Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Collor´s hyperinflation was a political manuever to impeach him

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-52581998000100001

1. Fim da Era Collor foi causado por inimigos políticos

2. A hyperinflação, causada pela instabilidade política dos inimigos de Collor elegeu FHC.

A crise institucional desencadeada pela descoberta de um grande esquema de corrupção sob o governo Collor, o processo de impeachment que se seguiu e a aceleração da inflação que deixou a maioria da população desprotegida — com exceção de uns poucos — diante das conseqüências negativas da instabilidade econômica, criaram um clima propício para a introdução e o sucesso da execução de um novo plano de estabilização, o Plano Real. O êxito do plano permitiu ao presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso construir uma aliança política que tirava proveito de sua sólida vitória eleitoral. Essas forças conferiram um alto grau de legitimidade à administração de Cardoso, dando-lhe condições de unir os governadores e formar uma maioria nas duas Casas do Congresso. A recuperação da estabilidade econômica e a grande legitimidade do governo possibilitaram à nova administração propor uma agenda de reformas que atacava as fontes estruturais da ingovernabilidade no Brasil. O governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso defronta-se agora com o desafio de consolidar a estabilidade econômica e, ao mesmo tempo, levar avante a reforma do Estado e o restabelecimento da autoridade pública, fatores necessários para promover a governabilidade em uma democracia.

Na segunda seção afirmo que o êxito inesperado do Plano Real se explica pela emergência da hiperinflação, pela descoberta do esquema de corrupção do presidente Collor e pela forma como o Plano Real foi posto em prática. A hiperinflação anulou a eficácia da indexação e, desse modo, aumentou os riscos associados à instabilidade do mercado para amplos setores da população brasileira. Isso desencorajou a adesão e diminuiu a força da coalizão de atores que não tinham interesse algum na estabilização, ao mesmo tempo que uniu o grupo dos que temiam os custos econômicos de um novo fracasso. Após as investigações realizadas pelo Congresso e pelo Judiciário sobre o esquema de corrupção do presidente Fernando Collor, o povo entendeu claramente que os grupos envolvidos em práticas de sobrevalorização, aumentos injustificados de preços e especulação financeira eram os que mais se beneficiavam com o caos econômico. A revelação pública dos grandes lucros auferidos pelos bancos, instituições financeiras e empresas, com elevados custos para a sociedade, abalou a influência política desses setores. Por fim, o Plano Real foi desenhado e implementado de modo gradual e negociado, o que ajudou a minimizar os custos da estabilização para a maioria da população assalariada.

o êxito inesperado do Plano Real se explica pela emergência da hiperinflação, pela descoberta do esquema de corrupção do presidente Collor e pela forma como o Plano Real foi posto em prática. A hiperinflação anulou a eficácia da indexação e, desse modo, aumentou os riscos associados à instabilidade do mercado para amplos setores da população brasileira.

Does it suffice to link the hyperinflation to FHC´s succes? Is it eunough to prove that the end of hyperinflation is Collor´s and that the his faiulre/impeachment was FHC´s maneuver? That he inherited not only the fundamentals of privatization, tech modernization and free trade --but he also benefit from Collor´s failures (all of them as a result of polcitical instability)? Ludovicapipa yes? 21:58-22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I don´t see where is the second editor. i´d like to see the second editor´s point of view. Ludovicapipa yes? 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Coren agreed with me that that paragraph about inflation was a synthesis, and thus violating WP:OR. --Dali-Llama 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this page for 1 week. In this time please discuss future changes to the article and when protection expires do not continue to edit war on it. Consider dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait on the RfC. If that doesn't work for a few days I'll see if we can go on to mediation. --Dali-Llama 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Justification: political maneuver

Political maneuver (1)

I´d like to insert this paragraph:

According to Philippe Faucher [1], the Plano Real, from Itamar and Fernando Henrique Cardoso benefit not only from Collor´s initiatives (privatization, free trade) but also form his failures. Faucher even emphasizes that Cardoso´s political maneuver was the beginnig of Collor´s impeachmen: "the unexpected succes of the Real Plan is due to hyperinfaltion, to corruption scandals and by the way Plano real was implemented." [2].

Ludovicapipa yes? 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is aimed at proving that Plano Real´s succes is due to Collor´s failures which are a FHC´s political manauver. As we agree that Plano Real is understood as "end of inflation". So, the end of inflation, that is, Plano Real success, is due to Collor´s hyperinflation, that is, Collor´s failures, that is, FHC´s poltical manuver. It is fully cited.

Is it enough? Ludovicapipa yes? 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like to see a few more sources for this, since it's not the generally accepted theory and including it based on one person's opinion (no matter how academic) would violate undue weight. This is imputing that FHC purposefully maneuvered to cause the failure of the Collor plan: that's a huge conspiracy theory, especially considering during the first two years after Collor left he was in the ministry of foreign relations, not finance. --Dali-Llama 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
yr opinion shouldn´t weihg here. This an academic study, and is fully cited and it fully explains the very link between Collor´s falures, impeachment and FHC´s success. I don´t think yr opinion is relevant. You ask me citations, and they are there. I can offer even more abt political enemies of Collor. Ludovicapipa yes? 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[1] Ludovicapipa yes? 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This one proves that Zelia was accused of corruption, in a time when...
No turbilhão de denúncias que marcou o fim do governo Collor, numa época em que o PT ainda se especializava em estraçalhar reputações, Zélia foi acusada de favorecer o chamado “esquema PC Farias” com um simples reajuste de tarifas de ônibus." Ludovicapipa yes? 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Political maneuver from PT (2)

Em terceiro lugar, estávamos saindo da era pós-cruzado. A hiperinflação levara à CUT às ruas reivindicar 147% de aumento das aposentadorias. E Collor negou-se a aumentá-las até o último dia de seu breve mandato. Não havia lugar onde Collor pusesse os pés que não fosse recebido por uma horda de velhinhos teatralmente instrumentalizados pelo PT e pela CUT para infernizar o precursor de Berzoini na arte de infernizar aposentados.

A corrupção foi o pretexto para cassar Collor, mas os reais motivos políticos para removê-lo do poder foram os interesses que ele contrariou. Não me entenda mal, leitor. Não pretendo anistiar Collor. Aliás, quem deveria anistiá-lo e devolver-lhe o cargo é José Dirceu e sua turma, com essa conversa sobre a falta de provas. Mas isso é outro assunto. É consenso entre analistas que foi Collor quem inaugurou a agenda da modernização da economia e do Estado no país. Goste-se ou não dele, foi por sua iniciativa que a agenda de reformas liberalizantes é aplicada no Brasil desde o início dos anos 90, não obstante os sucessivos presidentes de perfis políticos-ideológicos e pessoais distintos que têm se revezado no poder. E sob que circunstâncias Collor chegou ao poder, governou por dois anos e começou essas reformas? [2]

Ludovicapipa yes? 23:00-23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Lack of political support goes back to decades in Brasil

According to Bresser Pereira, Collor was a victim of long time tradition in Brasil: the lack of polcitical support.

[3] Ludovicapipa yes? 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Collor~agrees with that

Collor reafirma inocência e diz que impeachment foi uma farsa

Sexta-feira, 16/03/2007 BRASÍLIA - Quase 15 anos depois de passar pelo processo de impeachment no Congresso Nacional, o ex-presidente Fernando Collor de Mello (PTB-AL) fez ontem seu primeiro discurso como senador e disse querer "passar a limpo" o episódio que resultou na perda de seus direitos políticos. O plenário do Senado, com 63 dos 81 parlamentares presentes, parou por quase quatro horas para ouvir as palavras do ex-presidente.

"Os episódios que aqui vou rememorar obrigaram-me a padecer calado e causaram mossas na minha alma e cicatrizes no meu coração. Fui acusado sem provas, insultado e humilhado durante meses a fio. Tive minha condenação antes mesmo de qualquer julgamento. (...) Hoje, passados 17 anos de minha posse na Presidência da República, volto à atividade política integrando esta augusta Casa, a mesma que a interrompeu por decisão dos ilustres membros que a compunham", afirmou.

[4] Ludovicapipa yes? 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Plan of action during the page protection

The problem that I've been having with your contributions so far is that you've been pushing a very clear agenda. And that's okay: you've been honestly trying to provide sources for your views. But when you add something specific which is not the commonly accepted theory, the stringency with which Wikipedia deals with sources increases as well. In that case, Wikipedia consider this a fringe theory, so it follows that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. So in this case, even if it is an academic paper, there needs to be an exceptional number of sources (and their reliability beyond reproach) to draw this fact you're advocating which is not in the mainstream.

[interjection] Yr words are quite contraditory. How can I be honest and provide so many links and at the same time be too specific? Well, if I can provide many links, it menas there several people thiking the same thing. Right? If I was specific, I would find somany dozens of links. If Bresser, Pstu, Collor Zelia, Newspapes, media...say the ver same thing --and you can´t even show me a single link that states the opposite --it´s clear that we´ve reached the mainstream. Ludovicapipa yes? 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And the one synthesis issue that's left right now, that you are attributing the inflation rates in 2006 to an economic program in 1989, requires a source which specifically says that the Collor program affected those inflation rates. You're providing a multitude of sources talking about privatization and free trade, which Collor indeed pioneer, but not adding a single one talking about monetary policy, which was the core of the Plano Real. This is a clear case of synthesis, Coren agreed with me and you still try to find sources that say that Collor "prepared the ground" for the Plano real, without actually addressing the issue directly: there's no source specifically mentioning inflation rates and monetary policy. The only figures and sources for inflation in the article are from 2 years after Collor left office. You're trying to solve a synthesis issue by adding more synthesis. I strongly urge you to read WP:SYN and WP:OR. Those are fundamental to understanding why I'm taking such a line against your edits.

[interjection]No, my links are pointing to 1.: his pionerism in priv. and free trade (with which you´ve just agreed); 2.: end of hyperinf. (with which you also agree); 3.:political manuevers that had very bad impact on his admministration; 4.: thas these manuevers were FHC´s, Pt´s, and other sector of society, even his brother (as you said on the article); 5.: As Scielo link states: hyperinflation helped FHC to implement Plano Real. The inflation chronolgy proves that, although I can now make this chronology just an ilustrative one: FHC benefit from Collor´s priv, free trade and hyperinflation, and that, all together, enabled Plano Real. I´d like to rewrite this part according to 5 steps. And conclude: Collor´s legacy is that os a politician who started an unprecedent macoreconomic agenda that prepared the road to Plano Real success --all of this are cited. Ludovicapipa yes? 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, while we're riding out the page protection, and to avoid just an entire talk page of pure sources, put exactly what you would include or change in the article, with sources. I'll critique it and say if I think it violates WP:SYN or any other policies. This way we can reach a compromise, since reverting clearly wasn't working. --Dali-Llama 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with what you're doing: "rewrite this part according to 5 steps. And conclude: Collor´s legacy is that os a politician who started an unprecedent macoreconomic agenda that prepared the road to Plano Real success." This is you reaching a conclusion from a multitude of sources which say everything BUT this. You are not allowed to draw conclusions. The conclusion is up to the reader, not you. So again, without getting bogged down in he-said, she-said (quite literally in this case), put the specific changes (IE: the exact paragraph as it would appear) you would like to make to the article.--Dali-Llama 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No I am cited yr own words: you agree he ended hyper inflation, you agree Lula follows FHC, you mentioned Pedro Collor ( a political factor as the start of the impeachmete process). If you agree, I agree and several citatiosn agree --then it drives me to write a text according to you , to citations. Ludovicapipa yes? 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it that hard to just stop arguing and actually write out what you'd like to include so we can discuss it beforehand?--Dali-Llama 06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Another link to link FHC´s success due to Collor´s previous policies

1. Entretanto, o Plano Real, apoiado na abertura comercial e financeira da economia e na sobrevalo-rização da nova moeda – até janeiro deste ano – foi (e continua sendo) muito mais do que um plano de estabilização. Na verdade, constituise no “carro-chefe” de um projeto político-econômico muito mais amplo, de natureza liberal, que implica o avanço da internacionalização/desnacionalização da economia brasileira, a redefinição do papel e das políticas do Estado – reformas e privatizações – e a desregula-mentação dos mercados, em especial os mercados financeiro e de trabalho. Sob esta ótica, a “âncora cambial”, ao garantir a estabilidade monetária – ra..."

2. "No âmbito do Estado as mudanças também foram profundas: ampliouse o processo de privatizações, que vinha desde o Governo Collor, com a inclusão de novos setores e a..."

3. "O controle da inflação, objetivo maior (explícito) do Plano Real, se constituiu na mais imediata e evidente realização do Plano Real."

[5] [6] Ludovicapipa yes? 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New text

Apesar do sucesso na implementação desta agenda de reformas, Collor enfrentou uma série de acusações de corrupção politica, de tráfico de influência. As acusaçãoes pesaram sobre o governo e levaram Collor e sua equipe a uma desestabilização institucional e de credibilidade. Esta desestabilização política teve consequências sobre a politica econômica levando a sociedade a manifestações contrárias às suas políticas. O Plano Collor I seria então renovado com a implementação do Plano Collor II; devido ao desgaste já configurado, teria uma curta sobrevida e a hyperinflação voltaria com vigor. A concorrência da desestabilização política e da hyperinflação geraram ainda mais falta de credibilidade e nesse vácuo político instalou-se um processo de impeachment, deflagrado pelo irmão Pedro Collor e demais setores sociais e plíticos.

O cenário estava propício à mundança de orientação na política econõmica. Foi neste ínterim, com a ascenção de Itamar Franco, q FHC implemanta o Plano Real, encontrando apoio político. Valendo-se da politica macroeconomica de Collor e do apoio político ocasionado pleo impeachment de Color, FHC teve um terreno seguro e proprício ao sucesso. Segundo estes autors, a conquista dos níves da inflação atuais são assim creditados a um histórico de fatores políticos da época e da agenda macroconcomica do mesmo período.

With all necessary links. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do we all agree with this? Ludovicapipa yes? 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can move forward with this text, since I can fully provide citations and we all agree with:

1. Collor ended hyperinf.;
2. Lula followed FHC;
3. FHC followed Collor´s macragenda;
4. FHC benefited from political scenario and Collor´s failures and even hyperinf.;

Ludovicapipa yes? 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you actually write it out with sources and in English? I need to check the conclusion against the sources to make sure there's no synthesis involved. Are you replacing any text or simply adding to it? --Dali-Llama 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can , although I can only do that on thursday. Ludovicapipa yes? 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's Friday. I just want to make sure we're heading towards consensus before the page is unprotected. --Dali-Llama 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What did you do with Gaspari´s? Did you replace any text or symly added to it? Ludovicapipa yes? 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't understand what you said.--Dali-Llama 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. The new text is there. Since WP´s rules requires citations, they are there. There is no synthesis nor concluion: i read teh arcticles and they all have the same end, the same core issue. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Charges

I believe the following paragraph could be improved:

"In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights. In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal threw out the charges of corruption, citing a lack of evidence linking Collor to Farias' influence peddling scheme. The only piece of evidence, Paulo César Farias' personal computer, was found to have been obtained illegally and thus void as evidence."

  • The casual reader will not understand there’s a difference between the impeachment procedure upheld by the National Congress and the criminal lawsuit analyzed by the Supreme Federal Tribunal. They were two separate incidents.
  • It’s important to emphasize the fact the Supreme Federal Tribunal ruled criminal charges lacked sufficient evidence. Although there was evidence, it was dismissed on small technicalities. The way the paragraph is written someone might think Collor was the victim of a major conspiracy plot and later everyone discovered he in fact had done nothing wrong. Nothing could be further detached from the truth.
  • It’s important to emphasize the fact the Supreme Federal Tribunal decided by 5 votes to 3.
  • It’s very important to inform casual readers about the Supreme Federal Tribunal stance on criminal charges against politicians: it has never passed condemnation sentences, always dismissing charges based on the infamous “lack of evidence” argument. ABM has published a recent study demonstrating this.

Suggestion for a new paragraph related to these incidents:

“In 1994 the Supreme Federal Tribunal dismissed criminal charges against Collor because of technicalities affecting evidence, in a controversial majority decision of 5 votes to 3. Although data retrieved from Paulo César Faria’ personal computer implicated Collor, some court members understood the prosecution had obtained it without the necessary judicial authorization, therefore considering it illegally obtained evidence. The verdict confirmed a historical trend that plagues the Brazilian highest court to this day: that of never having convicted a Brazilian politician of criminal charges. Nevertheless, this decision did not influence the National Congress impeachment procedures”.

Sparks1979 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don´t agree
Hello Sparks,
I find it nonsense to mention, without no citation. Unless you find citations for this:
1. "technicalities affecting evidence";
2. controversial majority decision of 5 votes to 3. You must explain, with citation, why was it controversial; and also prove, with citations, what does technicalities affecting evidence means;
3. I find totally anachronism to mention that Brazilian Supreme Court never convicted politician; Maluf was convicted and went to jail; many politicians have been exiled (FHC, Serra....), Washington Luis. I don´t know where (country) politicians have gone to jail...Can you offer an example? Ludovicapipa yes? 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ludovicapipa.

You are correct regarding citations. They are needed in this case and when/if I make the changes I proposed, I will provide references.

1) "Technicalities affecting evidence": this is explained in the sentence that mentions evidence was obtained without judicial authorization. There was a formal problem regarding the way evidenced was brought to trial. What was the formal problem? Although the personal computer of PCF had data incriminating himself, Collor and other people, it was dismissed from trial because police authorities apprehended it irregularly (without a legal warrant). Since the problem didn't affect the logical aspects of evidence put forward by the prosecution, the evidence wasn't per se invalid - it was formally irregular and illicit - therefore, it was dismissed. The correct translation of "irregularidades formais" to English would be "technicalities affecting evidence". As for references, I will look up Brazilian Law repertoires for you.

[interjections] Ok, still need sunstantial citations. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree you need a source for this. The Senado source mentions the evidence was ruled to have been obtained illegally. This is commonly understood as a legal technicality. There's no need to find a source for a definition.--Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This is easy and interesting. I can check general repertoires like RT or STF’s official repertoire next time I got to a nearby law school library. However, I don’t know if I can provide Internet links. Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2) "Controversial majority decision of 5 votes to 3": I mentioned the decision was controversial because there was significant turmoil in the Brazilian law community when it was passed. Many understand in these cases the so-called "technicalities" shouldn't be considered, because the truth should prevail over the protection of privacy according to public interests. Others prefer a formal outlook on trials and think it was a good decision. So there was controversy. Again, I will look up Brazilian Law articles for citations. Anyway, it is still a fact the decision wasn't unanimous - so it was far from being a straightforward matter.

[interjection] Thsi one needs citations....Oh, yes!! Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Ludovica. --Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you want citations for? For the 5 to 3 vote? For the controversy? Or both? They can both be found in Brazilian law repertoires. Again, Internet links will be a bit harder. Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Both. I'm sure Internet links can be found with a little googling. --Dali-Llama 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I will look them up. The 5 to 3 vote is easy to find on the web. As for links regarding the controversy, it’s easy to find discussions supporting the validity of illicitly obtained evidence. However, regarding the controversy in this particular case, I believe I will have to look up older law commentaries. Sparks1979 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3) "Anachronism". Hmmm. I can see you understand a lot about economics, whilst law doesn't seem to be your forte, so I will explain it more clearly to you. A person is only considered guilty once a decision can no longer be reviewed on appeal. Paulo Maluf was never convicted by a criminal court. He went to jail before a final decision was passed, due to an incident occurred during court proceedings, and this decision was quickly overruled by a local court. He never "served time". This is called "prisão provisória" in Brazilian Law and it has nothing to do with being convicted. He has been recently convicted by STF in civil matters, but that's totally different.

[interjection] I think thsi is not necessary to mention. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is, because it gives the casual reader the correct idea regarding politicians that face criminal trials in STF - they easily get away with it. Therefore, the fact Collor had his criminal charges dismissed doesn’t say much in his favor, since all politicians facing charges in STF at least since 1988 have never been convicted (60+ lawsuits). I believe we should either explain STF properly or not mention STF at all. Preferences? Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this should be included and it's an important factoid which gives a world of context to the article. --Dali-Llama 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting study: if you are interested, I found this interesting and recent historical research carried out by AMB - Associação de Magistrados do Brasil - that states no polititian has been convicted by STF since the new Constitution was promulgated in 1988: "Nenhuma condenação desde 1988". You can argue it only goes as far back as 1988 - a fair point - but it still proves there were no convictions carried out by STF in the 1988-2007 period... almost 20 years of impunity. Anybody knows (common knowledge) there were many severe corruption incidents in Brazil in the last 20 years, yet no criminal convictions.

[interjections] I repeat my questoin. I´d like to add som countries that did in fact put someone in jail. Can you cite one? Lula should go to jail... I think you could mention that, huh? Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This can serve as the source for the STF having never condemned anyone, and I think it should be included, but limited to that conclusion. --Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn’t answer your question because I didn’t really understand its relevance. Are you trying to say the legal system in developed first world countries works in the same way as the Brazilian system does? That is has the same flaws? The same immoral “privileges”? Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Lula issues should be addressed in the Lula article because we haven’t mentioned Lula in this article. However, we did mention STF – so if we mention STF, at least marginal information about the court’s stance on whatever is mentioned should be given to the casual reader. Alternatively, we can simply delete the whole "STF dismissed criminal charges" paragraph and stick to the impeachment episode. But I think that would make the article incomplete. Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Sparks--keep Lula in the Lula article, but I think we absolutely need the part about the STF throwing out the charges on a technicality and that being a very controversial move--as always with sources.--Dali-Llama 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many cases of corrupt politicians: Orestes Quércia, Paulo Maluf, José Dirceu, Pitta, Antônio Carlos Magalhães, Joaquim Roriz and numerous other Brazilian politicians, infamous for various irregularities in their administrations - most notably incidents of extremely expensive administrative operations - have never been convicted and in most cases haven't even gone to trial or been formally charged... Why? Because evidence always mysteriously disappears. More recently, see the case of Renan Calheiros. In some cases, even when there's clear evidence (such as a signed document), the charges are still dismissed. See the case of Ney Suassuna, who got away with it after he said "it's not my fault, I have a lot of work to do and I signed this document without reading it - I didn't know about its illicit contents". Do you think in a serious country with a serious court of law this type of argument would be accepted?

[interjections] The same above. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
While I whole-heartedly agree with you, Sparks, this would be WP:OR unless a source can be found and added in an WP:NPOV way. --Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, are you trying to compare the structure of political and judicial institutions in Brazil with those in first world developed countries? Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Are you? Lol. What I'm saying is if you'd like to make that argument you need to find reliable sources which state exactly that.--Dali-Llama 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn’t. I was in fact asking Ludovicapipa, because she had questioned me: “I´d like you to add some countries that did in fact put someone in jail. Can you cite one?” There was a bit of confusion because I misplaced my replies when I was answering her comments. I only noticed you had made comments yourself when I had already posted my own. I tried to shift them around to avoid confusion but I guess it was too late. lol Sparks1979 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Impunity in Brazil: it is widespread and it's very easy to get away with crime, because it's extremely easy to destroy evidence. Also, while in developed countries in Europe and North America "prove beyond reasonable doubt" is enough for conviction, in Brazil there's an unwritten rule that criminal convictions are only passed when there's "prove beyond any doubt". Therefore, it's almost impossible to convict anyone unless the person is court red handed or the prosecution can count on official documents. Witnesses are normally given little credit. An interesting statistic for you: in São Paulo, 85% of police investigations never see trial. Only 2% of murder investigations ever get to trial.

[interjections] It´s not the subject of this artcile. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ludovica, this is not the main subject of the article.--Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I know, it was only a side comment. Sparks1979 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge: This is common knowledge for most Brazilians. However, the casual reader unfamiliar with the Brazilian legal system will think "hey, Collor was not convicted - that proves this guy never did anything". We all know that is not true in Brazil.

Sparks1979 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's common knowledge in Brazil. But common knowledge can also be wrong (just ask Egyptians if the US participated in the Six Day War. I doubt that most people in Brazil knows that the STF threw out the charges. I think the article needs to reflect the STF was highly controversial, but the fact that it refused to reinstate his political rights means that it wasn't as black and white as it seems. You wanna take another stab at the paragraph, Sparks? --Dali-Llama 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the STF flaws aren’t common knowledge. What I meant is the existence of widespread corruption and the corresponding impunity is pretty much known by everyone, even by those not blessed with formal education.
Anyway, about the STF flaws, I think they should be mentioned. More specifically, the fact STF hasn’t passed criminal conviction against politicians since 1988. Readers unfamiliar with the Brazilian reality will then have the chance of concluding, “Ok, the criminal charges against Collor were dismissed because of technicalities regarding evidence, something expected from STF, since the legal system in this place is unreliable. Therefore, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is innocent. He can be innocent or not, although there’s a reasonable chance he is actually guilty because evidence was found in PCF’s personal computer, which was not accepted due to formalities.” I think simply saying “Collor was impeached, but later the higher courts dismissed accusations” will make the casual reader think “wow, he was a victim of the system, this guy should be back up there”. Sparks1979 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lula

Sparks, Lula is mentioned in the artcile, yes, since my goal is to prove that Collor´s legacy is still alive --pls check the article. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You said “Lula should go to jail… I think you could mention that, huh?”. This is interesting, but I think it should be addressed in the Lula article.
I have limited knowledge regarding economy, so I admit I’m not comfortable about having a solid opinion on Collor’s legacy in this area. Sparks1979 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is where myself and Ludovica are currently sparring. =)--Dali-Llama 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You two seem to know a lot more about Economy than me, although I’m also interested. I only have the basic knowledge expected from any graduate student from another area, so it wouldn’t be right if I tried to chip in with my not very insightful thoughts on the matter. I will keep myself to Law and other topics I’m more familiar with. Sparks1979 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here is another suggestion:

“In 1994 the Supreme Federal Tribunal dismissed criminal charges against Collor because of technicalities affecting evidence, in a majority decision of 5 votes to 3.[citation needed] Although data retrieved from Paulo César Faria’ personal computer implicated Collor, some court members understood the prosecution had obtained it without the necessary judicial authorization, therefore considering it illegally obtained evidence.[citation needed] The verdict confirmed a historical trend that plagues the Brazilian highest court to this day: that of never having convicted a Brazilian politician of criminal charges since 1988, when the current Constitution was adopted.[3] Nevertheless, this decision did not influence the National Congress impeachment procedures”.

I removed "controversial" as an adjective to characterize the decision. I added "since 1988" because it's the period covered by the study I use as reference. We would be missing two citations regarding the case itself, which I can add later.

I think this gets the section rid of POV. We would be saying the criminal charges were dismissed by STF, since in fact they really were dismissed. In the other hand, we would point out the dodgy nature by which STF handles these cases, and the fact the court, in this case, dismissed charges based on technicalities and not on arguments denying the facts actually took place. In Brazilian criminal law, it makes a lot of difference. Thus, the casual user that is unfamiliar with Brazil or Collor should be in better grounds to make up his own mind about Collor being innocent or guilty. Sparks1979 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this, with minor changes. Instead of saying "the verdict confirmed...", I'd say "The verdict is seen as part of a greater problem in Brazil's highest court..." We do have a source for the invalidation of evidence (it's in the article right now). We need a source for the 5-3 decision. But again, I have no problems changing what's in the article for this. --Dali-Llama 00:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Good news. Before I started looking, I noticed footnote 17 already works as a source for the 5-3 decision: “Por cinco votos a três, os ministros consideraram improcedente a denúncia do procurador-geral.” I think the 5-3 decision indicates it was controversial, but I will look up for sources of controversy outside the courtroom. Anyway, for now, I think it’s better to leave the paragraph without explicit mention to controversy. Sparks1979 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Dali-Llama 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Sparks, I still ask where in the world politicians have been charged an jailed. When you emphasize this in Brazilian justiciary system it seems this is specific of our system --or due to a Brazilian misleading system. In this case, it shouldn´t be cited. this article is abt Collor --not Brazialian justiciary system. Anyway many other casas can be cited: Lula´s dozens fo corruption charges could be added as an example of it. Ludovicapipa yes? 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New text
"In spite of the success in the implementation of this calendar of reforms, Collor faced a series of accusations of corruption politicizes, of influence traffic. The accusations weighed on the government and they took Collor and his team to an institutional disestablishment of credibility that reached even the finance monister Zélia < ref > [7] </ref >. This political disestablishment had consequences on his politicizes taking the society to manifestations contrary to their politics < ref > [8].</ref> The Plano Collor I would be then renewed with the implementation of the Plan Collor II; due to the wear and tear already configured, it would have a short run and the hyperinflation would return with vigor. The combination of the political disestablishment and the hyperinflation continued to generate more lack of credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, deflagrated by the brother Pedro Collor and other social and political sections, that were contradicted by the calendar of Collor's economic politics.
"The scenery was favorable for a shift on the economic policies implemented so far. It was in this interim that Itamar Franco assumed and placed Collor, and when FHC, as a finance minister, implements Plano Real, finding political support [4]. Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process, FHC found a safe land to the success of Plan Real. According to these authors, the conquest of the current levels of inflation is credited to this report of political factors of the time and to an economic agenda of the same period."

Ludovicapipa yes? 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the proposed text for spelling and grammar, but maintaining the same conclusions--it was a bit hard to understand:
"In spite of the success in the implementation of this calendar of reforms, Collor faced a series of accusations of corruption and influence peddling. The accusations weighed on the government and they took Collor and his team to an general lack of credibility that reached even the finance minister Zélia < ref > [9] </ref >. This political disestablishment had consequences on his politicizes taking the society to manifestations contrary to their politics < ref > [10] < / ref >. Plano Collor I would then be renewed with the implementation of Plan Collor II; due to the existing wear and tear, it would be short-lived and the hyperinflation would return with vigor. The combination of the political instability and hyperinflation continued to generate more lack of credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, deflagrated by Collor's brother, Pedro Collor, and other social and political sectors, that were cross by the calendar of Collor's economic policies.
"The scenery was favorable for a shift on the economic policies implemented so far. It was in this interim that Itamar Franco replaced Collor, and when FHC, as a finance minister, implements Plano Real, finding political support [5]. Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process, FHC found a safe land to the success of Plan Real. According to these authors, the conquest of the current levels of inflation is credited to this report of political factors of the time and to an economic agenda of the same period."
I'm okay with the Scielo source and Philippe Faucher's thesis, as long as it is disclosed as such. The sources I've read disagree that it was an elitist movement (since when is the National Student Union part of the elite?), and in fact dissatisfaction with his government at the time of the impeachment was generalized (he had a 9% approval rating when he was impeached! see here). The CMI's source is pure speculative analysis. It just rehashes information which is in the Impeachment section, and adds opinion. And never mind the fact that this is one guy's opinion published on an admittedly single-purpose partisan website (or did you not read the part where they said they were anticapitalist?)--not on a respected peer-reviewed journal or a major news article. BUT, I do agree that he suffered from a lack of political support--what we can't say for sure is the issue of causality: you're implying that the lack of political support led to the impeachment, and not the corruption charges. I'm proposing a compromise edit below.--Dali-Llama 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New text

"Under Zélia´s tenure, Brasil had an unprecedented period of major changes, featuring "a revolution" [2] in many levels of public administration: privatization, opening its market for a free trade for the first time in the country´s history [3], technological and industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction [4].
"In the month before Collor took power, the hyperinflation was 84% monthly and growing. All accounts over 50,000 cruzeiros (about US$1,300 at that time), were frozen for 18 months. He also proposed freezes in wages and prices, as well as major cuts in government spending. The measures were received unenthusiastically by the people, though many felt that radical measures were necessary to kill the hyper-inflation which was above 50% monthly. Within a few months, however, inflation resumed, eventually reaching rates of 25% per month. Even so, Brazil never had hyperinflation again, after Collor took office.
"Although Zelia acknowledges that Plano Collor didn´t end inflation, she later stated: "It is also possible to see with clarity that, under very difficult conditions, we promoted the equalization of the national debt --and that, together with the commercial opening, it created the bases for the implantation of Plano real" [5]. By the time the Plano real was ready to be launched in 1994, inflation was at 50 percent per month by June 1994 and averaged 31.2 percent a month in 1994, for total of 2,294.0 percent that year. [6].
"Collor´s neoliberal program was then followed by his successors umtil present days[7] Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva [8] who maintained free trade and privatization programs.[9] Collor's administration began the process of privatization of a number of government-owned enterprises such as Acesita, Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce.[10] which benefit from this and became highly efficient multinational companies.
"In spite of the success in the implementation of this calendar of reforms, Collor faced a series of accusations of corruption politicizes, of influence traffic. The accusations weighed on the government and they took Collor and his team to an institutional disestablishment of credibility that reached even the finance monister Zélia < ref > [11] </ref >. This political disestablishment had consequences on his politicizes taking the society to manifestations contrary to their politics < ref > [12] < /ref >. The Plano Collor I would be then renewed with the implementation of the Plan Collor II; due to the wear and tear already configured, it would have a short run and the hyperinflation would return with vigor. The combination of the political disestablishment and the hyperinflation continued to generate more lack of credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, deflagrated by the brother Pedro Collor and other social and political secttors < ref > [13] < /ref >, that were contradicted by the calendar of Collor's economic politics. "A marcha da insensatez reapareceria em 1991 com o Plano Collor II, um novo choque. Era um filme que se repetia: a queda de Zélia, substituída por Marcílio Marques Moreira e, naquilo que se poderia chamar Plano Collor II, tentou-se corrigir alguns aspectos do primeiro plano, mas era tarde. A administração econômica ficou paralisada pela rápida deterioração da imagem de Collor, bombardeada por inúmeras denúncias de corrupção. Seu governo foi se desmoronando ao mesmo tempo em que a sua imagem, cuidadosamente forjada durante as eleições entrou em declínio." < ref > [14] < /ref > (The march of the foolishness would reappear in 1991 with the Plan Collor II, a new shock. It was a film that repeated: Zélia's fall, substituted by Marcílio Marques Moreira and, in that that one could call Plan Collor II, it tried to correct some aspects of the first plan, but it was late. The economical administration was paralyzed by the fast deterioration of Collor's image, bombed by countless accusations of corruption. His government began to collapseat the same time as his image, carefully wrought during the elections, entered in decline.)
"The scenery was favorable for a shift on the economic policies implemented so far. It was in this interim that Itamar Franco assumed and placed Collor, and when FHC, as a finance minister, implements Plano Real, finding political support [6]. Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process, FHC found a safe land to the success of Plan Real. According to these authors, the conquest of the current levels of inflation is credited to this report of political factors of the time and to an economic agenda of the sam e period.
"Thus, as a result of the setting off of this program [11], inflation reached 50 percent per month by June 1994 and averaged 31.2 percent a month in 1994, for total of 2,294.0 percent that year. Inherited from Plano Collor, as result of Real Plan (Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Collor´s successor), inflation declined to monthly rates of between 1 and 3 percent in 1995, for an annual rate of 25.9 percent. In 1996: 16.5 percent; 1997: 7.2 percent. By 2006: 3,18% annualy."

Ludovicapipa yes? 14:13-19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my version:
"Under Zélia´s tenure, Brazil had a period of major changes in different levels of public administration: privatization, opening its market for a free trade for the first time in the country´s history [3], technological and industrial modernization, a reduction in inflation and public debt reduction [4].
"In the month before Collor took power, hyperinflation was 84% monthly and growing. All bank accounts over 50,000 cruzeiros (about US$1,300 at that time), were frozen for 18 months. He also proposed freezes in wages and prices, as well as major cuts in government spending. The measures were received unenthusiastically by the people, though many felt that radical measures were necessary to kill the hyperinflation which was above 50% monthly. Within a few months, however, inflation resumed, eventually reaching rates of 25% per month.
"Although Zélia acknowledges that Plano Collor didn't end inflation, later stating: "It is also possible to see with clarity that, under very difficult conditions, we promoted the equalization of the national debt --and that, together with the commercial opening, it created the bases for the implantation of Plano real" [5]. By the time the Plano real was ready to be launched in 1994, inflation was at 50 percent per month by June 1994 and averaged 31.2 percent a month in 1994, for total of 2,294.0 percent that year. [6].
"Some of Collor´s neoliberal programs were followed by his successors[7][8] who maintained free trade and privatization programs.[9] Collor's administration began the process of privatization of a number of government-owned enterprises such as Acesita, Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce.[10]
"Phillipe Faucher, political science professor at McGill University, argued that the institutional crisis that led to Collor's impeachment and the failure of the Plano Collor of controlling inflation helped the Plano Real, by giving the Fernando Henrique government the credibility required to carry out the reforms of his administration.[7]"
My version tries to stick to what the sources say, not synthesize what they said. Again, it's a non-sequitur to quote inflation rates 16 years after Collor took office. I've also removed the actual name of the sucessors for the following reasons: It's fair to state that Itamar and FHC continued privatization and free trade. Lula, however, for better or worse, did not conduct any major privatizations, but did maintain free trade, so instead of splitting the paragraph, by removing the names we remove the conflict. It also adds Faucher's argument, but properly disclosing it as such. --Dali-Llama 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Iam not trying to draw a conclusion --this is a non based,not justified accusatin you do to me. The only thing these links do is that they talk abt the same thing, abt history, almost using the same words, it´s not me --it´s their text speaking the very same thing. I do not accept yr version --it´s too short and omits important polictical factors, teh impeachment, etc. There is no conclusion at all. You have to decide if an editor ahould use only one source, as you did with Gaspari (and be even more vulnerable to this crticism of personal conclusion) or use many sources... Ludovicapipa yes? 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You must accept that my work, the tiem I spent looking for these citations, it´s my research that you come and simply edit it the way you want. The burden was mine --and I did prove it using all the ways, with diversified sources. You cannot use my work to make your conclusions, your personal agenda to prevail. I offered all proves. If you have another verion, do yourself a research. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the core principles of wikipedia is if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I'm trying to incorporate your sources into a compromise edit--this isn't a war where I can't touch your version and you can't touch mine. We're supposed to be building consensus, not pushing agendas and letting conflicting agendas just sit on the page--you're not supposed to be doing "research" as you understand it (remember WP:OR?). On your particular edits: Why should we talk about the impeachment when the following section talks all about the impeachment? If we're talking about economic policy, it should suffice to say Faucher's opinion: that the impeachment created the conditions required for the implementation of the Plano Real. It has no bearing on the economic policies--this is what I talked about when I mentioned causality. There are several problems with your rationale: you mention "Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor ", when in fact Faucher states that it was the failure of Collor's policies that benefited FHC. That's an important distinction. Of course my version has no conclusion, that's the problem with yours: you conclude things which are not directly stated in your source. That's original research! There is no such "choice" about using one or several. Gaspari has no bearing on this discussion. If you feel that's a problem, bring up in the coup page, not here.--Dali-Llama 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As for this personal opinion of you (that present inflation rates are not a Collor legacy is completed denied by all these various and diversified sources). Yr personal opinion concerning this is unfounded --do find a link, citation, quotation that denies that. If you can´t prove this, you have to accept all these sources.
Lula didn´t privatized but he didn´t cancel any privatization, he maintained the original plan --as, again, all sources say that. A single fact, taht he didn´t privatize is not sufficient to invalidate all the other policies. Again, it´s your personal opinion, yr unfounded, no quoted, not cited, nothing at all, again, trying to push something that is not cited. Unless you find sources that say:
1. FHC didn´t follow Collor, didn´t expand his plan nor hsi policies;
2. Lula didn´t follow FHC nor Collor;
3. Collor´s impeachment didn´t cause economic failures;
Unless you can prove what you say, my version, fully cited, must remain the way it is. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? Positive affirmations require positive proof. You're interpreting my assertions incorrectly: I'm not giving my opinion that the sources are wrong, I'm saying you're not accurately reflecting what those sources say. You are trying to state that the inflation rates in 2006 are a direct reflection of policies in 1992 (a positive affirmation). This required positive proof: give me a source that says exactly that: that the rates are a direct reflection. Coren had agreed with me on this point and you still insist on it. On the particular points that you bring up:

1. FHC didn´t follow Collor, didn´t expand his plan nor hsi policies;--This is not what I said. Read my version again. Some policies, such as privatization, was indeed followed, but others were not. I'm trying to draw that distinction.

2. Lula didn´t follow FHC nor Collor;--You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen? This doesn't seem ludicrous to you? You still didn't read my rationale for this. You're making a double-jump: FHC followed Collor, Lula followed FHC ergo Lula followed Collor. As i've mentioned, I'm trying to be careful in drawing a distinction that not all policies were followed by all presidents.

3. Collor´s impeachment didn´t cause economic failures;--Again, you're asking for proof that something didn't happen? I don't see the causality you're implying--in fact, Faucher's argument is that Collor's impeachment eventually paved the way for economic success through the Real Plan.

It seems obvious to me you're not reading or not understanding my comments, as opposed to just disagreeing with them. You're approaching this backwards. I'm not saying that these things didn't happen--I'm disputing the positive affirmations you're making based on the sources you're providing, where I disagree that you're accurately stating what the sources say and not adding your own synthesis..--Dali-Llama 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you explain where is my conclusion? Pls do that by putting together my citations and explain how do I manuever them.
[interjection] Sure... In all of these examples, please feel free to add sources directly relating to them--I do admit, I'm only human, and I could've missed them, since you tend to cite sources disconnected to whatever it is you're adding in text.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"In spite of the success in the implementation of this calendar of reforms"
This seems contradictory. He did not succeed in privatizing many of the corporations he began (3 out of the 4 you mentioned in this article. Though he did privatize 15 others, it seems contradictory to mention 3 of the ones he didn't manage to privatize before he left office). This is a conclusion--no source says he was successful. --Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
All sources say he privatized. O fato de ele não ter privatizado TUDO, não quer dizer que naõ tenha tido sucesso: primeiro pq foi "impedido", segundo, se assim fosse poderíamos dizer que Lula não conseguiu fazer o país crescer nas taxas prometidas, ou não conseguiu diminuir o desemprego tanto qto se propôs...Collor conseguiu efetivar uma agenda sem precedentes num curto espaçod e tempo. Lula não. Vc está usando uma conclusão precipitada. ISSO sim é que uma original research. A agenda proposta, de privatização, free trade e modenização foi realizada. As fontes falam sim da implementação da agenda. Assim, esta sua aleção contr amim é infundada. Com o que vc disse acima, não prova que foi feita uma conclusão sem que as fontes tenham afimado isso (Bresser, Zelia, e TODOS os outros links confirmam isso). Ludovicapipa yes? 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to ask you please write your comments in English. It's nothing personal--I obviously don't have a problem with Portuguese, but it makes it easier if we have someone else joining the discussion. I don't really know why you keep mentioning Lula--that's not the point of discussion here. I'm not comparing one versus the other. Usually in these types of conflict, the operating phrase is "show, don't tell". So you wouldn't say he successfully privatized companies: you'd say he privatized Acesita and began the privatization process of the others. I'm not making any conclusions--again, you're the one making an affirmation (that he was successful), not me. Saying "He privatized" is much better than say "he sucesfully privatized". It's WP:NPOV and goes back the whole "pioneirism" thing which two different people thought was a no-brainer.--Dali-Llama 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The combination of the political disestablishment and the hyperinflation continued to generate more lack of credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, deflagrated by the brother Pedro Collor and other social and political secttors < ref > [41] < /ref >, that were contradicted by the calendar of Collor's economic politics.
The source you cited (here) does not fit the criteria of a reliable source--IE: it is not scholarly or part of a major news organization. So, as it stands, it's an unsourced statement. But I'm willingly to accept the next source ([15]) says something similar. I'm proposing another compromise edit, which you'll see at the bottom of this section.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong citation: Scielo and Bresser -not "brasilacimadetudo" Estas não são as fontes que eu citei. Citei Faucher (desestabilização, conceito de governabilidade, Scielo), Bresser ("pois conseguiu implementar") e jornais (Isto é Dinherio: http://www.terra.com.br/istoedinheiro/475/economia/zelia_esta_voltando.htm]).
 ??? That's source number 41 on your "New text" reply above. I'm not making this up.--Dali-Llama 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"According to these authors, the conquest of the current levels of inflation is credited to this report of political factors of the time and to an economic agenda of the same period."
They say no such thing. They really didn't. This is you saying what you concluded from reading what the authors said.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Uma vez que vc reconheça que no paragrafo acima vc mencionou fontes completamene erradas, daí teremso outra discussão. A fonte acima citada é Scielo, Bresser Pereira e Isto é --não brasilaciamdetudo. Qdo vc checar isso, as fontes irão convergir:
1. As acusações de corrupção e o processo de impeachment foram deflagrdos pelo irmaõ e por inimigos políticos contrariados com a política de Collor (FAucher);
2. Collor failed e a hyperinfl. voltou (Faucher, Bresser, Zelia);
3. He failed because of political problems (Faucher, Zelia, Bresser) --isto é, problemas de governabilidade (para Faucher falta de apoio político), para a Revista Epoca (o PT estraçalhou reputações e até Zelia foi acusada)
4. A falta de governabilidade gerou o fracasso do Plano Collor (Faucher), para Bresser (Lack of political support (see above [44]), para Zelia também
5. Bresser and Zelia (revista epoca e revista isto é) citam que Zelia/Collor deitou os tijolos da estabilização --isto é, implementou reformas --"was brave", corajoso, etc.
6 Mas não econtrou apoio politico ( Faucher, Bresser, Zelia), dai voltou a hiperfinfl.
6 FHC encontrou assim espaço para apoio politico e beneficiou-se da hiperinfla. (Yr words: "Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor ", when in fact Faucher states that it was the failure of Collor's policies that benefited FHC.) e o sucesso o Plano Real (o apoio que, segundo Faucher (Scielo), Bresser (Link/PDF) e Zelia (Isto é), faltou a Collor);
7 Assim, a agenda atual do Plano Real e a conquista da estabilização (inflação) tem essas raízes historicas e o legado de Collor/Zelia consiste nessas iniciativas.
Etc.... Ludovicapipa yes? 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it--you're not allowed to synthesize sources to draw conclusions. I don't know how many times I need to mention this. Points 6 and 7 are your opinion from reading the sources. --Dali-Llama 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Try another stab at the text you'd like to add, so I can create a compromise edit. Otherwise we'll be talking until the cows come home.--Dali-Llama 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Number 41 citation is just one more citation. Thus, as cited before, the ones from Scielo, Isto é, Bresser are the ones that matter. Do consider from now ahead the paragraphs just above, under the subtitle "Worng citation". Ludovicapipa yes? 19:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And again: Vc já havia concordado que FHC se beneficiou da hiperinflação. Dê uma olhada logo acima, vc disse que ele "benefited from hyperinflation" (confirmando a citação). O ponto 7 não é uma conclusão é uma frase que apenas termina o contexto: o contexto diz isso (v´rias vezes). Que FHC se beneficiou (de privatizaçãoes, free trade, mod. tec. e da hiperinflação) e que o Plano Real tem raízes no Plano Collor. Não é o mmmso que a "Rev. Isto é" diz?: "Zelia deitou os tijolos da estabilização", ou o mesmo que a Folha diz: "Tais políticas - iniciadas com a abertura do governo Collor - foram continuadas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, segundo economistas e industriais ouvidos pela Folha". [16]
O que eu chamo de raízes a "Rev. Isto é" chama de "tijolos". Bresser chama de reformas "corajosas". E a Folha chama de "iniciadas com a abertura do governo Collor - foram continuadas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, segundo economistas e industriais ouvidos pela Folha".
Collor iniciou o programa de privatização e concluiu 15 delas. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Qto a escrever em inglês, no momento escreverei só em português. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Se vc concorda que a Folha, Bresser, Isto é, estão falando a mesma coisa, então deve concordar que a minha frase é igual à deles. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have to warn you that arguing in Portuguese makes it difficult for other parties to weigh in on the issue, and makes it hard to build consensus. That's not a good thing. Ludovica, we're going to be arguing this forever. The best thing to do right now is to write out what you want to include in the text, and I'll edit it towards a compromise edit. When we reach a version that satisfies us both, we'll include it.--Dali-Llama 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


2. You are absolutely wrong: Faucher and all other citations link impeachment with economic "debacle" --I don´t do that but all citations do;
[interjection] I don't know what point you're disputing here. Can you expand on this?--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
3. As for the link between inflation rates: there is a quote from Zelia: she says "Plano Collor prepared the road to Plano Real by ending hypinf. [This link [25] talks abt "revolution", abt "there is no word to express what this woman accomplished in such a short period of time"; and "end of hyperinflation". "Só isso já bastaria para que a ministra Zélia fosse reconhecida como alguém que assentou tijolos importantes na catedral da estabilização]; according to you (above), Faucher says impeachment created conditions for the implementation of the Real Plan: (Na segunda seção afirmo que o êxito inesperado do Plano Real se explica pela emergência da hiperinflação, pela descoberta do esquema de corrupção do presidente Collor e pela forma como o Plano Real foi posto em prática. A hiperinflação anulou a eficácia da indexação e, desse modo, aumentou os riscos associados à instabilidade do mercado para amplos setores da população brasileira. Isso desencorajou a adesão e diminuiu a força da coalizão de atores que não tinham interesse algum na estabilização, ao mesmo tempo que uniu o grupo dos que temiam os custos econômicos de um novo fracasso. Após as investigações realizadas pelo Congresso e pelo Judiciário sobre o esquema de corrupção do presidente Fernando Collor, o povo entendeu claramente que os grupos envolvidos em práticas de sobrevalorização, aumentos injustificados de preços e especulação financeira eram os que mais se beneficiavam com o caos econômico. A revelação pública dos grandes lucros auferidos pelos bancos, instituições financeiras e empresas, com elevados custos para a sociedade, abalou a influência política desses setores. Por fim, o Plano Real foi desenhado e implementado de modo gradual e negociado, o que ajudou a minimizar os custos da estabilização para a maioria da população assalariada];
Thus: if the success of the Real Plan (which is translated by END OF INFLATION) is due the "pela emergência da hiperinflação, pela descoberta do esquema de corrupção do presidente Collor e pela forma como o Plano Real foi posto em prática." and due to Zelia´s (since she was the finance minister) initiatives, that is, the end of hyperinf, so, "it´s Zelia´s (and Collor´s) initiatives that built the bricks of stabilization" (revista época).
[interjection] You can't stitch different sources to create a conclusion. That's the most blatant display of synthesis I've ever seen. What Faucher's saying is that if anything, Collor/Zélia's failure to end hyperinflation is what helped the Plano Real gather the political credibility to be successful. Faucher is acknowledging that hyperinflation did not end until the implementation of the Plano Real. In any case, your entire rationale is a synthesis of different sources. To quote from policy: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. This is not the case here--you're tying IstoÉ (A) with Faucher (B) and concluding Collor affected inflation in 2006 (C).--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ótimo, abaixo vc diz que Collor "was brave". Veja, é você que está misturando fontes: a citação diz que ele "was brave", não qiue ele fracassou. Vc misturou uma citação com outra. As linhas abaixo, aonde vc diz que ele "was brave", diz que ele "was brave" --não que ele fracassou. As linhas aonde é dito que ele fracassou são estas acima -- não abaixo. Vc é que está mistudanto fontes e concluindo. Todas as fontes seguem uma linearidade, é vc quem está rodando em círculos -e é isso que chamo de rude e tosco. Argumentações "de quinta".
[interjection] I said no such thing. I don't know if you understood the grammar correctly: I said we weren't disputing whether he was brave or not. That's not saying that I agree or disagree with the statement, but that it's not a point of discussion. That's a non-sequitur. Bottom line, part of what you're doing is synthesis--no more, no less.--Dali-Llama 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Citação acima (Faucher): Exatamente --o fracasso do Plano Collor (hyperinfl.) ocasionou um vácuo político que ajudou o Plano Real. Além de vácuo político (credibilidade política, nas suas palavras), Faucher fala que a hiperinfl., que voltou por causa de problemas políticos (conceito de governabilidade) ocasionou o sucesso do Plano Real. Zelia tb disse isso: não acabei com a hiperinfl. (fracessei) mas deitei as bases para o sucesso do Plano Real e para ocasionar o fim da inflação. Assim estão os três (Zelia, Bresser e Faucher) dizendo que Collor/Zelia "were brave" ("fez reformas corajosas" (Bresser) ou "deitou os tijolos da estabilização" (revista Época), ou para Faucher: "Se as tensões entre o Executivo e o Congresso aumentam, as chances de aprovar um projeto de lei diminuem significativamente. As conseqüências políticas dessa situação se tornaram evidentes durante a administração Collor. Figura estranha à elite política, Collor, eleito por uma ampla coalizão de mais de 35 milhões de votos, não contava com o apoio de nenhum dos grandes partidos nacionais."), mas por problemas políticos (Bresser´s, Faucher´s Scielo and PDF thesis), a inflação voltou com ainda mais vigor, trazendo a hyperinflação --e este fracasso (failure), devido a problemas políticos, desestabilizou institucionalmente o governo, mais uma vez, ressuscitando a hyperinflação --assim, nesse vácou político de falta de governabilidade e de apoio (credibildiade política como vc concordou) o Plano Collor fracassou (como vc disse) e e a hiperinfl. voltou (como vc disse) e (como vc disse e concordou) foi esse fracasso que provocu o sucesso do Plano Real.
2 Citação abaixo (Bresser}: Collor "was brave", fez reformas corajosas; (segundo suas palavras: "That's not what we're disputing here--we're not disputing that Collor wasn't brave. The sources do say he tried things which hadn't been tried before, but they're saying he failed". That's a big distinction.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)); sim, dizem que ele fracassou (concordo com vc); dizem tb que (como vc disse tb) que foi o fracasso que levou ao sucesso do Plano Real (Yr words: What Faucher's saying is that if anything, Collor/Zélia's failure to end hyperinflation is what helped the Plano Real gather the political credibility to be successful. Faucher is acknowledging that hyperinflation did not end until the implementation of the Plano Real).
Thus, according to you:
1. Collor was brave;
2. Collor failed;
3. He failed because of political problems (Faucher, Zelia, Bresser) --isto é, problemas de governabilidade (para Faucher falta de apoio político), para a Revista Epoca (o PT estraçalhou reputações e até Zelia foi acusada)
4. A falta de governabilidade gerou o fracasso do Plano Collor (Faucher), para Bresser (Lack of political support (see above [17]), para Zelia também
DINHEIRO – Essa modernização não teria ocorrido de qualquer forma, fruto da queda do Muro de Berlim?
ZÉLIA – Não acho que as mudanças teriam ocorrido da mesma forma e na mesma direção se outro candidato tivesse vencido em 1989. Hoje é difícil lembrar do ambiente que havia naquela época, porque todo mundo já se habituou com o novo cenário. Mas, em 1989, falar em privatização ou em abertura comercial era o mesmo que dizer um palavrão. O PT, que disputou o segundo turno das eleições com o presidente Fernando Collor, não faria. O partido, na época, ainda não havia acordado para essas mudanças que você cita e a facção mais retrógrada do petismo, que ainda existe, tinha muito mais força do que tem hoje.
DINHEIRO – E os outros?
ZÉLIA – O PSDB e o PMDB não fariam porque seria impossível esperar mudanças de tal ordem com políticos que preferem conciliar. Não havia possibilidade de transformar e conciliar – era um ou outro. Só uma pessoa com as características do Collor, combinada com uma equipe de técnicos como a que montamos, seria capaz de ir tão longe em tão pouco tempo. O que tínhamos em comum pode ser resumido em uma palavra: independência.
DINHEIRO – E por que o Plano Collor fracassou no objetivo de erradicar a inflação?
ZÉLIA – Felizmente, o tempo que transcorreu desde o plano já permite uma análise menos apaixonada dessa questão. Acho que vencemos ao livrar o país da hiperinflação e de tudo de ruim que aconteceria se ela viesse. Mas não há como negar que fracassamos no controle da inflação. A razão principal – e hoje é possível enxergar com clareza – foi o fracasso na equação da dívida externa. Também é possível enxergar com clareza que, sob condições muito difíceis, promovemos o equacionamento da dívida interna – e isso, juntamente com a abertura comercial, criou as bases para a implantação do Plano Real.)
para Zelia também: acima vc vê a entrevista aonde ela fala da independência política do Gov. Collor, e da falta de apoio político do Pt, Pmdb e Psdb. O PT não faria e nem apoiaria ( e não apoiou as reformas pq a facção extremista não permitiu) e o Psdb e Pmdb tb não pq eram mudanaçs mt radicias (Collor was brave) para partidos que preferem conciliar. Assim, complementa ela, fomos "independentes". Mas ela, assim como Bresser e Faucher, diz: nossa independência andou o suficiente para mudanças radicais que estes partidos não fariam (not brave) "não contava com o apoio de nenhum dos grandes partidos nacionais" (Faucher). A tradição de falta de apoio político impediu o avnaço das reformas do Govenro Collor (Bresser) -- e trouxe a hyperinflação de volta (Zelia, Faucher, Bresser).
Assim
1. Collor "was brave" pq implementou reformas "corajosas"
2. Collor fracassou de vido a probelmas de governabilidade, apesar de ser "independente" (Zelia), "corajoso" (Bresser);
3. Devido a problemas de governabilidade (Faucher (conceito de governabilidade), Bresser (lack of political support), Zelia (Pt, Psdb, Pmdb), não teve sucesso e fracassou (failure) trazendo a hyperinflação; a hyperinfl. trouxe sucesso ao Plano Real;
4. Além disso, sofreu acusações de corrupção e alem da falta de apoio politico e das acusaçaoes, fracassou e td isso colaborou para o sucesso do Plano Real.
Assim, se vc concorda que Collor was brave, corajoso, implementou reformas, que deitou tijolos da estabilização, mas que não teve governabildiade, apoio politico de partidos e que facassou por causa de lack os political support e que alem disso sofreu acusações de corrupção, então vc e as citações estão falando a mesma coisa. Não há conclusão, há igualdade entre as citações. Ludovicapipa yes? 09:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


It´s not my conclusion. Iam just citing two sources that say the same thing (Faucher and Revista Epoca);
[interjection] As I mentioned above, Istoé credits Zélia with succeeding in battling inflation to the point where it helped the Plano Real economically, and Faucher is saying Zélia failed in battling inflation, and thus helped the Plano Real politically. That's not the same conclusion.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Faucher´s reference and citations are Bresser Pereira´s studies. And Bresser´s says (see above): "reformas corajosas e muito necessárias, e buscou o ajustamento fiscal. Embora outras tentativas tenham sido feitas desde 1987, foi durante o governo Collor que as velhas idéias nacional-desenvolvimentistas foram efetivamente enfrentadas e combatidas (...) por um programa corajoso de reformas econômicas orientadas para a liberalização comercial e a privatização. (...)".
--According to Bresser, Plano Collor was made of "reformas corajosas e muito necessárias, e buscou o ajustamento fiscal. Embora outras tentativas tenham sido feitas desde 1987, foi durante o governo Collor que as velhas idéias nacional-desenvolvimentistas foram efetivamente enfrentadas e combatidas (...) por um programa corajoso de reformas econômicas orientadas para a liberalização comercial e a privatização." According to Revista Epoca, Plano Collor (described here by Bresser) implemented by Zelia built the briks of stabilization [FIM DA INFLAÇÃO, PLANO REAL] by ending hyperinf. and preapering the road for the Plano Real [ESTABILIZAÇÃO]. But according to Faucher there was also a political feature, not only a mere continuation: it was also political, provoked by some sectors of the society contrary to his policies.
[interjection] That's not what we're disputing here--we're not disputing that Collor wasn't brave. The sources do say he tried things which hadn't been tried before, but they're saying he failed. That's a big distinction.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Ao contrário do que vc disse acima, para Faucher, há sim uma relação entre impeachment e as medidas econômicas e para Bresser tb:[18]. Ademais, vc menciona o impeachment apenas pelo viés político do que ocorreu ao Collor, mas não havia mencionado que ele foi absolvido, que as provas não tinham legitimidade judicial. Assim Faucher, além de citar e se apoiar nos estudos de Bresser Pereira, relaciona o impeachment e as manobras políticas de opositores e contrariados ao fracasso dos planos --e ao sucesso e habilidade política de FHC.
[interjection] All that information, about the charges being thrown out (again, different than being found innocent) on a technicality are mentioned in the impeachment section, so I don't know why you're bringing it up in this section. The latter part of what you're saying I don't dispute that they're saying that, but it's a world of difference when you impute the failure of Collor's reforms to some conspiracy by FHC's supporters (which a previous version of your text did). That's not necessary. I think Faucher's conclusions are important, but state them as Faucher's conclusions (as I did) and don't use them to justify a totally different point.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Já disse isso várias vezes. A maneira mt rude e tosca com a qual vc "edita" a WP é constrangedora. Até aogra vc não ofereceu nenhuma citação. A minha impressão sobre a WP piora mt a cada vez que vc escreve.
Ludovicapipa yes? 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Rude" needs no translation, "tosca" would probably be translated to "half-assed", when I add the appropriate degree of colloquialism. So you're saying I'm a "rude" editor. I've stuck to the issues at hand, I've responded to every comment you've posed to the utmost degree of civility, and I've tried to involve other editors. You, on the other hand, have questioned my age, questioned my intentions, called me a "communist", rejected a third-opinion, questioned my "education level" and my good faith. No, I am not the rude one here. But maybe you meant rude as "rudimentary", which leads to my "half-assed contributions". No, my original editing contributions are not in contention: yours are. The content I've added to this page is factual, and devoid of opinion, synthesis or interpretation. You yourself have not taken issue with them. That does not absolve your contributions from scrutiny--I am not the one adding original content to this article, you are. We have a legitimate conflict, where you feel your contributions do not go against policy, and I do. You seem to think that Wikipedia is some form of a discussion forum where everyone adds their opinion, and as long as you provide the sources which led you to form your opinion on a particular subject matter, you're fine. That is not what Wikipedia is. If your "impression of Wikipedia is worse every time I write", then I suggest you reassess what Wikipedia is and is not.--Dali-Llama 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New text II

No news, this is the text I wrote and the final one. [19] Ludovicapipa yes? 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not properly formatted, has citations in Portuguese, etc. type out exactly as you intend to add it to the article so I can edit it as well.--Dali-Llama 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Make all comments you want. From there I will format. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand--as it stands, the text is not properly formatted for inclusion. You have Portuguese quotes in the middle and a number of grammatical issues. I'm asking you to finalize your submission, so in essence your final opinion on the matters we've been discussing, and then I'll edit it in the form of a compromise edit. I can't do it with the text as is right now.--Dali-Llama 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)