This page 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. |
Under Zélia´s tenure, Brasil had a period of major changes, featuring what ISTOÉ magazine called an "unprecedented" "revolution" < ref > [1] "Revista Isto é" < /ref > in many levels of public administration: "privatization, opening its market to free trade, encouraging industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction."< ref > [2] "Scielo" < /ref >.
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.
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 basis for the implementation of the Plano Real" < ref > [3] < /ref >.
Part of Collor´s neoliberal program was followed by his successors< ref > [4] < / ref > Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva [FOLHA]. Collor's administration privatized 15 different companies (including Acesita, and began the process of privatization for others, such as Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce [SCIELO].< ref > [5] "Scielo" < /ref >.
During the course of his government, Collor was accused of condoning an influence peddling scheme. The accusations weighed on the government and they took Collor and his team to an institutional crisis leading to a loss of credibility that reached the finance minister Zélia < ref > [6] </ref >.
This political crisis had negative consequences on his ability to carry out his policies and reforms.< ref > [7] < /ref >. The Plano Collor I, under Zélia would be renewed with the implementation of the Plano Collor II; the government's loss of prestige would make that follow-up plan short-lived and largely ineffective. < ref > < ref > "Restaurando a Governabilidade: O Brasil (afinal) se Acertou?" < /ref >. Zélia's fall after the failure of Plano Collor I led to her substitution by Marcílio Marques Moreira and his Plano Collor II. It tried to correct some aspects of the first plan, but was too late. The Collor government was paralyzed by the fast deterioration of Collor's image, through a succession of corruption accusations.< ref > [8] < /ref >.
The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government), to 400 percent in 1992 and to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office) [1], continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)< ref > [9] < /ref >. < ref > [10] < /ref >.
According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University [2], the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, provoked by Collor's brother, Pedro Collor, and other social and political sectors.< ref > "Restaurando a Governabilidade: O Brasil (afinal) se Acertou?" < /ref >, that were contradicted by the calendar of Collor's economic politics.
Ludovicapipa yes? 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed:
So that's it... I've kept nearly all of your conclusions, and added a couple of sources of my own.-- Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you not only edited my version, but you also deleted few parts of mine. Why? [: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&diff=154031871&oldid=154031827] Ludovicapipa yes? 09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Impeachment process in the midle of the Collor´s initiatives subtitle. Where is the last paragrapgh concerning inflation rate? You deleted? Is this some kind of joke? The article is not expecting yr conclucion. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[11] Ludovicapipa yes? 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After facing probl. to make it available online, I finally could do that. I wil fix links, sources and citations later. Ludovicapipa yes? 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The question is: Should we attribute inflation rates to a plan 16 years and one intervening plan after it was implemented? Here are the two alternative (and conflicting) paragraphs:
Thus, as a result of the setting off of this program, 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, 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.
versus
The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government) to 400 percent in 1991, then climbing to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office),[6] continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)
So, in the first year of this economic program, inflation rates dropped to 400%, only to climb back to 2,000% until another economic program, the Plano Real in 1994, and knocked out inflation. To me it seems obvious that if the plan failed (witnessed by inflation rates climbing) and whole other economic plan was required, that one can't credit Plano Collor for inflation rates that happened 16 years and three presidents later. -- Dali-Llama 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ludovica, can you indicate where in the Faucher source you're finding this conclusion:
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 Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as a finance minister, implemented Plano Real, finding political support. Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process, he 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.
Thanks.-- Dali-Llama 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I plan to move forward with Collor´s article, develop even more. As for the last paragrapgh it´s wrong: Faucher says FHC benefited from Collor´s impeachment processand hyperinfla.. You AGAIN inverted the text. Ludovicapipa yes? 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed this paragraph: For POV matters, I removed this "The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government) to 400 percent in 1991, then climbing to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office),[6] continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)[7]".
It makes the reader think Plano Collor ended as flop. Since his reforms, macroeconomic agenda remained until our days one never say that or induce reader to believe that. Ludovicapipa yes? 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Issue at hand: Location of an opinion within an article and disclosure of opinion's source.
Ludovica's revision:
Part of Collor´s neoliberal program was followed by his successors: [5] Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva. Collor's administration privatized 15 different companies (including Acesita, and began the process of privatization for others, such as Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce. [6]. According to Bresser Pereira: "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because he could implement very brave and necessary reforms, and he pursued debt reduction. Although previous governments tried the same since 1987, it was during Collor´s admiminstration that old and obsolete ideias were faced and fought against (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms oriented towards free trade and privatization." [7].
Dalillama's revision:
According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University, [8] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies. [6] Bresser Pereira, a minister in the previous Sarney and the following Fernando Henrique Cardoso administrations, stated that "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because implemented brave and very necessary reforms, and he pursued fiscal adjustments. Although other attempts had been made since 1987, it was during Collor's administration that old statism ideas were confronted and combatted (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms geared towards free trade and privatization." [9].
Bresser Pereira is providing an opinion. His background is important in determining what his POV may be and whether or not he is a reliable source. I've added disclosure to reflect that. I've also corrected translation (not really material changes, but certainly grammar and spelling is a factor). Finally, I've relocated what is a very strong opinion to the bottom of the section, along with another opinion. Bresser is talking in general terms as a perspective on the Collor administration, and there's no need to have opinion in the middle of an article with a narrative of events.-- Dali-Llama 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My third opinion: first, I feel that Bresser's opinion should be kept. As he was a minister in Sarney's and FHC's governments, his opinion is valuable, and it counter-balances Faucher's opinion, thus both opinions should be placed side-by-side (like Dalillama's version), but maybe Bresser's opinion should be placed first and then Faucher's opinion should be placed next to it, so the paragraph starting with Part of Collor´s neoliberal program... and the next paragraph will be more connected. The paragraph starting with Part of Collor´s neoliberal program... should also be expanded to explain a little more the privatizations during Collor's administration (obviously reliable sources should be provided), as currently this paragraph is too short. -- Carioca 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I´ve changed the structure of the paragraph --it´s a new one. it´s a new edition. Nor mine, nor yrs, nor hisis valid --it´s new one. Ludovicapipa yes? 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Enfim como disse, "de novo", ora, vc faz de propósito essa guerra de edições? Primeiro deleta dizendo que não traduzi, depois que não citei o autor, depois muda de lugar...Ora, meu caro, mudei o organizei o texto que estava bagunçado. E como disse, não é a terceira vez que ignoro. Quais sãos aso outras duas? E se fosse a terceira, não está na hora dessa terceira opinião, que vc solicita a cada letra que ponho, ficar alguma vez do meu lado?
1. "The end result" foi a outra, a segunda? Bom, foi considerado POV --não foi ignorado. Qual a outra que ignorei? Ludovicapipa yes? 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1. What´s Coren´s?
2. As I´ve said, carioca´s on inflation was a POV and was deleted by consensus.
3. I didn´t ignore the third. You asked for his third opinion concerning the citation but who says it was the final place for me? I reorganized the text. The whole text. Bresser quote is fully related with the firts paragrapgh. As you can see yr behavior is damages my editions, once you delete, revert and does all that even before I finally decide where I really want to leave the paragrapgh. Ludovicapipa yes? 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are you going to log a complaint against me on WP:ANI or are you going to keep making threats and badmouthing me to other editors? You already had two administrators (Ryan and Carioca) ignore you. If you think there's some conspiracy, then open it up to all the other administrators.-- Dali-Llama 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Lula liga-se a Collor qdo cito que a Telebrás gerou receita de impostos sem precedentes para o governo Lula --vc não está sendo "nice" pq a fonte citada não os relaciona explicitamente;
Heya Ludovicapipa, I'd like to walk through those issues with you, but my portugese is very bad. Could you translate for me please? -- Kim Bruning 02:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in a request for page protection and Riana granted it, to prevent further edit wars. Considering Carioca's and now Kim's involvement, hopefully we'll sort this out soon enough.-- Dali-Llama 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Bresser Pereira, a minister in the previous Sarney and the following Fernando Henrique Cardoso administrations, stated that "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because implemented brave and very necessary reforms, and he pursued fiscal adjustments. Although other attempts had been made since 1987, it was during Collor's administration that old statism ideas were confronted and combatted (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms geared towards free trade and privatization." [9] According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University,[10] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies.
1. Can you explain what´s the relation between Faucher and Bresser, since one is talking abt politics and the other abt economy? Ludovicapipa yes? 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Under Zélia´s tenure, Brazil had a period of major changes, featuring what ISTOÉ magazine called an "unprecedented" "revolution" [2] in many levels of public administration: "privatization, opening its market to free trade, encouraging industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction. [3]. According to Bresser Pereira: "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because he could implement very brave and necessary reforms, and he pursued debt reduction. Although previous governments tried the same since 1987, it was during Collor´s admiminstration that old and obsolete ideias were faced and fought against (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms oriented towards free trade and privatization
Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?-- Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?-- Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. For me the problem is still inserting needless opinion inside the article. This article is incredibly opinionated: heavy on opinion and light on facts. Segregating opinion to the end of the article is what myself and Carioca had agreed on, and unless you can convince us otherwise or find others who share your point of view, the status quo remains. If you'd like to bring Carioca back into the discussion, or anyone else for that matter, you're welcome to do so, but as I've said, if you look a few sections above in this talk page you'll see that the segregation of opinion to the end of the section is what we had agreed upon and has been the status quo for the past few months.-- Dali-Llama 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
For all of this, if you disagree, I'll ask for a third-opinion.-- Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The text's long-standing revision includes the following, under the subject's corruption allegations and subsequent impeachment:
Is it necessary to add the following in the "Post-presidency" section:
My opinion is no. There is no need to state the same thing twice, especially when there is a dedicated section for events surrounding this incident.-- Dali-Llama 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the third opinion request. I see what you're saying; since the sections are right next to one another, it does seem a little redundant. However, that the "Post-presidency" section seems to be a timeline changes things some. People don't always read our articles straight through, and timelines definitely draw the eye. Personally, I would include both that line and one before it listing the impeachment. That is to say, I'd list the ending of the presidency and all major events since, including the lifting of corruption charges. Were it fleshed out into a full, multi-paragraph section, I would get rid of the mention of the impeachment, but I'd probably still keep at least a passing reference to the court decision, as for somebody starting at the section it would help contextualize whatever else he was doing then.
I'd also like to offer some unsolicited opinions on the "Corruption charges and impeachment" section. I think it's generally good, but I believe it should be a top-level section, and not a subsection of "Rewards" (which is probably better titled "Awards"; "reward" implies a quid pro quo situation). The unattributed quote at the end, though, is unacceptable. Unattributed, factual-sounding quotes must be WP:NPOV summaries. That is taken directly from the subject's web site, which we must presume to be biased. If Brazil's highest court actually found him "innocent", find a legal scholar or some other neutral person saying so, and quote that. Quoting the court's decision would be fine as well. Note, however, that saying somebody is "not guilty" means that the charges couldn't be proved, which is what courts of my acquaintance generally do. Declaring that somebody is "innocent" is a much higher bar. It's also possible to write the closing paragraph in terms of multiple views. E.g., "Although John Smith maintains his innocence[1], most commentators outside his political party believe that he escaped conviction on a technicality. [2][3]"
I hope that helps. Good luck with the article! William Pietri 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue at hand:
User Lulu Margarida has added content on the article's subject's achievements and corruption scandal and referenced the article's subject's own website as the source.
Note: this issue is also relevant to the articles Plano Collor and Zélia Cardoso de Mello, as they also cite the same source in the same context
This seems to me a blatant violation of WP:SELFPUB: one cannot consider Collor an NPOV source for Collor when it deals with issues such as legacy and achievements. Were these biographical issues (where he was born, etc.) that's another issue. But when you're throwing out vague statements such as "Decreased the government payroll" and "he is the only politician in Brazil to have an officially clear record", Collor can't be used as a reliable source.-- Dali-Llama 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, guys. This isn't a formal third opinion, as I don't have time to dig into the background of this enough. But my general rule is that people are almost always valid sources about their own opinions, and rarely valid sources for facts about themselves. So if you were to cite the White House web site, you could write, "George Bush claims the United States does not torture." But you could not write, "The United States does not torture," not based on his claim alone. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, these are my opinions:
Hope that helps. - Amatulic 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
scielo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page 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. |
Under Zélia´s tenure, Brasil had a period of major changes, featuring what ISTOÉ magazine called an "unprecedented" "revolution" < ref > [1] "Revista Isto é" < /ref > in many levels of public administration: "privatization, opening its market to free trade, encouraging industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction."< ref > [2] "Scielo" < /ref >.
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.
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 basis for the implementation of the Plano Real" < ref > [3] < /ref >.
Part of Collor´s neoliberal program was followed by his successors< ref > [4] < / ref > Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva [FOLHA]. Collor's administration privatized 15 different companies (including Acesita, and began the process of privatization for others, such as Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce [SCIELO].< ref > [5] "Scielo" < /ref >.
During the course of his government, Collor was accused of condoning an influence peddling scheme. The accusations weighed on the government and they took Collor and his team to an institutional crisis leading to a loss of credibility that reached the finance minister Zélia < ref > [6] </ref >.
This political crisis had negative consequences on his ability to carry out his policies and reforms.< ref > [7] < /ref >. The Plano Collor I, under Zélia would be renewed with the implementation of the Plano Collor II; the government's loss of prestige would make that follow-up plan short-lived and largely ineffective. < ref > < ref > "Restaurando a Governabilidade: O Brasil (afinal) se Acertou?" < /ref >. Zélia's fall after the failure of Plano Collor I led to her substitution by Marcílio Marques Moreira and his Plano Collor II. It tried to correct some aspects of the first plan, but was too late. The Collor government was paralyzed by the fast deterioration of Collor's image, through a succession of corruption accusations.< ref > [8] < /ref >.
The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government), to 400 percent in 1992 and to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office) [1], continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)< ref > [9] < /ref >. < ref > [10] < /ref >.
According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University [2], the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, provoked by Collor's brother, Pedro Collor, and other social and political sectors.< ref > "Restaurando a Governabilidade: O Brasil (afinal) se Acertou?" < /ref >, that were contradicted by the calendar of Collor's economic politics.
Ludovicapipa yes? 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed:
So that's it... I've kept nearly all of your conclusions, and added a couple of sources of my own.-- Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you not only edited my version, but you also deleted few parts of mine. Why? [: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&diff=154031871&oldid=154031827] Ludovicapipa yes? 09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Impeachment process in the midle of the Collor´s initiatives subtitle. Where is the last paragrapgh concerning inflation rate? You deleted? Is this some kind of joke? The article is not expecting yr conclucion. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[11] Ludovicapipa yes? 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After facing probl. to make it available online, I finally could do that. I wil fix links, sources and citations later. Ludovicapipa yes? 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The question is: Should we attribute inflation rates to a plan 16 years and one intervening plan after it was implemented? Here are the two alternative (and conflicting) paragraphs:
Thus, as a result of the setting off of this program, 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, 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.
versus
The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government) to 400 percent in 1991, then climbing to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office),[6] continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)
So, in the first year of this economic program, inflation rates dropped to 400%, only to climb back to 2,000% until another economic program, the Plano Real in 1994, and knocked out inflation. To me it seems obvious that if the plan failed (witnessed by inflation rates climbing) and whole other economic plan was required, that one can't credit Plano Collor for inflation rates that happened 16 years and three presidents later. -- Dali-Llama 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ludovica, can you indicate where in the Faucher source you're finding this conclusion:
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 Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as a finance minister, implemented Plano Real, finding political support. Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process, he 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.
Thanks.-- Dali-Llama 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I plan to move forward with Collor´s article, develop even more. As for the last paragrapgh it´s wrong: Faucher says FHC benefited from Collor´s impeachment processand hyperinfla.. You AGAIN inverted the text. Ludovicapipa yes? 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed this paragraph: For POV matters, I removed this "The end result of the Plano Collor was that yearly inflation was reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government) to 400 percent in 1991, then climbing to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office),[6] continuing to rise again to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office)[7]".
It makes the reader think Plano Collor ended as flop. Since his reforms, macroeconomic agenda remained until our days one never say that or induce reader to believe that. Ludovicapipa yes? 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Issue at hand: Location of an opinion within an article and disclosure of opinion's source.
Ludovica's revision:
Part of Collor´s neoliberal program was followed by his successors: [5] Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva. Collor's administration privatized 15 different companies (including Acesita, and began the process of privatization for others, such as Embraer, Telebrás and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce. [6]. According to Bresser Pereira: "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because he could implement very brave and necessary reforms, and he pursued debt reduction. Although previous governments tried the same since 1987, it was during Collor´s admiminstration that old and obsolete ideias were faced and fought against (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms oriented towards free trade and privatization." [7].
Dalillama's revision:
According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University, [8] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies. [6] Bresser Pereira, a minister in the previous Sarney and the following Fernando Henrique Cardoso administrations, stated that "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because implemented brave and very necessary reforms, and he pursued fiscal adjustments. Although other attempts had been made since 1987, it was during Collor's administration that old statism ideas were confronted and combatted (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms geared towards free trade and privatization." [9].
Bresser Pereira is providing an opinion. His background is important in determining what his POV may be and whether or not he is a reliable source. I've added disclosure to reflect that. I've also corrected translation (not really material changes, but certainly grammar and spelling is a factor). Finally, I've relocated what is a very strong opinion to the bottom of the section, along with another opinion. Bresser is talking in general terms as a perspective on the Collor administration, and there's no need to have opinion in the middle of an article with a narrative of events.-- Dali-Llama 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My third opinion: first, I feel that Bresser's opinion should be kept. As he was a minister in Sarney's and FHC's governments, his opinion is valuable, and it counter-balances Faucher's opinion, thus both opinions should be placed side-by-side (like Dalillama's version), but maybe Bresser's opinion should be placed first and then Faucher's opinion should be placed next to it, so the paragraph starting with Part of Collor´s neoliberal program... and the next paragraph will be more connected. The paragraph starting with Part of Collor´s neoliberal program... should also be expanded to explain a little more the privatizations during Collor's administration (obviously reliable sources should be provided), as currently this paragraph is too short. -- Carioca 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I´ve changed the structure of the paragraph --it´s a new one. it´s a new edition. Nor mine, nor yrs, nor hisis valid --it´s new one. Ludovicapipa yes? 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Enfim como disse, "de novo", ora, vc faz de propósito essa guerra de edições? Primeiro deleta dizendo que não traduzi, depois que não citei o autor, depois muda de lugar...Ora, meu caro, mudei o organizei o texto que estava bagunçado. E como disse, não é a terceira vez que ignoro. Quais sãos aso outras duas? E se fosse a terceira, não está na hora dessa terceira opinião, que vc solicita a cada letra que ponho, ficar alguma vez do meu lado?
1. "The end result" foi a outra, a segunda? Bom, foi considerado POV --não foi ignorado. Qual a outra que ignorei? Ludovicapipa yes? 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1. What´s Coren´s?
2. As I´ve said, carioca´s on inflation was a POV and was deleted by consensus.
3. I didn´t ignore the third. You asked for his third opinion concerning the citation but who says it was the final place for me? I reorganized the text. The whole text. Bresser quote is fully related with the firts paragrapgh. As you can see yr behavior is damages my editions, once you delete, revert and does all that even before I finally decide where I really want to leave the paragrapgh. Ludovicapipa yes? 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are you going to log a complaint against me on WP:ANI or are you going to keep making threats and badmouthing me to other editors? You already had two administrators (Ryan and Carioca) ignore you. If you think there's some conspiracy, then open it up to all the other administrators.-- Dali-Llama 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Lula liga-se a Collor qdo cito que a Telebrás gerou receita de impostos sem precedentes para o governo Lula --vc não está sendo "nice" pq a fonte citada não os relaciona explicitamente;
Heya Ludovicapipa, I'd like to walk through those issues with you, but my portugese is very bad. Could you translate for me please? -- Kim Bruning 02:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in a request for page protection and Riana granted it, to prevent further edit wars. Considering Carioca's and now Kim's involvement, hopefully we'll sort this out soon enough.-- Dali-Llama 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Bresser Pereira, a minister in the previous Sarney and the following Fernando Henrique Cardoso administrations, stated that "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because implemented brave and very necessary reforms, and he pursued fiscal adjustments. Although other attempts had been made since 1987, it was during Collor's administration that old statism ideas were confronted and combatted (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms geared towards free trade and privatization." [9] According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University,[10] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies.
1. Can you explain what´s the relation between Faucher and Bresser, since one is talking abt politics and the other abt economy? Ludovicapipa yes? 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Under Zélia´s tenure, Brazil had a period of major changes, featuring what ISTOÉ magazine called an "unprecedented" "revolution" [2] in many levels of public administration: "privatization, opening its market to free trade, encouraging industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction. [3]. According to Bresser Pereira: "Collor changed the political agenda in the country, because he could implement very brave and necessary reforms, and he pursued debt reduction. Although previous governments tried the same since 1987, it was during Collor´s admiminstration that old and obsolete ideias were faced and fought against (...) by a a brave agenda of economic reforms oriented towards free trade and privatization
Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?-- Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?-- Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. For me the problem is still inserting needless opinion inside the article. This article is incredibly opinionated: heavy on opinion and light on facts. Segregating opinion to the end of the article is what myself and Carioca had agreed on, and unless you can convince us otherwise or find others who share your point of view, the status quo remains. If you'd like to bring Carioca back into the discussion, or anyone else for that matter, you're welcome to do so, but as I've said, if you look a few sections above in this talk page you'll see that the segregation of opinion to the end of the section is what we had agreed upon and has been the status quo for the past few months.-- Dali-Llama 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
For all of this, if you disagree, I'll ask for a third-opinion.-- Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The text's long-standing revision includes the following, under the subject's corruption allegations and subsequent impeachment:
Is it necessary to add the following in the "Post-presidency" section:
My opinion is no. There is no need to state the same thing twice, especially when there is a dedicated section for events surrounding this incident.-- Dali-Llama 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the third opinion request. I see what you're saying; since the sections are right next to one another, it does seem a little redundant. However, that the "Post-presidency" section seems to be a timeline changes things some. People don't always read our articles straight through, and timelines definitely draw the eye. Personally, I would include both that line and one before it listing the impeachment. That is to say, I'd list the ending of the presidency and all major events since, including the lifting of corruption charges. Were it fleshed out into a full, multi-paragraph section, I would get rid of the mention of the impeachment, but I'd probably still keep at least a passing reference to the court decision, as for somebody starting at the section it would help contextualize whatever else he was doing then.
I'd also like to offer some unsolicited opinions on the "Corruption charges and impeachment" section. I think it's generally good, but I believe it should be a top-level section, and not a subsection of "Rewards" (which is probably better titled "Awards"; "reward" implies a quid pro quo situation). The unattributed quote at the end, though, is unacceptable. Unattributed, factual-sounding quotes must be WP:NPOV summaries. That is taken directly from the subject's web site, which we must presume to be biased. If Brazil's highest court actually found him "innocent", find a legal scholar or some other neutral person saying so, and quote that. Quoting the court's decision would be fine as well. Note, however, that saying somebody is "not guilty" means that the charges couldn't be proved, which is what courts of my acquaintance generally do. Declaring that somebody is "innocent" is a much higher bar. It's also possible to write the closing paragraph in terms of multiple views. E.g., "Although John Smith maintains his innocence[1], most commentators outside his political party believe that he escaped conviction on a technicality. [2][3]"
I hope that helps. Good luck with the article! William Pietri 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue at hand:
User Lulu Margarida has added content on the article's subject's achievements and corruption scandal and referenced the article's subject's own website as the source.
Note: this issue is also relevant to the articles Plano Collor and Zélia Cardoso de Mello, as they also cite the same source in the same context
This seems to me a blatant violation of WP:SELFPUB: one cannot consider Collor an NPOV source for Collor when it deals with issues such as legacy and achievements. Were these biographical issues (where he was born, etc.) that's another issue. But when you're throwing out vague statements such as "Decreased the government payroll" and "he is the only politician in Brazil to have an officially clear record", Collor can't be used as a reliable source.-- Dali-Llama 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, guys. This isn't a formal third opinion, as I don't have time to dig into the background of this enough. But my general rule is that people are almost always valid sources about their own opinions, and rarely valid sources for facts about themselves. So if you were to cite the White House web site, you could write, "George Bush claims the United States does not torture." But you could not write, "The United States does not torture," not based on his claim alone. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, these are my opinions:
Hope that helps. - Amatulic 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
scielo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).