Ok before we start I just want to make it clear once again that I dont 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  a minor one in the Colonial section and the rest in early republic Section  So let us start with the proposed changes of rst paragraph of the section early republic  From what has been discussed so far what is still not clear to you regarding this paragraph  points  and  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 st 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  in the wake of the murder of his running mate it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getlio Vargas supported by most of the military to lead a revolt       Spaces related to citations