![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
this is word for word from the referenced Veja article, it looks like. Noticed while I was trying to fix the Google translation. Will need to be rewritten to avoid plagiarism. I can't do this right now. At least it's attributed. The question I had that was making me look at the Portuguese sources is a) what is this about cash tuition and b) it doesn't seem to make sense that Nuzman paid the bribes; is there something I am not catching about the verb tense? Seems like he was more likely a recipient. I need a break from this draft Elinruby ( talk) 08:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
Copy-paste |section |url=http://www.example.org/ |reason=any text here |date=December 2019}}
@ Mathglot: I have found only pt:Predefinição:ESR-VDA, that nominate the article to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion ( Wikipédia:Eliminação semirrápida). I made this question about it. Which text is in copyvio and which is the source?-- PauloMSimoes ( talk) 17:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Text without copyvio.-- PauloMSimoes ( talk) 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Added some (confusing) detail about this to the Delcídio do Amaral section. There is a lot more about this in the pages about Dilma Rousseff (probably Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff), if anyone is interested in bringing it in; I spent some time trying to understand this at some point a while back. I don't think I ever figured out who got the bribes, and Dilma was not charged in this matter, but she was chairman of the Board of Directors of Petrobras at the time. Elinruby ( talk) 00:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
this is from the lead. I think testimonials should be testimony, and that this is saying that when the investigations involved someone then in office, the investigators gathered evidence and depositions for future prosecution. Feedback? Elinruby ( talk) 14:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Right, I think I added that as a see also. It's definitely part of the JBS stuff, but it's not on either list of car wash investigations Elinruby ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I will be mostly away freom the internet until Friday night at the earliest Elinruby ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed the article Fases da Operação Lava Jato at pt-wiki. There is quite a large overlap between it and Desdobramentos. I don't see how it makes sense, even on pt-wiki, to have both of those articles, let alone having two such on en-wiki. So, just putting this out there, because certain questions about the meaning of the sections in Desdobramentos, might be solved by reading the corresponding "phase" in the Fases article.
This also may have implications for two other discussions above, namely, #Article title and desdobramentos, and #Translation help needed. For the former, it may suggest a new title for this article, as well as a possible section re-org. Mathglot ( talk) 01:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Reprising a comment at this section: what if we alter the scope so it’s no longer "offshoots", and we don’t have to define what’s "original OCW" and what's an "offshoot", we just include it all? That would mean a new H3 section at the top for 2014, and the investigations that happened that year, but that just seems to make the article more coherent as a topic.
With the recent rename, and the discovery of the Fases article on pt-wiki, this makes more sense than ever. I'll add a 2014 section with some operations from "original OCW", and then the article topic will make more sense, as well as fitting the new title to a 'T'. We can translate (and summarize) the 2014 sections from Fases. Mathglot ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, after further examination, I'm thinking now that Fases and Desdobramentos are two different things, like two different ways of slicing up the totality of OCW; and if that's the case, then my adding the new section #2014 to this article using the Fases article as a basis, was a mistake and should be undone.
Compare these two Nav templates on pt-wiki:
Note that the first one has the "Offshoot" operations, and matches the section names in the Desdobramentos article we're translating. The exceptions in our article, are the seven operations in 2014 that I just added, which I now believe don't belong there, and one or two other operations like our section #Operation Xepa that recently got added; which perhaps also doesn't belong because it is not in pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato or the first template, because it is considered a "Phase" and not an "Offshoot". This is a distinction I don't yet fully understand.
The second template above shows *only* the "Phases". Note how they are all numbered (1–63, currently) and have names as well. Note that for the most part, the operation names in that template don't match any of the operation names we have in this article, other than the few exceptions noted above. Here's a source that lists all the phases: Operação Lava Jato - Estadão.
We need to unscramble this, to figure out what those two terms (Desdobramentos/Offshoots versus Fases/Phases) really refer to, why it's not just one big list of operations, and why they are divided into two sets like that. Maybe the "Phases" are the pre-planned ones, and the "Offshoots" are ones that got added, from stuff they found out while doing one of the pre-planned ones? Adding Elinruby and ChrisWar666. Mathglot ( talk) 09:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Found yet another source of additional OCW desdobramentos investigations; these involve "offshoots abroad" that include investigations mentioning seventeen countries in total, from Angola to Venezuela. See pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato fora do Brasil. Mathglot ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on my developing, but still imperfect, understanding of the difference between fases and desdobramentos in the context of OCW operations, I believe that the section Operation Xepa doesn't belong in this article, since it's a phase and not an offshoot. See the top of this section, the first subsection ( #Scope change), and pt:Operação Xepa – phase 26. Mathglot ( talk) 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Strangely, there is coverage of Operation Xepa both at the Desdobramentos article ( here) and at the Fases article: ( here, under "26.ª fase"), but the treatment in each of them is not identical. In en-wiki, I've used selective transclusion so we can just have one copy of it to maintain for both articles, but the content currently reflects only the translated Desdobramentos content, even though it resides currently in the "Phases" article. It should have the translated content from Fases Phase 26 merged into it. Mathglot ( talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Was searching for a dead url for Operation Bidone that archive.org didn't have, and discovered that there's an archival service called arquivo.pt that you can try. (It didn't have it either, in this case; but they have plenty of urls archived there.) For scientific topics, you can also try Cornell's arxiv.org, but that doesn't apply to this article. Mathglot ( talk) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Not finding his name on a web search but Filho is very familiar, he comes up in this a lot somehow. Still on a phone in another country, will try to look into this when I am definitely on wifi Elinruby ( talk) 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Since you all seem interested in translating Brazil-related topics, or Lava Jato related topics, more precisely, I suggest we translate pt:Crise econômica no Brasil desde 2014 (to 2014 Brazilian economic crisis) next. Right now I'm working on further expanding it in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but when I'm done, we can start. The article has been written almost entirely by myself (I'd say 95% of it) and the Lava Jato investigations are recognized as one of the causes of this crisis, which is the most severe in decades. So it is in fact related to Lava Jato.
That article is very important, in my opinion, but surprisingly, very few people are working on expanding it, both here and in the pt.wiki. So... here is my suggestion. Cheers. -- Bageense (disc.) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot I've modified the original text in the ptwiki ( see diff) to make the tranlation a bit easier. The text really is poorly written and I'm not quite sure what a "direcionamento de contratos" scheme is. -- Bageense (disc.) 15:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, prepositions are quite confusing... I don't like them at all. They are sometimes illogical, they don't always translate precisely from language to language... it is a mess.
So, the "para" means "to". I can't verify now whether the sentence is true or not, only if it is valid or not, and it is valid.
"Para" and "a" (usually) mean "to". According to Google, the preposition "a" is more common in connection with "propina", but the meanung is the same. If the bribe was paid "by" someone or some company, the preposition would be "por" (or, if there is a determiner, "pelo" or "pela"), but I think that the passive voice should be avoided. And look: "por" can also be translated to "for"! Eu faço isso por ti = I do it for you.
Tomorrow I'll check the paragraph in both languages.
"they gave money out, right? If that's true, then why the word para here?" Just like in English, a preposition is required, since.both of our languages don't have grammatical cases. So we need to use a preppsition to distinguish the direct and indirect objects. In English the preposition is to. Or maybe I havent understood your question correctly. -- Bageense (disc.) 02:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
this is the publisher of a reference (currently 84) which first arises in the Ecuador item of the Abroad section. The url in the pt wiki redirects to itself or something; basically does not appear. When I googled the article title I found it here -> [1]. It isn't clear to me whether this is another newspaper republishing syndicated content, or an edition of the Jornal do Brasil that the pt.wiki gives as the publisher. For now, leaving the publisher as reported by the pt.wiki with the url that works, but I am not certain this is accurate, so could someone who speaks better Portuguese figure this out for me please? Thanks Elinruby ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I keep running into something Google is translating as "tuition". Is this a euphemism like "tips"=bribes? It occurs in several sections I have been in recently, but here it is for example in the Peru item in the Abroad section:
"Onde as investigações estão mais avançadas, a Odebrecht teria desembolsado verbas milionárias em propinas entre 2005 e 2014, sendo 20 milhões de dólares"
I asked this question earlier, but it was buried in several others, and I guess got overlooked. I would like a confirmation please from one of the Portuguese speakers, thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 02:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
just noting a guess here; I think it means marketer. Aha, looks like a typo; marqueteiro does mean marketer. This arises in the El Salvador item in the Abroad section, with respect to João Santana . Based on that page it looks like this is a good guess; but it *is* a guess, which I am noting here based on an abundance of caution Elinruby ( talk) 03:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to start a section where I can quickly note down English names of different operations as I come across them in reliable English sources. This will give us more confidence in using English names than translating the operation names ourselves. I'll just add them as I find them; please feel free to do the same. Mathglot ( talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that Agencia Brasil is a good place to look for English operation names; the following search may help:
I'm changing the order of these so that they are alphabetical. That means, the sig timestamps may be out of order. Mathglot ( talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
List of English names of OCW operations with refs
|
---|
Please add your entry in alphabetical order of Portuguese operation name, to facilitate look-up, and sign as usual ~~~~.
References
|
Bageense seems to disagree with me on this, and normally I would bow to his Portuguese expertise, but "Stone in the Way" strikes me as awkward. Admittedly I am basing my translation on cognates (Camino in Spanish is definitely a road) and perhaps there is a shift in meaning with the Portuguese caminho. However, while "way" does mean road in English in a way, it is a rather antiquated meaning. He seems quite firm about this, but I am inclined to think that either he or I misunderstands something. Just noting it as a question; any drive-by copy-editing I do is of course open to discussion. Input welcome Elinruby ( talk) 22:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The term propina keeps cropping up in most of the operations on the pt side, but this can actually have two meanings in English, either bribe or kickback. Some reliable English news stories about some of these operations, like this Reuters article on Brazil Cost, use kickback. The two terms are not synonymous in English, although they are closely related. If you go into a Consulate and hand an official a bag of cash, in return for a visa, that's a bribe. If you're a company that makes widgets, and you talk to the director of procurement of the Defense Department and agree to sell them widgets for an inflated cost but in reality you secretly pass a percentage of each invoice back to the director's personal account, that's a kickback. In the first case, money is going in one direction, in the second, it's going in two directions, which I think is maybe the defining characteristic of a kickback. The money that goes to the director, is also a bribe; that's the portion of the invoice that is kicked back to him. Btw, pt also has soborno, but I'm not aware if there's any difference between that and propina, other than the latter also has other meanings, like 'fee' or 'tip' and soborno doesn't, afaik. (Some sources talk about kickbacks being more incremental, and attached to ongoing invoices. Others mention that a bribe is connected with official action, whereas a kickback doesn't have to be.) Since many of the fraudulent schemes involving money exchanges in Car Wash are for contracts of various kinds and involve money going in two directions, I think the more accurate translation for many cases of propina in the article is actually kickback; but we'd have to go through them case-by-case, to make sure. From google ngrams: the top noun postpositions with "bribery" (1950-2008) are: scandal, charges, case, laws, scheme, statute, attempt. For "kickback", it's: statute, scheme, payment, scandal, laws, arrangements, money. Mathglot ( talk) 10:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Is the current strategy to translate first, perhaps expand upon? But maintain a correspondence from the portuguese to the English article? I am ok with whatever, but want to touch base in case, so we don't step on each other. I don't want to inconvenience someone else. A couple of points for discussion:
PS - Huawei and USMCA need huge amounts of help and the article on 5G is probably worse Elinruby ( talk) 12:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It'd make more sense to translate pt:Fases da Operação Lava Jato first. I thought it already had been translated. The article is about the actual phases of the operation, and not just its developments or offshoots.-- Bageense (disc.) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
this is word for word from the referenced Veja article, it looks like. Noticed while I was trying to fix the Google translation. Will need to be rewritten to avoid plagiarism. I can't do this right now. At least it's attributed. The question I had that was making me look at the Portuguese sources is a) what is this about cash tuition and b) it doesn't seem to make sense that Nuzman paid the bribes; is there something I am not catching about the verb tense? Seems like he was more likely a recipient. I need a break from this draft Elinruby ( talk) 08:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
Copy-paste |section |url=http://www.example.org/ |reason=any text here |date=December 2019}}
@ Mathglot: I have found only pt:Predefinição:ESR-VDA, that nominate the article to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion ( Wikipédia:Eliminação semirrápida). I made this question about it. Which text is in copyvio and which is the source?-- PauloMSimoes ( talk) 17:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Text without copyvio.-- PauloMSimoes ( talk) 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Added some (confusing) detail about this to the Delcídio do Amaral section. There is a lot more about this in the pages about Dilma Rousseff (probably Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff), if anyone is interested in bringing it in; I spent some time trying to understand this at some point a while back. I don't think I ever figured out who got the bribes, and Dilma was not charged in this matter, but she was chairman of the Board of Directors of Petrobras at the time. Elinruby ( talk) 00:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
this is from the lead. I think testimonials should be testimony, and that this is saying that when the investigations involved someone then in office, the investigators gathered evidence and depositions for future prosecution. Feedback? Elinruby ( talk) 14:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Right, I think I added that as a see also. It's definitely part of the JBS stuff, but it's not on either list of car wash investigations Elinruby ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I will be mostly away freom the internet until Friday night at the earliest Elinruby ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed the article Fases da Operação Lava Jato at pt-wiki. There is quite a large overlap between it and Desdobramentos. I don't see how it makes sense, even on pt-wiki, to have both of those articles, let alone having two such on en-wiki. So, just putting this out there, because certain questions about the meaning of the sections in Desdobramentos, might be solved by reading the corresponding "phase" in the Fases article.
This also may have implications for two other discussions above, namely, #Article title and desdobramentos, and #Translation help needed. For the former, it may suggest a new title for this article, as well as a possible section re-org. Mathglot ( talk) 01:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Reprising a comment at this section: what if we alter the scope so it’s no longer "offshoots", and we don’t have to define what’s "original OCW" and what's an "offshoot", we just include it all? That would mean a new H3 section at the top for 2014, and the investigations that happened that year, but that just seems to make the article more coherent as a topic.
With the recent rename, and the discovery of the Fases article on pt-wiki, this makes more sense than ever. I'll add a 2014 section with some operations from "original OCW", and then the article topic will make more sense, as well as fitting the new title to a 'T'. We can translate (and summarize) the 2014 sections from Fases. Mathglot ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, after further examination, I'm thinking now that Fases and Desdobramentos are two different things, like two different ways of slicing up the totality of OCW; and if that's the case, then my adding the new section #2014 to this article using the Fases article as a basis, was a mistake and should be undone.
Compare these two Nav templates on pt-wiki:
Note that the first one has the "Offshoot" operations, and matches the section names in the Desdobramentos article we're translating. The exceptions in our article, are the seven operations in 2014 that I just added, which I now believe don't belong there, and one or two other operations like our section #Operation Xepa that recently got added; which perhaps also doesn't belong because it is not in pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato or the first template, because it is considered a "Phase" and not an "Offshoot". This is a distinction I don't yet fully understand.
The second template above shows *only* the "Phases". Note how they are all numbered (1–63, currently) and have names as well. Note that for the most part, the operation names in that template don't match any of the operation names we have in this article, other than the few exceptions noted above. Here's a source that lists all the phases: Operação Lava Jato - Estadão.
We need to unscramble this, to figure out what those two terms (Desdobramentos/Offshoots versus Fases/Phases) really refer to, why it's not just one big list of operations, and why they are divided into two sets like that. Maybe the "Phases" are the pre-planned ones, and the "Offshoots" are ones that got added, from stuff they found out while doing one of the pre-planned ones? Adding Elinruby and ChrisWar666. Mathglot ( talk) 09:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Found yet another source of additional OCW desdobramentos investigations; these involve "offshoots abroad" that include investigations mentioning seventeen countries in total, from Angola to Venezuela. See pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato fora do Brasil. Mathglot ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on my developing, but still imperfect, understanding of the difference between fases and desdobramentos in the context of OCW operations, I believe that the section Operation Xepa doesn't belong in this article, since it's a phase and not an offshoot. See the top of this section, the first subsection ( #Scope change), and pt:Operação Xepa – phase 26. Mathglot ( talk) 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Strangely, there is coverage of Operation Xepa both at the Desdobramentos article ( here) and at the Fases article: ( here, under "26.ª fase"), but the treatment in each of them is not identical. In en-wiki, I've used selective transclusion so we can just have one copy of it to maintain for both articles, but the content currently reflects only the translated Desdobramentos content, even though it resides currently in the "Phases" article. It should have the translated content from Fases Phase 26 merged into it. Mathglot ( talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Was searching for a dead url for Operation Bidone that archive.org didn't have, and discovered that there's an archival service called arquivo.pt that you can try. (It didn't have it either, in this case; but they have plenty of urls archived there.) For scientific topics, you can also try Cornell's arxiv.org, but that doesn't apply to this article. Mathglot ( talk) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Not finding his name on a web search but Filho is very familiar, he comes up in this a lot somehow. Still on a phone in another country, will try to look into this when I am definitely on wifi Elinruby ( talk) 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Since you all seem interested in translating Brazil-related topics, or Lava Jato related topics, more precisely, I suggest we translate pt:Crise econômica no Brasil desde 2014 (to 2014 Brazilian economic crisis) next. Right now I'm working on further expanding it in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but when I'm done, we can start. The article has been written almost entirely by myself (I'd say 95% of it) and the Lava Jato investigations are recognized as one of the causes of this crisis, which is the most severe in decades. So it is in fact related to Lava Jato.
That article is very important, in my opinion, but surprisingly, very few people are working on expanding it, both here and in the pt.wiki. So... here is my suggestion. Cheers. -- Bageense (disc.) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot I've modified the original text in the ptwiki ( see diff) to make the tranlation a bit easier. The text really is poorly written and I'm not quite sure what a "direcionamento de contratos" scheme is. -- Bageense (disc.) 15:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, prepositions are quite confusing... I don't like them at all. They are sometimes illogical, they don't always translate precisely from language to language... it is a mess.
So, the "para" means "to". I can't verify now whether the sentence is true or not, only if it is valid or not, and it is valid.
"Para" and "a" (usually) mean "to". According to Google, the preposition "a" is more common in connection with "propina", but the meanung is the same. If the bribe was paid "by" someone or some company, the preposition would be "por" (or, if there is a determiner, "pelo" or "pela"), but I think that the passive voice should be avoided. And look: "por" can also be translated to "for"! Eu faço isso por ti = I do it for you.
Tomorrow I'll check the paragraph in both languages.
"they gave money out, right? If that's true, then why the word para here?" Just like in English, a preposition is required, since.both of our languages don't have grammatical cases. So we need to use a preppsition to distinguish the direct and indirect objects. In English the preposition is to. Or maybe I havent understood your question correctly. -- Bageense (disc.) 02:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
this is the publisher of a reference (currently 84) which first arises in the Ecuador item of the Abroad section. The url in the pt wiki redirects to itself or something; basically does not appear. When I googled the article title I found it here -> [1]. It isn't clear to me whether this is another newspaper republishing syndicated content, or an edition of the Jornal do Brasil that the pt.wiki gives as the publisher. For now, leaving the publisher as reported by the pt.wiki with the url that works, but I am not certain this is accurate, so could someone who speaks better Portuguese figure this out for me please? Thanks Elinruby ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I keep running into something Google is translating as "tuition". Is this a euphemism like "tips"=bribes? It occurs in several sections I have been in recently, but here it is for example in the Peru item in the Abroad section:
"Onde as investigações estão mais avançadas, a Odebrecht teria desembolsado verbas milionárias em propinas entre 2005 e 2014, sendo 20 milhões de dólares"
I asked this question earlier, but it was buried in several others, and I guess got overlooked. I would like a confirmation please from one of the Portuguese speakers, thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 02:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
just noting a guess here; I think it means marketer. Aha, looks like a typo; marqueteiro does mean marketer. This arises in the El Salvador item in the Abroad section, with respect to João Santana . Based on that page it looks like this is a good guess; but it *is* a guess, which I am noting here based on an abundance of caution Elinruby ( talk) 03:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to start a section where I can quickly note down English names of different operations as I come across them in reliable English sources. This will give us more confidence in using English names than translating the operation names ourselves. I'll just add them as I find them; please feel free to do the same. Mathglot ( talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that Agencia Brasil is a good place to look for English operation names; the following search may help:
I'm changing the order of these so that they are alphabetical. That means, the sig timestamps may be out of order. Mathglot ( talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
List of English names of OCW operations with refs
|
---|
Please add your entry in alphabetical order of Portuguese operation name, to facilitate look-up, and sign as usual ~~~~.
References
|
Bageense seems to disagree with me on this, and normally I would bow to his Portuguese expertise, but "Stone in the Way" strikes me as awkward. Admittedly I am basing my translation on cognates (Camino in Spanish is definitely a road) and perhaps there is a shift in meaning with the Portuguese caminho. However, while "way" does mean road in English in a way, it is a rather antiquated meaning. He seems quite firm about this, but I am inclined to think that either he or I misunderstands something. Just noting it as a question; any drive-by copy-editing I do is of course open to discussion. Input welcome Elinruby ( talk) 22:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The term propina keeps cropping up in most of the operations on the pt side, but this can actually have two meanings in English, either bribe or kickback. Some reliable English news stories about some of these operations, like this Reuters article on Brazil Cost, use kickback. The two terms are not synonymous in English, although they are closely related. If you go into a Consulate and hand an official a bag of cash, in return for a visa, that's a bribe. If you're a company that makes widgets, and you talk to the director of procurement of the Defense Department and agree to sell them widgets for an inflated cost but in reality you secretly pass a percentage of each invoice back to the director's personal account, that's a kickback. In the first case, money is going in one direction, in the second, it's going in two directions, which I think is maybe the defining characteristic of a kickback. The money that goes to the director, is also a bribe; that's the portion of the invoice that is kicked back to him. Btw, pt also has soborno, but I'm not aware if there's any difference between that and propina, other than the latter also has other meanings, like 'fee' or 'tip' and soborno doesn't, afaik. (Some sources talk about kickbacks being more incremental, and attached to ongoing invoices. Others mention that a bribe is connected with official action, whereas a kickback doesn't have to be.) Since many of the fraudulent schemes involving money exchanges in Car Wash are for contracts of various kinds and involve money going in two directions, I think the more accurate translation for many cases of propina in the article is actually kickback; but we'd have to go through them case-by-case, to make sure. From google ngrams: the top noun postpositions with "bribery" (1950-2008) are: scandal, charges, case, laws, scheme, statute, attempt. For "kickback", it's: statute, scheme, payment, scandal, laws, arrangements, money. Mathglot ( talk) 10:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Is the current strategy to translate first, perhaps expand upon? But maintain a correspondence from the portuguese to the English article? I am ok with whatever, but want to touch base in case, so we don't step on each other. I don't want to inconvenience someone else. A couple of points for discussion:
PS - Huawei and USMCA need huge amounts of help and the article on 5G is probably worse Elinruby ( talk) 12:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It'd make more sense to translate pt:Fases da Operação Lava Jato first. I thought it already had been translated. The article is about the actual phases of the operation, and not just its developments or offshoots.-- Bageense (disc.) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)