Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
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 current 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 the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fernando Collor de Mello article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives
Archive 1:
  April 2005-August 2007
Archive 2:
  August 2007
Archive 3:
  August-September 2007



Contents

[edit] Reset button

Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?--Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Context, POV

By placing Bresser´s quote and Fauchre´s one after the other as you did, will drive reader to think that Faucher is saying that Collor´s brave agnda (Bresser) led him to impeachment. That´s a blatantly POV.
Bresser´s is a compliment an analysis of his neoliberal agenda. Faucher talks abt another subject, whihc is his political problems. Lulu Margarida yes? 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By placing them together you are building a blatantly POV

... a minister in the previous Sarney and the following Fernando Henrique Cardoso administrations, stated that "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because implemented brave and very necessary reforms, and he pursued fiscal adjustments. Although other attempts had been made since 1987, it was during Collor's administration that old statism ideas were confronted and combatted (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms geared towards free trade and privatization." [10] According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University,[11] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies.[3] Lulu Margarida yes? 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct seuquence

This political crisis had negative consequences on his ability to carry out his policies and reforms.[5] The Plano Collor I, under Zélia would be renewed with the implementation of the Plano Collor II; the government's loss of prestige would make that follow-up plan short-lived and largely ineffective.[3]. The failure of Zélia and Plano Collor I led to their substitution by Marcílio Marques Moreira and his Plano Collor II. Moreira's plan tried to correct some aspects of the first plan, but was too late. The Collor government was paralyzed by the fast deterioration of Collor's image, through a succession of corruption accusations.[6] According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University,[7] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies.
This paragraph is Faucher´s analysis and its subject is Collor´s political crisis. Lulu Margarida yes? 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For me the problem is still inserting needless opinion inside the article. This article is incredibly opinionated: heavy on opinion and light on facts. Segregating opinion to the end of the article is what myself and Carioca had agreed on, and unless you can convince us otherwise or find others who share your point of view, the status quo remains. If you'd like to bring Carioca back into the discussion, or anyone else for that matter, you're welcome to do so, but as I've said, if you look a few sections above in this talk page you'll see that the segregation of opinion to the end of the section is what we had agreed upon and has been the status quo for the past few months.--Dali-Llama 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You cited Faucher (remember Fuacher? LOL) on the previous paragrahp and than put together his citations after Bresser´s --they are taliking abt different issues --this isn´t rational. If you say "According to Faucher this political crisis...etc" --you must insert that wtihin the context of political crisis --otherwise reader will be misguided and pushed to conclude that Bresser and Faucher are sharign the same view --which is completely absurd. There is no opinion on the artcile --only citations. Otherwise the whole artcile you wrote abt 1964 Brazilian coup is Gaspari´s opinon and you will be invited to rewrite it all again. Lulu Margarida yes? 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Citations do not equal fact: citations are references to what the original source states. You can have a citation for a fact (IE: Population of Brazil is X) just as you can have a citation for an opinion ("Faucher says Y"). I'm not saying that this is your opinion--I'm saying that any opinion should be segregated from the facts at the end of the section. Again, I invite you to read WP:NPOV, where it clearly states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Even having these quotes as they are, is not really NPOV--but I'm fine to have them as a compromise. In any case, I have to stress again that Carioca had already agreed that the opinions should be segregated towards the end of the article, so that is the current consensus. I'm more than willing to engage you on the issue, as I'm doing right now, but like I said, you need to shift the consensus before you make these changes. You can do so by inviting others to participate (read WP:CANVAS on way to that properly), calling Carioca back here or asking for a third opinion. I'm reverting you once more, after which I'll no longer revert. If you choose to revert, you'll break the WP:3RR rule, which may lead to you being blocked. In the meantime, we can still continue this discussion here. --Dali-Llama 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any link between Bresser and faucher? Don´t you think Faucher is mentioned on the paragraphs above? What do you mean by putting them in the same paragrapgh? Lulu Margarida yes? 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The link is that both are opinions. Whether he's mentioned in the paragraph above is irrelevant: we should focus on facts and leave opinion to the end of the section, as a "retrospective" of what people think about his presidency today. That's what I meant by paragraph: leave them together (whether it's the same paragraph or not, doesn't really matter), at the end of the narrative of facts.--Dali-Llama 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!!

But didn´t you say I can´t mention Skidmore´s opinion?
So if I find another opinon, no matter the contaent of it, I should put it after on the same paragraph, rigt after B and F?
What abt skidmore? Should I leave to the end of Jeff´s artcile? Lulu Margarida yes? 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, on the contrary, if anything, I'm saying there shouldn't be opinion, but that I've agreed to having Bresser and Faucher as a compromise so you'll stop adding more POV. Just because I've given you a hand, doesn't mean you can take the arm. =) Again, address the issues on their respective pages. If you'd like to talk about Skidmore, do so on the relevant page.--Dali-Llama 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperinfltatio (state reforms), minsiter (team) and corrup charges lifted

1. [1] - link for corruption charges lifted, although political rights were only restored later; as your subtitles concludes: charges were lifted (you must mention the word "corruption")
That is already covered under "In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, tried the criminal charges stemming from the incident, and ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights.", with footnote 14 as source. You're adding the same information twice.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact I´m adding the same info is aimed at offering a chronology, for a post presidency subtitle. YOU named it "Post Presidency", so one can add all issues realted to that period. Lulu Margarida yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion again...--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you ignored Spark´s third opinon and since Iam offering a source of a real fact, I assume I can ignore it either. Besides, mentioning that "after 14 years" and mentioning "he tried again and lost" is POV; and YOU are repeating what ia already mentioned on yr own paragraph, just as you think Iam repeating ....Lulu Margarida yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion requested.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Hyperinflation --was a result of bigger initiatives, such as: state reforms, free trade and priv. program;
Hyperinflation is part of the greater "reform" agenda. Hyperinflation was the greatest issue, and any economist will tell you that state reforms have a secondary impact on hyperinflation, when compared to monetary and fiscal policy. So if you'd like, you can substitute free trade and privatization for reforms, but hyperinflation is a relatively separate issue, which is discussed in a separate context.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you can change for reforms, instead of State reforms. Lulu Margarida yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do.--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but his reforms were Statet refomrs, as the link on the "External links" proves that. Do you agree? But anyway, what do you mean by the word reforms on Collor´s gov? Lulu Margarida yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understood me correctly: I think ending hyperinflation is composed of monetary and fiscal policies, which are separate from things like free trade and reforming government institutions. These help, but generally stabilization plans fail or succeed largely on account of fiscal and monetary policy. So my point is if you're going to replace something with reforms, replace "privatization, free trade", not hyperinflation.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
3. I´ve changed minister for team Lulu Margarida yes? 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You need to be specific. You did the exact opposite of what you were supposed to do. Celso Lafer was foreign minister under both presidents, Armínio Fraga was a secretary in Marcilio Marques Moreira's cabinet, and 6 years later he returned to the government. You're trying to imply a continuity where it may or may not exist. Be specific and include the jobs each one held. And I would honestly look for another source. An article from the communist party of Brazil is hardly NPOV when it comes to asserting continuity between one government and the next.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For all of this, if you disagree, I'll ask for a third-opinion.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can mention each of his jobs, but it´s not necessary as much as I am not obliged to mention what each one of them did. The citation is a simple fact, just an additiona info of Collor´s admisnitration. Lulu Margarida yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It is necessary. The PcB article is basically implying that FHC just carried over Collor's administration, and they're implying that's a bad thing. Instead of, again, resorting to opinion, cite the specifics and let people make up their mind. Personally, I wouldn't mention it at all because everyone switches sides so quickly in Brazilian politics (let's not forget Henrique Meirelles used to be in the PSDB), but if you do want to mention, be as specific as you can so that people have a feel as to what could and could not be considered continuity. Armínio Fraga, for example, left the government for a number of years, only to be invited back by FHC in a position far higher than his previous one. So if you're adopting a "facts", approach, be very specific about those facts.--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don´t think it is. The jobs they assumed will only emphasize. As much as when one cites all those who are a Chico Buarque interpreter --and one can add it to his article but don´t need to mention which song he/she interpretates. Lulu Margarida yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a false analogy. Implying political continuity is a serious matter, and is an implication used by both supporters and detractors. Ideally I'd leave it out on account of undue weight, but if you must mention it, be specific about the functions they occupied in the Collor administration, and the position they went on to occupy in the FHC administration. Otherwise the lack of specificity may be implying a greater (or indeed lesser) degree of continuity than what is accurate, which can be considered a violation of NPOV.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement Third Opinion

The text's long-standing revision includes the following, under the subject's corruption allegations and subsequent impeachment:

In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, tried the criminal charges stemming from the incident, and ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights.[13]. The Supreme Federal Tribunal threw out the charges of corruption on a technicality,[14] citing a lack of evidence linking Collor to Farias' influence peddling scheme.

Is it necessary to add the following in the "Post-presidency" section:

In 1994, By December the Brazilian Supreme Court declared that all corruption charges were lifted. [1]

My opinion is no. There is no need to state the same thing twice, especially when there is a dedicated section for events surrounding this incident.--Dali-Llama 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion reply

Hi. Thanks for the third opinion request. I see what you're saying; since the sections are right next to one another, it does seem a little redundant. However, that the "Post-presidency" section seems to be a timeline changes things some. People don't always read our articles straight through, and timelines definitely draw the eye. Personally, I would include both that line and one before it listing the impeachment. That is to say, I'd list the ending of the presidency and all major events since, including the lifting of corruption charges. Were it fleshed out into a full, multi-paragraph section, I would get rid of the mention of the impeachment, but I'd probably still keep at least a passing reference to the court decision, as for somebody starting at the section it would help contextualize whatever else he was doing then.

I'd also like to offer some unsolicited opinions on the "Corruption charges and impeachment" section. I think it's generally good, but I believe it should be a top-level section, and not a subsection of "Rewards" (which is probably better titled "Awards"; "reward" implies a quid pro quo situation). The unattributed quote at the end, though, is unacceptable. Unattributed, factual-sounding quotes must be WP:NPOV summaries. That is taken directly from the subject's web site, which we must presume to be biased. If Brazil's highest court actually found him "innocent", find a legal scholar or some other neutral person saying so, and quote that. Quoting the court's decision would be fine as well. Note, however, that saying somebody is "not guilty" means that the charges couldn't be proved, which is what courts of my acquaintance generally do. Declaring that somebody is "innocent" is a much higher bar. It's also possible to write the closing paragraph in terms of multiple views. E.g., "Although John Smith maintains his innocence[1], most commentators outside his political party believe that he escaped conviction on a technicality. [2][3]"

I hope that helps. Good luck with the article! William Pietri 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

William, I appreciate the feedback. On the issue of the redundant factoid, I see your point. I think the post-presidency paragraph is less of a timeline than is appears to be, but for the moment I'll let it lie.
However, you identified what is in fact the most serious issue in this article, which is NPOV. Unfortunately, the other editor in this case has admitted to pushing a particular POV in the article, which makes it incredibly difficult to resolve the situation. That and a troubled history by the other editor I'm glad you're able to provide a sanity check on the NPOV issue--just so I know I'm not going crazy for no good reason. =) I'll have to see what my alternatives are to solve this situation.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. CLinton

Check this [2], you will see lots of links to her official web site. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS Third Opinion

The issue at hand:

Whether or not a politician's personal webpage is considered a reliable source when addressing his own achievements and legacy.

User Lulu Margarida has added content on the article's subject's achievements and corruption scandal and referenced the article's subject's own website as the source.

Note: this issue is also relevant to the articles Plano Collor and Zélia Cardoso de Mello, as they also cite the same source in the same context

This seems to me a blatant violation of WP:SELFPUB: one cannot consider Collor an NPOV source for Collor when it deals with issues such as legacy and achievements. Were these biographical issues (where he was born, etc.) that's another issue. But when you're throwing out vague statements such as "Decreased the government payroll" and "he is the only politician in Brazil to have an officially clear record", Collor can't be used as a reliable source.--Dali-Llama 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems it would be ideal to use outside sources but we certainly do include self-published items and will continue to do so as self-published websites become more common. To be more wikipedic you may try qualifying any use such as "according to Collor's website" or "self-professed clean politician", etc. In all cases our job is to write a good, and balanced, article and let the reader decide what is true from the various perspectives offered. Benjiboi 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am always in favor for disclosure, as you've proposed, and I agree with doing it in this case. However, you seem to proposing that "in the absence of reliable sources" one could use a self-published source. This is not the case, however, as "accomplishments" are already covered under the far-more reliable sources of the Plano Collor section, and certainly the latter section about clean politician violates NPOV as is. The alternative is to be in a somewhat awkward situation where we use reliable sources for some accomplishments, and for the accomplishments where no reliable sources are available, we use an unreliable source. Is that really the kind of article we're writing? And "a good, and balanced, article" still needs to conform to WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, which I believe the use of this source does not further.--Dali-Llama 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here from WP:3o. I agree with User:Benjiboi's comments, and do not see a blatant violation of the WP:SELFPUB policy, but given this article is about a former president of the fifth most populous country in the world[2], there is probably voluminous information available from better sources. I think the self-published information should stand for now, until such time as the information from the better sources can be digested and analyzed by editors with some expertise on the topic. In the meantime I have changed some of the citations to Collor's official website to the {{cite web}} format. 64.26.98.90 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you just undid my edits. I've reverted you as you failed to explain how my edits negate the status quo. And you missed the points--there are better sources currently in the article.--Dali-Llama 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I apparently forgot to press save page on my rationale: While we work out RS issues, I've segregated the accomplishments portion and the impeachment section into its own section and added the disclosure William has suggested. --Dali-Llama 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you guys don't mind, I'm going to re-add this page to 3O so someone can give an actual third opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Dali-Llama 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys. This isn't a formal third opinion, as I don't have time to dig into the background of this enough. But my general rule is that people are almost always valid sources about their own opinions, and rarely valid sources for facts about themselves. So if you were to cite the White House web site, you could write, "George Bush claims the United States does not torture." But you could not write, "The United States does not torture," not based on his claim alone. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Which is why for the time being the source and its contents are segregated within the article. Whether it warrants removal, however, is still something I think needs to be discussed.--Dali-Llama 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Well, for what it's worth, these are my opinions:

  • A politician's personal web page is a reliable source for that person's own opinions.
  • A politician's personal web page is a reliable source for quoting claims the politician makes about himself and his achievements.
  • Stating the politician's personal claims as fact in this article violates WP:RS. This article doesn't do that, but comes close by not citing backup sources.
  • I don't see any serious violation of WP:SELFPUB here because the claims are clearly attributed to Collor's web site. However, I find it hard to believe that a country the size of Brazil wouldn't generate some secondary sources to back up the claims on Collor's web site. The difficulty here is that such sources may not be in English.
  • As to the question on whether the statements and webpage cite should be deleted from the article, I would say "no" as long as the article clearly states that these "facts" are in fact personal claims.

Hope that helps. -Amatulic 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They were attributed to Collor's website and identified as such after I disputed the source. Compare the version Lulu Margarida was pushing for and the one after I isolated the opinion. This is not an issue about not finding sources to back up the claim--this is an admitted POV-pusher with serious behavioral problems trying to whitewash the legacy of a controversial (if not outright infamous) figure of Brazilian politics. She literally copy and pasted verbatim what was Collor's version of his own impeachment from his website without any disclosure or regard for NPOV. I'm sorry if I'm overreacting to a single issue, but when you're the lonely guy with the finger in the dike for the past 4 months, one is bound to get a little frustrated.--Dali-Llama 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave my opinion based on the state of the article when I wrote the opinion. I understand your frustration. I think you came to a good compromise and I hope the other editor agrees. I will point out that copying and pasting from a web site constitutes a copyright violation and should be deleted or revised immediately. -Amatulic 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Spark´s TO was ignored I don´t know why it should now be considered. Lulu Margarida yes? 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a third opinion--this is in fact three different people (myself, Amatulic, William Pietri) clearly outlining the requirements on disclosure and NPOV for including the content and source you've added.--Dali-Llama 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, so it's now at least four. — Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy artciles, they all link to their own web site and relate their governments achievements. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but they are not reliable sources when it comes to what their achievements are, which is what we're all saying. At the most, you can include them with disclosure, which is what we've done.--Dali-Llama 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)