Talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Dispute

Article is completely frozen for new additions as of today (Oct 31, 2006). There are a broad number of vandalism published, including sections that provides information about his political and social achievements ("his goal is to make rich himself and his family" ??). There must be some kind of respect towards the institutional and public character as the president of Brazil. We all know there are still corruption issues to be assessed by Superior Court of Law, however, it does not entitled an individual to disseminate such vandalism. Thiago Zaninotti

Grief, this article is a total mess. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but shouldn't someone just freeze it asap, to stop any more vandalism? In the intro, "corruption-oriented" and "most unworthy President since....". Then a string of abuse in the sections headed Political Orientation, Social progress, foreign policy and re-election. This isn't what Wikipedia is all about and the article is just being hijacked. Cardicam

He won the election today, this information should be added. David Kofoed Wind utdiscant@gmail.com

Is this article still being disputed? I guess we can take the tag off. Does anyone disagree? Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parts of this article is written in a enthusiast-socialist vision. The government projects, decisions and votations are sad - Tributary Reform is a complete joke. Fome Zero do not practical exists and your base act numbers was contested by IBGE. I could spend 300 lines to speak how many controverses they are promises of this Sir. But I will leave this for 2006, when all the ruin that him made in Brazil will be shown in the elections. --Mateusc 04:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe not..--Dardorosso 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the year of ellection changed to 2009? The correct year is 2002, which was correct.

Vandalism Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Important note: don´t use "Señor". That is SPANISH, not PORTUGUESE. Anyway, there is no reason using the expression "Senhor da Silva". This is an english wikipedia, and he is NOT known as "Senhor da Silva" in Brazil.

  • brrr.... the correct should be "Senhor Silva" not da silva. "señor" gosh :| -Pedro 10:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please strive for NPOV in this. Thanks.

"Mr. da Silva"?? Does that sound a little lame to anybody else (especially when it comes right after a comment about how people don't refer to him using his surname)? Isn't "Mr. da Silva" a little Western-centric? Would "Señor da Silva" or "Sr. da Silva" be more appropriate in this case? --Jizzbug

  • western?????? Isnt Brazil in the West? Isnt Portugal in the west? Señor is Spanish! -Pedro 10:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If his name is "Luís Inácio Lula da Silva", then "Lula" is simply his surname, so why does everybody point out that he's known as "Lula" all the time? So even his friends call him by his last name; that's not very special. I ask because if my interpretation is correct, then we should move the article to the full name like usual; whereas if "Lula" is properly a nickname, then it should be at Lula da Silva (since there are probably other "Lula"s in the world). Or maybe I just don't understand Brazilian nicknames, that's another possibility. — Toby 13:40 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

AFAIK, in Portuguese, everybody has two names, one of his father, one of his mother. I think Lula's mother's name was "Lula", his father's "Da Silva" (might be reverse, like in Spanish, but I thought this was correct). Most people are usually known as either "Da Silva" or "Lula da Silva" - "Lula" is not as common, although nicknames are very common (just look up some Brazilian football players...). Jeronimo
Yes, this is what I suspected, modulo worrying about which parent is which. But I guess that this isn't true in his case, as we see below. — Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
He was born "Luís Inácio da Silva". During his political career he became universally known by the nickname "Lula". He then had his name legally changejohnd to "Luís Inácio Lula da Silva". The article should definitely be at Lula.' — 200.165.239.87

The article should be at the full name, not merely Lula. 129.186.18.57 17:56 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

We don't always place articles at full legal names; the standard example here is Jimmy Carter. I guess the question for me is, would anybody recognise "Lula da Silva" as his name now, seeing "Lula" as a nickname being used in place of a first (Christian) name and "da Silva" as the correct last (sur-) name? If so, then it should be at Lula da Silva, not just Lula (just as we wouldn't put Jimmy Carter's article at just Jimmy). OTOH, if "Lula da Silva" would sound wrong to a native Brazilian (or even just be rejected by him as incorrect), that Lula alone seems reasonable (especially if "Lula" is some weird nonsense name that nobody else goes by). In any case, since "Lula" is a nickname by which he is commonly known, not going by "Luís" or "Inácio", I don't think that Luís Inácio Lula da Silva would be best, just as James Earl Carter is not best, since Jimmy doesn't go by "James" or "Earl".

Of course, you might be against the whole Jimmy Carter standard from the very beginning, but then I would take that up at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, since that goes beyond just this one article.

— Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes the man's name is "Lula", with the exception of government forms and the like, which are presumably of very minor interest to Wikipedia users. The article should definitely be at Lula. We have nice redirects from the rarer names. — 200.165.239.87

What makes the article name troublesome is that those who like him call him "Lula", and those who don't and those who want to remain neutral (like some news reports) call him "da Silva."

I don't have a strong opinion about where the article should reside--I support the "most popular name" policy but I have my questions as to whether the use of the name in this case might violate NPOV. But really, I don't care about that. One relatively clear-cut issue is that we should use "da Silva," as news articles do, rather than "Lula," to identify the man in the article itself. --Larry Sanger

Absolutely disagree with your characterization here. Neutrals and those who like him tend to prefer "Lula". Those who don't like him tend to prefer "da Silva". Actually, I suspect it comes down to "those ignorant of Brazil prefer 'da Silva'". — 200.165.239.87
You're just making a bald claim, and we know nothing about how much you do or don't know about Lula da Silva ;-). Why should we believe you? More to the point, are you of the view that the majority of the news reports, which use "da Silva" rather than "Lula," are not actually neutral? Since, presumably, these are major news sources and are at least as familiar with the man as either of us is. --Larry Sanger
I didn't interpret 200 as saying that the majority of news reports are negative towards Lula but instead as implying that the majority of news reports call him "Lula". I suppose that either way would work, but I wouldn't rush to judgement. If my interpretation turns out to be what 200 meant, then (s)he wasn't making any balder a claim than you were — I don't in fact know which is true (although my own quite limited experience suggests that 200 is correct). — Toby 23:52 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
Toby, my argument was: a lot of news reports use "Mr. da Silva." Many if indeed not most--all the ones I linked to on the subject page, except the Dutch radio report; see http://news.google.com/ for plenty more. Some reports use both, including the BBC article I linked to ("Mr da Silva," and The Independent. Since presumably these sources are making an attempt to be unbiased, the well-informed, unbiased tendency is toward using "Mr. da Silva" or both names. So perhaps that's what we should do. That's not a bald claim--merely an (inductively strong) argument from authority.  ;-) I'm not afraid to admit I'm a little sensitive about accusations of bad or no argumentation; I'm teaching critical thinking this quarter.  :-) --Larry Sanger
I understand your argument, and I do not believe that you were making a bald claim. However, I believe that you do not understand 200's argument (although their explanation is less clear, so perhaps it is I that don't understand). 200 is claiming that neutral sources say "Lula". Even Matthew below cites the BBC (presumably as a neutral source) that says "Lula". You concluded that 200 was claiming that the mainstream news media were not neutral, but it s

eems just as reasonable to conclude (as I did) that 200 was claiming that the news media were using "Lula" (which had in fact been my impression too). This is not a bald claim either. It may be wrong, it may be right; I don't know. In fact you've now cited some specific examples in favour of your claim, so I hope that 200 will come back to cite examples in favour of their claim. But nobody is making bald claims; there is simply (as I read it) a disagreement about what the neutral sources do in fact actually say. (This will go better if 200 also comes back to explain exactly what they meant.) — Toby 04:13 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Oy, not that this really merits all this discussion, but...(1) I did not say or imply, if you'll read what I wrote, that the mainstream news media were not neutral; (2) if you'll follow the link I refer to above, the BBC uses both but seems to prefer "Mr da Silva" in the article linked; (3) I understood perfectly well that 200 was saying that neutral sources say "Lula," and that is precisely what I was citing the news sources to refute; (4) the claim of 200's that is bald is precisely that neutral parties use "Lula." What's 200's evidence for this? --LMS
  1. I know that you didn't imply this; you implied that 200 had implied this.
  2. You never mentioned that BBC link in your response to 200.
  3. But your response cited no news sources.
  4. And what was your evidence that they don't? Although you eventually came up with some, at the time of your response to 200, your claim was as bald as theirs; neither of you had cited any evidence.
I give up. I could reply, but I am not going to bother. --LMS
Let me tell you why I'm making a point of this.
You certainly made that clear. I think you're confused, overly combative, and in general way off-base, but I'm too disgusted to engage in this any further. --LMS
You said that neutral sources used "da Silva", and 200 said that neutral sources used "Lula". At that point, neither of you had cited any evidence for your position; you were merely reporting your impressions. When you replied, you characterised 200's weak position in derogatory terms, but your position was then equally weak. Furthermore, you didn't bother to strengthen your position then either. You knew that you were correct, you knew the mainstream news articles that backed you up, but you didn't actually cite them to the rest of us here. We just had to take your word for it, when we could just as easily have taken 200's word if we wished, until somebody actually cited some particular neutral sources. It was an arrogant expectation to think that people would trust your claim over 200's when you didn't back your claim up, and especially to characterise 200's claim as "bald" when yours had no more evidence backing it — among the evidence presented here, that is. (In the meantime, you've presented specific citations, and even explained away the specific citation offered by Matthew in defence of 200's position. So you definitely have the stronger claim now — but not when you were talking to 200.) I see that 200, a newcomer, has left this discussion too, although they are participating on several other pages. I hope that they didn't feel bullied away. — Toby 15:28 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
Please remember that the world is a big place. None of us is in a position to say what name the majority of news reports are using. But as one data point, the BBC is just saying "Lula". Matthew Woodcraft

Another data point: "Da Silva" is the most common surname in Brazil. I think it makes sense to have the article at Lula; within the entry, it's a tossup whether to use Lula or da Silva. We generally use last names within the article. --The Cunctator

He is President-elect and will be sworn in on 1 Jan 2003.

<Opinion>I suspect the current position of PT and Lula is only slightly to the left of Lyndon Johnson and may not be any more left than FDR. But the USA has moved so far to the right in the last 25 years that this looks leftist indeed by comparison.</Opinion>

Possibly. It's also difficult to compare current politicians to historical standards, because the socioeconomic landscape is so different. In today's global political climate, Lula is certainly leftist, and certainly far left in comparison to the alternatives. It is definitely worth discussing how the definition has shifted, in the leftism entry. --The Cunctator
Lula was one of the most revolutionary left-wing politicians in Brazil for some time. More radicals parties and leaders have shown up since he started his political life. He was known to talk to the congress in the year 2000 asking for a referendum to decide whether the country should keep up paying interest over the sovereign public debt or should declare a default and use the money for social projects. By the year 2002, when he was elected president, he had a much more moderate speech, which he has sustained until this date. Although moderate, PT and Lula himself are considered left-wing, and most of all, they like to be considered that way. Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether the article is at Lula or Silva or Da Silva or Lula da Silva, as long as readers looking for info on the man can find it. What is all the fuss about? Is this something personal between Toby and Larry? Take it off-line, guys.

No, Ed, it's nothing personal. --LMS
Right, nothing more than what you see here. — Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

The standard is: name an article with either the most common form or the "preferred form" of the English spelling of a person's name. All the variations get a REDIRECT to the main article. Major variations are mentioned in the article, usually in the first parapraph (if not the first sentence).

Based purely on reading this talk page, it seems that people talking about the man call him variously Lula or da Silva. When I have time, I'll look into it further, but I wish you guys would cooperate a bit more. --Ed Poor

I've been arguing with Larry over whether something that 200 wrote was a "bald claim", and things like that. But I do believe that he's established the the major news media refer to Lula as "da Silva" on second reference. The only think that I'm left wondering about is whether "Lula da Silva" is a reasonable name for the guy or whether that just doesn't parse. If "Lula da Silva" is analogous to "Jimmy Carter" (something that works), then we should put the article at Lula da Silva, but if "Lula da Silva" is analogous to, say, "LMS Sanger" (which doesn't work), then we should move it to Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. I'm inclined to guess the former, but I'm not certain. In any case, I agree that it shouldn't stay at Lula. — Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

I think there's a naming convention about this, but I forget where on the 'pedia it is -- maybe it's buried inside a longer article that attempts to address all possible naming problems. I think we need a separate, easily located article on "what to call people".
Some newspapers just use the family name for the 2nd and following mentions, as in John Smith died. Smith was a famous pianist. or Kim Il-Sung died. Kim was a famous politician. But what do you do if the "family name" isn't commonly used? When we report Saddam Hussein's death, do we say Saddam died or Hussein died? (Not an urgent question -- yet). --Ed Poor

In the Brazilian press, he is always Luís Inácio Lula da Silva rather than Lula da Silva. I assume they are familiar with correct Brazilian naming conventions. :-) -- The consensus here seems to be shaping up for putting the main article at Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, with redirects from Lula and all the other variations.

Larry had already convinced me that we should include "da Silva", and my only question was whether or not to include "Luís Inácio". With this report from the Brasilian press (especially coming as it does from a previous supporter of the opposite choice), I'm convinced. I think that this means that there are now no objections to the situation that Brion has already made a reality. So, great! — Toby 06:16 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Incidentally, as of 31 Oct 2002, the actual text of the article seems to be settling into a pretty good NPOV groove.

IMPORTANT: His actual name (correct in Portuguese) is Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. Do we want to make the article under this or under Luis Inacio Lula da Silva ("looks like normal English spelling")?

It is kind of a mess now. The redirects are out of whack. I think you want to make the article itself have the title Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and make Lula and Luis Inacio Lula da Silva into redirects. If Luís Inácio Lula da Silva is the article, then the title will look right, with all its accents. Ortolan88
I'll move it -- please no one touch the articles for a few minutes! --Brion 01:31 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
Yikes, that was fun. It should be intact now. --Brion 01:45 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)


...Has the dust settled?...

Okay, a round of applause for Brion for intrepid administering. Thanks.

More Brasilian name questions: When "da Silva" appears in the middle of a sentence but at the beginning of the name, do we capitalise "da"? I would think no, since we don't capitalise it when it appears in the middle of the name. Does anybody know for sure? — Toby 06:25 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

I am Brazilian. "da" is NOT PART of the surname it is just a demonstrative preposition contracted with a definite article ("de+a=da" meaning "from the"). If a man's name is Roberto da Silva you should refer to him as "Mr. Silva", "Dr. Silva"... Another example Antônio de Castro (Mr. Castro, Dr. Castro, Senhor Castro, etc...). Never capitalise "da", "do", "dos", and "das". Use those words only if you use the full name (Ângelo das Neves, Lula da Silva, Roberto do Carmo, Eugênia dos Santos) and forget them when not citing the first name (Mr. Neves, Sr. Silva, Dr. Carmo, Ms. Santos -- this is the English way, in Brazil it should be: Senhor Ângelo, Sr. Lula, Dr. Roberto, Senhora Eugênia). I apologize for my poor English, and hope I have ade things clear about the usage of "da".

I am brazilian, and as far as I´ve seen in other wiki articles (some of those I´ve written months ago), I think he should be in Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, without accents. The URL with the accents is strange. Also, in the Brazil/History and List of brazilian presidents we have being using brazilian names without accents, at least in the term itself, but using the accents in the link (like Luís Inácio Lula da Silva|Luis Inacio Lula da Silva].
Sorry if I can´t sound polite, my english is rough...
Can I move the page?

Yves 12:38 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

I put the page back here at Luís Inácio Lula da Silva for the time being. If you must rename a page, please remember to a) attempt to keep the edit history intact (use the handy "Move page" function, don't just cut-n-paste, which breaks the continuity of the revision history) and b) make sure you haven't broken dozens of redirects. Currently this must be done manually - check the "What links here" link. --Brion 02:53 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)
Sorry... Yves 02:53 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

That's a better photo than the one I've just put back into the article, no arguments on that score. But – particularly in light of the current fair use debate and this weekend's image tagging frenzy – I think the right thing to do is prefer pics for which we have clear permission. Maybe User:Cantor could tell us where he got this one? –Hajor 18:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Luís or Luiz

This article consistently uses "Luís". However, on the website of the Brazilian presidency (here) he is consistently referred to as "Luiz". Could one of our Brazilians/Lusophones explain or clarify that for us, please? –Hajor 00:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brazilian wikipedian speaking here. VEJA, the most important Brazilian magazine, writes Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that´s 'Luiz', no accent and with a z. He was born Luiz Inácio da Silva, and was nicknamed Lula, which is a nickname for both Luiz and Luís. Then changed his name to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. End of story Doidimais Brasil 22:15, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Doidimais! –Hajor 14:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Imparciality

I'm brazilian. I would remark that the article about our president is against him. This Wikipedia must be imparcial.

I'll add to this. The point of view that Lula was a Stalin in the making is one that comes from unrespectable ultra right-wing sources and following this point of view in the article is something like asking some neo-nazis to write the entry on Holocaust. A more neutral point of view should put him as a leftist labour and pro-democracy leader. I also fear those absolutes. He did not copy "all" policies from the previous administration, opting instead for gradual change. One immense philosophical difference in his policy is how his government has a strong determination to get the (huge) debt under control. Much of this huge debt is the result of his predecessor's government. But I think we shouldn't compare his government at all in the body of the article. History takes time. At most we should quote the strictly factual for now and avoid early judgement. Those who want to write opinion should avoid Wikipedia.

[edit] He's Lula

In Brazil, we call him "Lula". Neither "da Silva", nor "Lula da Silva", nor "Luiz da Silva". Lula is a nickname, a contraction of "Luiz Inácio". It's not a surname. In Brazil, we use the nicknames a lot.

[edit] Expected vandalism: Veja case

Veja, the leading weekly Brazilian news magazine (with a circulation of more than 1,200,000) made a story about wikipedia, questioning the accuracy of its content. They claim to have made a "test", where they edited Lula's birth place, from "Lula was born (...)in an small city in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco", to "Lula was born in an industrial city in the state of Pernambuco", which was false. They wrote that the false version lasted 2 days without any revisions (the journalist states he had to correct the article himself).

Expect some low-IQ Brazilians to try to emulate Veja's experience in the next days / weeks.

Last time, I had to correct it from "Alagoas" to its previous (and true) birthplace, "Pernambuco". --(not signed)


I propose you lock this page until Veja story can be forget. --Osias 17:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think that we must watch the article to see if there will be really that kind of vandalism. As I see, the readers of Veja are slightly smarter than the journalist. By watching the article (not blocking), we could also prove that Veja was wrong. Marcelo R. 03:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revista VEJA

In January 23, 2005, VEJA published an article about wikipedia, stating that it was edited by whomever wanted to. VEJA also stated on their article that some time ago they deliberately spread misinformation about president Lula on Wikipedia just to prove their point.

article link and the Wikipedia portuguese retaliation: "Mau-Caratismo"
This is the brazilian way to deal with critics.
This is the Veja way to criticize at the same time, Lula and Wikipedia. User:Sanmartin

Dear anonymous, could you please cite all the procedures that we'd done to revert the criticism (see current version of article, or the pt Wikipedia village pump)) and the fact that the user which wrote that was not licensed to speak for the community? "The way brazilians deal with critics" seems that your carry a lot of prejudice about us, and I can only say that the Veja's attitude was disastrous for the project; they call for something that they didn't and don't have, and by that they show only a small aspect of Wikipedia (vandalism), not the fact that hundreds or millions of people are working togheter in order to create a great and trusted encyclopedia. Marcelo R. 03:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is only a critic, it does not have reason for negative comments.
See pt.Wikipedia "Esplanada" negative repercussion
See Rede Globo and Leonal Brizola absolutely partial articles. It's obvious that communists and universitary idealists students invaded portuguese Wikipedia.
The brazillians have curious vocation to change small things in big controverses. See New York Times article about Lula causes diplomatic incident and converts in the last government crisis --- A strong punch on table, and the express order to banish New York Times journalist of Brazil. It's a first emotional reaction of president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The 3 cited articles contais a thing that we used to call a fact. If saying or writting the truth is something restricted to "communists and universitary idealists", I'm both. And, of course, Larry Rohter (the man who wrote about "fat brazilians girls on Ipanema" based on a picture of a european tourist) isn't a communist, I guess.
A fact? The president reacts as a dictator about a simple article, baning the journalist of Brazil, having bad repercusion in local press, and is a only a fact? Dear Brazilian friend, does not have secret here, Lula is being reason of jokes in the Brazilian press which had its controversial and banal acts. About fat brazilian girls... See IBGE 2004 Study: 40% of brazilians are above health weight. Very interessant, a government statistic organization contests the main government project Fome Zero!

[edit] About the neutrality of this article

This article has some NPOV problems. First at all, I would like to explain that I am brazilian and a lulist. And secondly, I say, to the foreign people, that there is a big and noisy opposition in the right wing of Brazil, and a little and noisy one in the extreme left wing. I noticed that a brazilian radical leftlist wrote something here, and it was not imparcial. Specially in the topic The Government - Political Orientation. I cutted something out, but not totally. I just ask: don't put it again here, because there's no place for it. Better write a topic with more than one point of view in the article about PT

If you are talking about me, Sanmartin, I am sorry to disapoint you but I really express no opinion on politics. All that you consider not NPOV is just what was stated in every major news in Brazil and elsewhere. The links you deleted were also helpful in determing the NPOV of my text. I will soon add more topics on his government, and, unlike you, I plan to write about them also. I will, as usual, express NO OPINION, and just use the information available on the media and official distribution channels. I consider the reinserted text as belonging to Lula's article, not only PT, for their decision to fight against the party and leave would probably never have happened if Lula didn't follow the present course of actions. Please note, once more, that I haven't expressed any kind of opinion: I just inserted the text as it is relevant to the article. As a matter of fact, you erased sourced information I inserted and inserted some politically-oriented affirmations. - Poli 02:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"I just use the information available on the media". Here, we have a problem: the brazilian journals have NOT a neutral point of view. It is clearly against Lula. I think that Lula's article is not a good place to discuss PT's problems. Just one reason: Lula is NOT PT. FACT: there are some radicals in PT that do not agree with the new orientation. The point of view problem is spending three paragraphes clearly in favour of the radicals. Notice that I have NOT deleted it from the article, I have just reduced it. User:Sanmartin
I have moved this to PT's article, all right? User:Sanmartin
"In favour of the radicals" now, where did that come from?! In favour? It was NEVER stated if they were right or wrong, or if Lula was right or wrong, or if the party was right or wrong. Was it? Sanmartin, you have a clear point of view about the subject, you are PRO lula. That is all right. But please don't mix things up. And about the brazilian news not being reliable... I guess international news shouldn't be too, right? As they stated precisely the same, and they do have independent writers in Brazil that most surely aren't influenced that much by the "evil" brazilian media. Please, notice that you are being politically oriented here. And I really don't think there should be a section for each of the "reforms", especially if you aren't planning on writting the text. --Poli 07:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Son of Moscow?"

This article states, under "Political Orientation," that Lula was "called the 'son of Moscow' in 1989," but fails to attribute this description. It is my opinion that the source of this epithet (or description, if you prefer) is extremely significant to evaluating its significance. It is too potentially inflammatory to stand alone, unless it was a widely used and popular turn of speech.

Please pardon me if I fouled this comment up, I'm rather new to actually participating in Wikipedia.

Dayv 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have now edited this section, removing the unattributed "Son of Moscow" description. I've also removed "once-feared," as this is a meaningless or clearly POV statement without further qualification: by whom was Lula once feared? Dayv 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

[edit] This article is still rife with typographical and grammtical errors.

This article needs a near complete overhaul in order to conform to even the most elementary standards of English literacy. I understand that this page is constantly being edited and vandalized, and often by Brazilians with a less-than-perfect command of the English language. However, as this article is in the English Wikipedia, this sort of editorial history should not be any sort of excuse. I'm sending myself a reminder to tackle the Augean stable of errors as soon as I get the chance.

[edit] NPOV again

First of all, I'm Brazilian and PRO Lula. I want a more neutral article. Not all the people in Brazil, I know, like him. But not all the people hate him. Every one knows what NPOV means, it would be rather a Multiple Point of view. So, criticism and good things must come together. Althou, Wikipedia cannot agree with bias, hate or fanatism. Here is a list of some alterations I made and a bit of opinion:

  • Biography: it is alright. It is a standart biography...
  • Elections... "In the second round of the 2002 election, (...) and became the president of Brazil." instead of "to become the president-elect of Brazil". Just a bit of grammar.3
  • The Government - Political Orientation: some time before, I transfered a piece of text about the radical-left-wing of PT from this article to PT's article. I DID NOT DELETED it. I just put it in a better place, because it is not a personal problem of Lula, but a problem for the party. Every one agree? The external links about it i tranfered to PT's article, too.
  • The Government - Reforms and Important Laws. When I first wrote it I put each item as a section (I was pretending to write a piece of text for each one). It was oversized and so, following a sugestion, I changed it in a list. All right?
  • Deleted: "Unfortunately, there has been no control over the program on behalf of the government and "Bolsa Família" has been transformed into mere populism." - It is not the common sense. It is a political point of view of an action of the government. Populism is a dangerous word that must be avoided. Maybe we could use another phrase instead, like it: "Althou, there is some criticism on the efficency of this project.".

Thank you, SanMartin

[edit] The article is still pro-Lula

although it is getting better. I think it should be mentioned that many of the reforms Lula passed were proposed by the former admnistration, and Lula vocally opposed them at that occasion, in a non-constructive manner. It should also be mentioned that Fome Zero is widely regarded as joke, and that it's premiss(that supposedely there are tens of millions of starving brazilians) has already been proven false by IBGE(and Lula made a fool out of himslef by suggesting that IBGE used polling). In fact it is now known that statistically there is no hunger in Brazil(the 4% of the population that are underweight are within the expected due to genetic causes).

Mr. Who-Are-You (what is your name, please?), I know you are AGAINST Lula, but you have to accept that there are people who believe and like him, there are people who don't. Althou, you have to comprehend that we cannot be agressive against anyone who are wikipediated. It mustn't be an anti-Lula article. If it was, it would not be a NPOV article, wouldn't it? So, when you say that these reforms were purposed in the former administration, I, with my own POV, say that if FHC has not passed them (he has indeed majority in the National Congress), it's Lula's now. When you say that "Fome Zero is widely regarded as joke" you are stating YOUR point-of-view, aren't you? (the numbers, oh, the numbers...). It's stupid to say that no one have hunger in Brazil. What about the 96% of the population that are underweight and don't suffer from genetic causes? Well, forget it... I sugest something:

  1. we delete the reforms that have not been passed yet
  2. we write a little text for each one, with pros and criticisms
  3. we make a paragraph about São Francisco River, with pros and criticisms
  4. we write a couple of phrases on criticism on Fome Zero, not biased.

Let's NPOV it the fast we can. Até... User:Sanmartin

[edit] NPOV is all I'm asking for

My name is Luiz Paulo, BTW. I think this article was written with considerable left-leaning and pro-government bias. It clearly suggests that the government's social programs are effective, which is completely open to debate. I am a student of Economics and think they are a terrible misuse of resources, as do most people I've met in the field. Furthermore there is little to no criticisms of Lula in the article; I can't see why it shouldn't be mentioned that many of the reforms he aproved were loudly opposed by himself just a few years ago. I would also mention some of his authoritarian tendencies, or at least mention that some criticise him for supposed authoritarian tendencies. Regarding starvation in Brazil, the study made by IBGE is conclusive. Statistically speaking, it does not exist in Brazil. Of course there are some people who are starving, but they are nothing close to the bloated numbers that Lula mentioned during his campaign. Isolated cases of starvation can be found even in Western Europe. Obesity is by far a larger problem, as are low quality diets. All said, I do not plan on editing the article or whatever, overall it's quite informative. I'm just respectfully giving some ideas to improve it, or rather offering a different perpesctive. Regards.

[edit] Vandalism

Just a note: In April first, the user Gatchinho (in Portuguese, kitten) vandalisated this article. Fortunately, this stupidy was reverted by User:198.4.83.52. Thank you, Mr. .52. User:Sanmartin.

[edit] Answer for Luiz Paulo - NPOV, another time

First of all, my name is José San Martin, brazilian, and I would like to remark some relevant things:

  1. This article has just passed by a npov-isation, made by two people, me, pro Lula, and Mateusc, against Lula (I think), and I thought it was all right.
  2. I'm pro Lula, as I have already said.
  3. I ask you: don't do anything before some discussion.
  4. Articles mustn't be against its matter, that would not be NPOV. We must be diplomatic.
  5. This article have just sufferd vandalism against Lula.
  6. Even you know that Lula has a considerable popularity in Brazil. Not all the people in our county thinks like you.

I think this article was written with considerable left-leaning and pro-government bias. - Left-leaning bias? What on earth do you mean?

It clearly suggests that the government's social programs are effective, which is completely open to debate. - No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about the efficency of them, it just says what is their purpose. Some critics say that hunger is not a real problem in Brazil. - I've inserted this phrase in the article, se isso te deixa mais feliz.

I am a student of Economics and think they are a terrible misuse of resources, as do most people I've met in the field. - Sinceramente, você já encontrou alguém agraciado pelo programa falando mal? Ah, esquece.

Furthermore there is little to no criticisms of Lula in the article; - What do you want, really? Your anti-lula point of view? I note that in Fernando Henrique Cardoso's article, there almost no criticism, and I do not want to write it there, because it is an encyclopaedia, not a forum on politcs. As encyclopaedians, we must to be kindful and diplomatic to every one.

I can't see why it shouldn't be mentioned that many of the reforms he aproved were loudly opposed by himself just a few years ago. I can't see why it should.

I would also mention some of his authoritarian tendencies, or at least mention that some criticise him for supposed authoritarian tendencies. - Vai encher o saco de outro, vai... Papo de tucano derrotado na eleição, não é?

Regarding starvation in Brazil, the study made by IBGE is conclusive. Statistically speaking, it does not exist in Brazil. Of course there are some people who are starving, but they are nothing close to the bloated numbers that Lula mentioned during his campaign. Isolated cases of starvation can be found even in Western Europe. Obesity is by far a larger problem, as are low quality diets. - So, let them starve and die, hungry! They are nothing but number after the comma in your statistics. It is a anti-human and technocratic statemant. You know, that it exists, just walk along the city-centre, not far from your university.

All said, I do not plan on editing the article or whatever, overall it's quite informative. I'm just respectfully giving some ideas to improve it, or rather offering a different perpesctive. Regards.

Até mais ver.

So, no more NPOV problems, is there?

User:Sanmartin (ps: some paragraphs I have written in Portuguese are things that aren't nor important neither interesting for the foreign people. Don't worry about it. There's no offence to anyone)

Sanmartin is lying. There is definitely offence in one of the remarks he made to the other user ("Vai encher o saco de outro, vai..."). This kind of partisan behaviour is disgraceful. 201.81.183.136 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, long time ago. I'm sorry Check my history, I'm not doing this anymore for a long while. Por favor, releve José San Martin 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why nobody writes nothing about Brazilian Political Crisis?(Vote for Cash Scandal)

I think that is necessary add to the article something about this...respecting the Wikipedia imparciality of course!!!!

There's an article on it, Brazilian vote-for-cash scandal. I think a mention like "Lula basis and government was affected by a crisis in the end of 2005 and the effects of it remains unclear." I don't know where to place it, however. José San Martin 13:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the edits by 200.244.149.212 on this issue due to NPOV issues and anonymous edit status. --Dali-Llama 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fome Zero

I tried to edit the Fome Zero/IBGE study blurb. I think it's highly relevant in regards to his social programs, but I think we haven't nailed down how to do it within NPOV. I'll try again later on. In the meantime, does anybody have a link to the study itself? This is one of those things which is good to back up in order to avoid a revert war. --Dali-Llama 15:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This study from IBGE says that obesity is also a important issue, not that there is no hungry in Brazil. --Patrick-br msg 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are some good statistics about this government's social policies. [1] [2] Shall that be mentioned? José San Martin 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend witholding any specifics until his first term ends. It's one of those things which go up, and then down, and then back up again. If we can find indicators which have been consistent, then absolutely. Then again, it'd be a year without indicators, so I'd say let's try it and see if we can keep it within NPOV.--Dali-Llama 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree totally with you, Dali-Lama. We must not judge one's government till it has not ended! There are some data that are stronger, but let it out of this article. Yet, since we are not judging this government yet, I suggest to delete the statement that "there are criticism on the effectiveness of...". 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a bit different in those cases. The NPOV manual states that debates can be described without giving weight to one side. That statement is not saying that those criticisms are valid or not. Again, if we can find statistics on the program one way or another great. Personally I think the bit about Fome Zero, for example, is more important for characterizing the opposition and the arguments they used against it rather than the merits of the program itself (The same study still said 3+ million were undernourished). It's not a question of judging the government, but adding information to let the reader judge. The pitfall is the choice of what information to include, which is why we have to think about the indicators we choose to include. If we can find data on the program (or any other program) which can show several intervals of data, I'd say let's put it in.
P.S. I edited the article to add the updated figure from IBGE--Dali-Llama 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've edit it. I totally agree with keeping the reference to IBGE's figures. Perhaps the text is a bit pro-fome, since FAO's statistics come after. I've deleted the references to overweighted people. I think that it is rather non-sense, but my actual reason was that I couldn't figure out how to put it there. Please, rew I have also deleted the sentence This program [Bolsa familia] is also subject to criticism, since it was completely lost and meaningless. There must be a reason for these critics. José San Martin 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the overweight criticism. Per your own argument, if we are willing to concede that there are criticisms, we should say what these criticisms are. Again, it`s not a question if we agree with them or not, but that was a main argument used by the opposition. That's what NPOV is about--describing the debate. Removing the criticism is saying there's no debate or that it's unfounded (rather than poorly founded). Could you try to rephrase it or revert?--Dali-Llama 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, include the text about overweight. Just don't make it too long. I agree that it is a important piece in the debate. José San Martin 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DaliLama: great edit! 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Approval Numbers

Guys, "eroded" is less serious than you're thinking. Erosion in English (at least here in the US) has the meaning of a slow weathering or abrasion. I would say that "dropped" is worse than "eroded". His numbers didn't drop dramatically from one day to the next--they slowly "eroded" to where they are. They can go back up again, absolutely, but we'll cross that river when we get to it. Certainly a trivial issue which does not warrant a revert feud--and most definitely one which barely affects NPOV. For the record, I'm fine with either one--as I've mentioned, I think eroded is the appropriate word, even if I find "dropped" being the more grave of the two.--Dali-Llama 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I accept both. End of discussion? José San Martin 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Why don't we make a selection of some of ridiculous quotes from Lula ? We could really give an idea to the world about who is this president - believe me ...George W Bush is aN Einstein compared with the guy.. 200.160.107.168 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Must we put up with this kind of people? Ah, bah! José San Martin 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it bother you Sanmartin ? Really? Why not ? There is a link in the George Bush article to his famous "quotes"...Why not Lula ? I think Democracy really bothers people like you ...RegardsCloretti 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are there people who consider theirshelves superior to others ?200.160.107.168 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not start BlahBlahBlah and you-think-you-are-superior-than-me stuff. The other people don't deserve that. Whatever! There is no list of stupid quotations in George Bush's article. What wikipedia has is a link to Wikiquotes and there, there is a section of "bushisms". In this article, there is also a link to Lula's Wikiquote, which is already sufficient stupid. More discussions, please, go to Lula's article in Wikiquote, which deserves some improvements (and it includes including what you call his stupid quotes). And sorry if sometimes I become a little impatient; if you are against Lula, why can't I be pro? José San Martin 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, please!

I've erased this part of the text. It's unbelievingly partial: "Despite that, he let his government and party get involved in the greatest scandal of collective corruption in the history of the country, involving millions of dollars in tax evasion, embezzlemnt, foreign currency drain, etc. He continues to deny responsibility - a typical trait of Brazilian politicians - trying to make the population believe he was not aware of the crimes activities performed under the orders of his closest subordinates :José Dirceu, José Genuíno, Delúbio Soares, among others, all of them sponsored by the corruption scheme organized by publicist Marcos Valério ("Valerioduto"). He is currently trying to obtain funds to distribute vouchers for the poorest and humblest population, in a direct attempt to populistically manipulate the elections and ensure his re-election. The latest scandal of his government involves the use of the state to protect corruption from one of his ministers and using the federal police, one of the country's official banks and all effort from the Ministry of Justice to transform an accusation witness into a defendant, and not to allow investigations about Lula´s closest allies, such as businessman Paulo Okamoto, who was gifted by the very Lula the presidency of SEBRAE. Lula is the biggest disappointment and greatest frustration the Brazilian population has ever lived." 200.139.176.122 23:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this guy keeps including it. And we have to keep reverting. Bah. José San Martin 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "First Socialist president"?

The article states that Lula is the first socialist president of Brazil since João Goulart. I think it would be more apropriate to say left-of-the-center rather than socialist, since Goulart was pro-labour, but also an important land owner and his proposed reforms were far from revolutionary and Lula has never defined himself as a "leftist". 200.139.140.81 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put "leftist", that is a less specific term, and makes more sense in the phrase. Remember that left-to-center and socialists are also leftists. José San Martin 12:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The section "Plans for reelection"

Shouldn't the section "Plans for reelection" be under "Political trajetory"? By the way, is there a better name for it? José San Martin 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tributary"

f/y/i: in american english, the word tributary isn't really used to mean "taxed" or "taxation" in the way that "tributario" is used in portuguese. dunno about British english. Streamless 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. 've changed. José San Martin 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geraldo Alckmin as "Lula's direct adversary"

The most recent poll [3] shows Lula with 47% of vote intentions, Geraldo Alckmin with 21% and Heloísa Helena with 12%. Where is the boundary line between not being a direct adversary and being one? And, since the president has more votes than all the other candidates together, how can one even say he has any true direct adversary? A.Z. 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At a glance, my response is: it's a long election, and a lot can happen. But if one is to consider Lula the "left" option in the election, and Alckmin as the "right" option, as elections typically pan out, then one can consider Alckmin his most direct adversary.--Dali-Llama 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rupture with the roots

He is formely Marxist and now is Neo-Liberal pro-Capitalism. 201.79.47.3 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Nice joke. Now, back to the real world: this guy supports and is supported by communist dictators all over the world. His pork-barrel spending policies and fierce defense of Brazil's heavy bureaucratic apparatus (with all the ensuing corruption scandals) also reek of old-fashioned leftism. Few people could be considered as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist as Lul(l)a.201.21.200.15 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. What is your point? Do you pretend to change anything is this article? José San Martin 02:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
f/y/i: in american english, the word pretend isn't really used to mean "intend" or "to have the intention of" in the way that "pretender" is used in portuguese. dunno about British english. A.Z. 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is pure POV.

What about máfia dos sanguessugas transfer all accusations to other article is POV.

[edit] severe vandalism!!!!!!!!!

this article needs cleanup immediately, and I suggest anti-vandalism urgently!!!!!!

Anything said about lula Is NOT VANDALISM he is a big mothafucker and deserved to be killed, not stay 4 more years kidding with peoples money, and duplicating his profits ...

Asshole !

Ok, that violates our Neutral Point of View policies, then. José San Martin 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/i/Talk%7ELuiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva_5c56.html"