and free from bias, and is that even healthy that people can compare conflicting versions (within a reasonable scope of rationally), 
my position is that there are certain statements and omissions in the historical part of the article, that are unacceptable in an encyclopedic article, and therefore must be remedied.
They are 4 (a minor one in the Colonial section, and the rest in "early republic" Section). 
So, let us start with the proposed changes of 1rst paragraph of the section "early republic":

From what has been discussed so far, what is still not clear to you, regarding this paragraph - points 1.1 and 2.1 above ? 
Reminding below how got my last proposition agreed above (concerning to the debate regarding the grammar of it):
 "The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by several rebellions, both civilian*** as military.*** Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "     (*) Spaces related to citations