Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello/Archive 3

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

"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

"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.

21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing it and justifying my changes as follows:

1st paragraph: move "unprecedented" and identify source per

WP:NPOV. The source also does not mention free trade being "the first time in the country's history".--Dali-Llama

22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd paragraph: removed "Even so, Brazil never had hyperinflation again, after Collor took office." IstoÉ credits Zélia for ending hyperinflation, but the hyperinflation article mentions 20-30% inflation as being hyperinflation (rates similar to post-Zélia Brazil). This source as well as this specifically mentions 1993, the year after Collor left office as still having hyperinflation. So, in this case, let's show, not tell: Give the inflation rates pre- and immediately post-Collor, and let them judge for themselves if hyperinflation ended or not.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

4th paragraph: I added "Part of" since, again, the source is murky in this regard, and in some instances they did not follow all of his policies: FHC obviously had a different monetary/fiscal policy, and Lula did not privatize anything. I've removed "who maintained free trade and privatization programs", since unless we're willing to restructure the paragraph to mention what each president did and did not do, there's no need to paint with a wide brush. I've also changed the paragraph to draw a distinction between what Collor did, started and did not.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

5th paragraph: I've removed "In spite of the success in the implementation of this calendar of reforms". This is unnecessary opinion. I respect Bresser Pereira and his opinion, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, but this adds opinion to the article in a manner which is not necessary to describe historical events. What makes Stalin bad isn't that historians say he was bad: it was because millions died because of him. Similarly, Bresser Pereira's opinion is not necessary if the article demonstrates the particular reforms and results from Collor's policies.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

6th paragraph. Reworded the first statement for concisenesses and grammar. I relocated Faucher's quote to the bottom of the section, as it's forensic analysis of what happened, and properly identified it as such.

7th paragraph (beginning with "march of foolishness"). I've edited for NPOV. it's basically repeating what the previous paragraph said about Plano Collor II, so I relocated it.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed:

"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 < ref > "Restaurando a Governabilidade: O Brasil (afinal) se Acertou?" The unexpected succes of Real the Plan is due to hyperinfaltion, to corruption scandals and by the way Plano real was implemented < /ref >. 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 os stabilization levels of inflation is credited to this report of political factors of the time and to the economic agenda of the same period. "

This is better left for the Plano Real article, not this one. We want to deal with Collor's administrations, not go off in the ether about what happened 2 presidents later. Again, I'm not disputing the content, I'm disputing it's relevancy.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The inflation paragraph: I've added a source that mentions the different rates of inflations per year. I've corrected the paragraph to mention the intervening inflation rates, and to show that inflation rose consistently after an initial "shock" in 1991. Again, no need to cite 2006 inflation rates when it's obvious rates were increasing until the Plano Real was enacted.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok,

Ok, I´ll check it tomorrõw, but looks good. You didn´t keep my conclusions. I dodn´t conclude anything but repeated the sources...

yes?

23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you can move forward and make it available online. i´ll see details tomorrow.

yes?

23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ok.--Dali-Llama 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith edition?????

I see you not only edited my version, but you also deleted few parts of mine. Why? [:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&diff=154031871&oldid=154031827]

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.

10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed some parts, but no more than I had put in the compromise edit on the talk page. We don't need to talk about the impeachment any more than necessary to demonstrate its effect on the economy. And I çhanged'the inflation with a new source, and only included inflation figures from 1990 to 1994 (just prior to the Plano Real). Again, it's not correct to impute inflation rates in 2006 to the Plano Collor, when inflation rates rose after the PLano Collor, until the implementation of the Plano Real. No, this is not a joke--this is the compromise edit I put above, with minor alterations. This:

"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."

Is not necessary. And this:

"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."

Is already mentioned here:

"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, 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 again, I don't know why you insist on trying to give credit to Collor for an inflation rate in 2006 when in the next two years after he left office, inflation rose: considerably.--Dali-Llama 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The real latest version

[11]

12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Online

After facing probl. to make it available online, I finally could do that. I wil fix links, sources and citations later.

12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you deleted a bunch of sources, I don't know why. --Dali-Llama 17:19, 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)

That´s the core of the paragraph I worte: Plano Collor´s failure was due to political issues --not to inner problems. And I tried to explain that providing many sources. The last paragraph you´ve deleted is a brief, just a phrase to end this context. There is a good expsoition of the whole process and how Plano real was implemneted. Yr edition heds to nowhere and you ended with a paragraph repeated on the following subtitle. I could never agree with that.

yes?

19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you´d like to comment on the differences of FHC´s and Collor´s plans, concerning their monetary policies, you are welcome to do that.

yes?

19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a need to mention the Real Plan, as this plan was implemented by FHC. This page should be limited only to plans implemented by Collor. So, I suggest removing the paragraph starting with Thus, as a result of the... and keeping the other paragraph (the one starting with The end result of the Plano Collor was...). --Carioca 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Dali-Llama 23:29, 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)

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.

Continuo amanhã. Mas essa citação já cobre metade do que vc pediu.

yes?

00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The two main lines I have issues with are:

Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes and of Collor's lack of political support caused by the impeachment process (Two different statements that need sources.)

And...

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.

This one as well.--Dali-Llama 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zelia does talk abt the "tijolos da estabilização" preparou a estrada parao Plano real e Bresser fala da agenda de reformas corajosa, que mudou a agenda política do país. Faucher fala ao lobgo de seu texto deste movimento de implementação da agenda de reformas que só foi possível depois ido impeachment e deposi de FHC ter achado apoio político para isso.

yes?

10:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's

synthesis. You can talk about what one author or the other says, but you can't get author A and author B to conclude point C. Part of the problem when you do that is what you just mentioned: You're using Zélia's opinion of what she did and lumping it into "these authors", giving her a veil of anonymity: it's like John Smith saying "John Smith's policies were really important". I understand that's what she thinks, and it's properly stated in a previous paragraph, but that's one the reasons why we can't synthesize opinion.--Dali-Llama

18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

try to read more carefully. All of them talk the same thing. Iam not sewing these texts.

Zelia: preparamos a estrada e deitamos os tijolos da estabilização (plano real, inflação) mas não tivemos enão teríamos apoio político (nem de Pt, Psdb ou Pmdb);

Bresser: abriu um caminho, pavimentou com coragem

Faucher: criou um clima propício (a volta da hyperinflação e o impeachment (quea provcocou)) para o Real

Estão os três falando a mesma coisa: reformas que prepararam o país par ao Plano real, mas que este não teve apoio para se sustentar por falta de apoio político (lack of political support (bresser), governabilidade (faucher), apopio dos partidos (zelia)

Eu posso separar os autores. Mas eles sempre irão creditar Collor.

yes?

18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mencionar os indicadores inflacionários apenas quantifica estes textos. O Obejtivo não é dizer que a inflação atual é mérito de Collor, mas mostrar o legado dele, que ele deu início e que em gde parte é coautor disso tudo.

yes?

18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zélia is not a reliable source for talking about the benefits of an economic plan Zélia devised. Bresser is, but his opinion is redundant, when the article already mentions that he privatized and opened to free trade. And you're being selective about Faucher: he states Collor's failure was important for the success of the Plano Real, not his success. Saying "Benefited by the macroeconomica agenda of Collor politicizes implies a positive outcome of the Collor Plan, which as far as inflation goes (the only thing mentioned by Faucher as causing a lack of political support), was a failure. The big problem here is that you're trying to add opinion where none is necessary--Collor's achievements and non-achievements speak for themselves. I don't need to add a source that says he was the most corrupt president in the history of the country or a source that says he was the most pioneering president in the history of the country: one says what happened and lets the reader decide. If analysis helps to understand the context (not outcome) of the actions, then it is isolated from narrative and stated as such. You're pushing for an incredibly POV version of this article (as you yourself just admitted), and I'm trying (for the sake of resolution, until another editor comes in) to include your POV, but with an appropriate disclosure and context as such.--Dali-Llama 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zelia´s statements are already on the article. She has YES to right to be cited (as much as Collor does): she is complaining she didn´t have political support to move forward with the Plan. That´s all --there is no POV here. Bresser´s thesis is cited on the article as well, as a source of who states Collor´s/Zelia´s pioneirism. There is no POV.

It doesn´t imply a positive outcome, quite the contrary: is is said they didn´t succeed. I could say: Althoug the plan didn´t succeed, it benefited from it...I think this is obvious --it did profit and maitained privatization etc.

yes?

20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zélia is already properly cited, but Zélia can't be used as a source for that last analysis of of her own work by lumping her together with other people. As I've mentioned, Faucher doesn't say what you're attributing to him and Bresser's analysis is redundant. For the 5th time: I'm not disputing your conclusions, I'm disputing the fact that you're reaching one by joining three different opinions, one of which is not qualified (as a reliable source), one which is already in the article and one which says the opposite of what you're saying. What is obvious to you, is not obvious to others, which is why we try to state the facts (inflation rates) and remove opinion (it was good/bad).--Dali-Llama 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Article

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.

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.

15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludovica, be careful with your edits, as of this edit, you duplicated the impeachment section. Nothing wrong with making a mistake (I myself forgot to close a reference a couple of days ago), but let's both be careful. You're welcome to develop the article further, as long as you respect the policies we've been having issues with. I've reverted your edits. Here's what you changed why they're incorrect. Please address them before you choose to change them:

• "The end result"- I agree the wording may be misunderstood, so I've reworded to say that "During the Plano Collor, yearly inflation was at first 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).^[3] Inflation continued to rise to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office).^[4]". --Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If we can talk abt infation indicators; we can leave the last paragraph I ´ve just added.

yes?

18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Both myself and Carioca feel that your paragraph is not relevant to the article, as it talks about inflation rates up to 16 years after Collor took office and with an intervening economic plan. My paragraph talks only about the inflation rates during his presidency and up until the introduction of the next economic plan--it's not the same as what you're doing.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The removal "part" of Collor's legacy-- Again, Lula didn't privatize anything, FHC had a brand new fiscal/monetary policy. You can't blanket everything with a statement whose source doesn't even mention Collor. I'm letting this one slide already--it's important to draw a distinction.--Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can draw a distinction between his monetary policies, but not concerning his macroagenda. I can add several sources abt that.

yes?

18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point--I'm not saying FHC did or did not follow his macroeconomic agenda. I'm saying there are nuances in the differences which are not reflected accurately in the paragraph. To disclose those nuances, I added "part", since you've chosen to add three different presidents to the article, when not all of them followed all of Collor's policies. That's all.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Ricardo Antunes quote-- Well, his memory fails him, apparently. Instead of relying on him, how about we read the actual speech? No mention whatsoever of previous economic policy and Collor. Even Itamar just got a polite head-nod, sadly. I'm removing the quote as it's making an incorrect point.--Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I´ll check it later.

yes?

18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Faucher Can you mention specifically the citation for "Faucher also analyses that Plan Real benefited from this political process as much as from the Plan Collor failures, and that both helped its stabilization process". I'm asking because the paragraph 'already mentions two factors: the failure to tackle hyperinflation and the political crisis. What is this sentence you added saying that the current paragraph is not?--Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do it later.

yes?

18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Inflation-- So you're just going to ignore Carioca's opinion and add back that random hyperinflation paragraph? This is the second time in this discussion you blatantly ignored a third opinion without justification. At first, it was Coren, now it's Carioca, who's probably one of (if not the) most experienced Brazilian editors.--Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is his jstification?

yes?

18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Under "Third Opinion".--Dali-Llama 19:40, 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:

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)

Iam sorry, Bresser´s oipnion has no relation at all with Faucher´s paragraph. The text has no continuity, looks broken and unrelated.

yes?

19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

O quevc fez com o artigo que as minhas edições, se não são reversões o desfiguram e repetem os subtítulos? Meu deus....

yes?

19:51, 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)

Can you explain what´s the relation between Faucher and Bresser´s statements? The are completely unrelated.

yes?

22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My take (Carioca, feel free to chime in) is that Bresser is talking generally about Collor's intentions. Similarly, Faucher is talking in similar general terms about why Collor failed at those intentions (thus why I also agree Bresser's quote should come first, as Carioca has suggested). I agree with Carioca that they balance each other out--not by content necessarily, but by context: both are analyzing the Collor administration a posteriori.--Dali-Llama 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my point is exactly that both are analyzing Collor's administration (and it is obvious that both are analyzing a posteriori) and thus they should be placed together. This is the relation I found between both statements. --Carioca 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Dali-Llama 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I´ve moved to the first paragraph.

yes?

22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludovica, move them to the end of the section, not to the middle.--Dali-Llama 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And you don't need to remove <ref name="scielo">--that's a reference tag.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I think it looks much better.

yes?

22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course you do, you ignored mine and Carioca's comments altogether. You just put it in the beginning of the section!--Dali-Llama 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Se vc alega que apenas o fato de não Lula não privatizar significa que ele seguiu parte doPlano Collr. Então é mt pouco e supõe-se que então ele continuou free traed, modernização tec. --assim como FHC. Isso é MOST e não PART.

yes?

22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the issue isn't that simple (as Carioca just alluded to--correct me I'm wrong Carioca). You can't make a blanket statement like that, by saying "most"--"part" does not exclude most. If you think it's most, let's see a source that links Lula to Collor. I'm already being nice by allowing that BBC reference which doesn't even mention Collor.--Dali-Llama 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Links:

1. [12]

That's not a reliable source: it's not a peer-reviewed journal or a mainstream publication.--Dali-Llama 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2. não sei o que vc faz com as tags, que inviabilizam as minhas edições --reversões. Pode exolicar isso?

Veja

WP:CITE. <ref name="scielo"> é um "atalho" para incluir a mesma fonte sem ter que repetir toda a fonte de novo.--Dali-Llama

23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

3. A thir opinion é sobre a frase deposi de Faucher --e não no primeiro para´grafoa. DE qqr modo, o Carioca não expliou porquê, não justificou. Uma opinião, do tipo, "porque sim e pronto" não é válida.

yes?

23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about a stylistic change, and in this case, two people are in favor of one version, with you being against. You don't own the article, so in this case, the majority rules.--Dali-Llama 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New version

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.

23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of an argument is that? You just change something so you ignore the argument you don't like? Both myself and Carioca have said it should be together with Faucher, and I feel it should be at the end of the article. This is the third time you've ignored a third-opinion.--Dali-Llama 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it´s the third time I igore a third opinion, there must be something wrong --third opinions are never on my side...strange, no? I´ve moved and made a btter verion, that´s all. And as I said he didn´t explain why. I told him that along with Faucher it looks broken and unrelated.

yes?

23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Most people would assume that when multiple people disagree with them, that they'd have to rethink their opinion. But you don't, apparently. --Dali-Llama 23:55, 31 August 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.

As you can see, both paragraphs "get together" --talking abt the same thing...That´s perfect. This doesn´t happen at all if this is linked with Faucher´s.And the text was a mess, so I fixed it.

yes?

23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Terceira vez??

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?

23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You've ignored: 1)Coren. 2)Carioca in relation to inflation and now 3)Carioca in relation to the Bresser quote.--Dali-Llama 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And again (update)

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.

00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Coren: Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello#Third Opinion. He agreed with me on all three issues (you can read them--I don't need to repeat them). He left the discussion once he realized that you would not accept anyoutside opinions.

2)Carioca's first point was about mentioning the inflation rates of Plano Real--he disagreed with you, and you ignored him. It had nothing to do with "the end result"--as I've mentioned, he did not have any reservations about that paragraph.

Since Iam trying to describe Collor´s legacy I see a good reason to mention inflation indicators, from Collo´rs to our days. Both, Plano Collor and Plano Real are aimed at ending the inflation!!!!!

yes?

11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except one worked. The other didn't. And you're trying to credit the failed policy with the benefits of the one that worked.--Dali-Llama 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3)You ignored the third. No doubt about it. Instead of addressing the issue, you skirted it by claiming you were "rearranging the article", ignoring the fact that both us felt that opinion quotes should be together in the article. You're not the one who can "decide" where the paragraph stays. This is Wikipedia--anyone can edit and the consensus rules. In this case, the majority ruled against you.

No, as I said, you give no time to edit. You started by saying I didn´t translate, than that I didn´t quote who is the author, than you wanted to move the citation to Faucher´s paragrapgh which talks abt politics and not economy (Bresser´s). And then I asked him to explain why would Bresser´s citation be inserted there --and no one has explained so far.

yes?

11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The end result was that you still disconnected the two quotes, which myself and Carioca agreed that should not be done-- regardless of other changes.--Dali-Llama 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are you going to log a complaint against me on

01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No comments. My pov abt you and yr behaviour remains, since yr began to edit the artcile, since you´ve publish a Veja magazine, since you revert my editions without I even breath, since you ask yr friends to protec the page "against me", since you never provided any source for yr comments, since the only editions so far is abt corruption, DOWNFALL, impeachment, since you don´t allow "Corruption charges lifted and Senate election" subtitle,since you use WP rules to revert my editions by saying my dozens of citation sare aimed at Collor´s defense. If I have dozens of citatisn, it means I am following WP ´s rules and that maybe Iam citing sources that have the same opinion of mine, dozens of it. So if many sources have the same thought, then this is no POV and Iam bot concluding nor there is synsthesis!!

yes?

11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that if you think that Carioca and Coren are "conspiring" against you, and not just disagreeing, and that the two admins which protected the page are "my friends" (dunno where you got that one), then open it up to the administrators on

WP:ANI. Tell them everything you're telling me. If you're so sure that this is wrong, then you shouldn't be afraid to have other people chiming in.--Dali-Llama

14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3 questions

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;

What kind of a conclusion is that? Just because the current government receives tax income from a previous government's actions it means he's following his "neoliberal agenda"? I'm stumped. Can I say then that Collor followed Vargas'

statist agenda because Collor received revenue from oil refineries Vargas nationalized? I am being nice by letting it slide, since the BBC quote doesn't mention Collor.--Dali-Llama

01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sim, Lula é herdeiro deste legado de Collor --e além de não negar, é beneficiado por ele e, ao aceitar, é herda e segue. E Collor tb é beneficiado por Vargas.

yes?

01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe my ears--err, eyes. You're not saying he benefited, you're saying he followed his policies!!!--Dali-Llama 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Translation:

Lula is yes related to Collor when I cite that Telebras generated an unprecedent tax income for Lula´s government. And so Lula benefited from his accomplishments.

--His answer above.

My answer: Yes, Lula benefited from Collor´s legacy [that is the only thing Iam trying to describe (Collor´s legacy) since I started the article] --and not only he acknowledges that but he also inhertis and follows his policies (he didn´t privatize, but also didn´t cancel it and move forward with all the rest, according to IMF director citation). For me, by doing so, the IMF director says (citation provided): "Lula follows FHC" --that is, his macroagenda. If Lula follows FHC and FHC not only followed Collor´s neoliberal agenda but even expanded it (that is, privatization, free trade, tec. modernization).

More citation for that:

1. [13];

2. [14]

And finally, if now you agree that Lula benefited from Collor´s privatizations, so we can go back to our previous discussion. You said earlier that I would need to cite , find a source, to prove that Lula benefited from Collor´s neoliberal macroeconomic agenda and I said taht abt FHC as well. So te citation is there: "Lula (and FHC) benefited from his initiatives --Telebras tax income is a proof! Benefited and expanded his macroenconomic agenda

2. Perguntei se posso fazer um subtítulo: "Corruption charges lifted and Senate election";

That's not what you were doing--you were replicating a paragraph twice! You were deleting my information about the mayoral run and the defeat as governor of Alagoas and putting stuff about the impeachment trial in a different section. The charges were thrown out in 1994--he was only a candidate in 2000. You don't see a discontinuity in doing that?--Dali-Llama 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sem comentários. Já falei acima que vc sequer mencionou que ele foi absolvido,nem havia mencionado tb que as provas eram ilegais. Vc está falandod e outro assunto. Seu texto atual só evoluiu para explicar isso qdo eu veiculei fontes sobr a absolvição de Collor, o senado e a falta de provas. Só assim vc mudou o texto sobre o impeachment. Se não, o texto ainda o teria "condenado".

yes?

01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're bringing up another issue which has already been resolved, and sidestepping the issue at hand.--Dali-Llama 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Translation':

I asked you if I could rewrite the paragapgh introducing it wiht the following subtitle: "Corruption charges lifted and Senate election". Let´s remember that, without asking, and AGAIN, you decided not to leave this paragrapgh. (And I had to agree otherwise you would call yr friends and aks to protect the page.)

--Yr answer above.

My answer translated: No comments. I already said you didn´t even mentioned Collor´s charges were lifted and that accusations against him were unfounded. The final text we see now online evolved from this comments of mine, uncovering yr bad faith, yr AGAIN, intention to damage Collor´s image. If it was not for my comments yr Collor would still be a convicted politician.

See yr answer above. When I can prove yr bad faith you always say this is an old issue that is already solved. Yr are the one sidestepping the core issue. I am trying to show you, AGAIN, that you manipulate very badly my editions. See now, as soon as I´ve inserted Bresser´s quote, no less than 2 minutes later you reverted and said it was in portuguese. I said I was just starting the translation and clicked SAVE button by mistake; when I finished the translation you reverted again and said I didn´t mention who was the author of the quote; even before I could BREATH.

Of course, I was going to translate, of course I was going to quote Bresser´s (it is my interest). And after all that, you decided to change the paragrapgh where this quote should be (where I put it). You inserted under Faucher´s paragraph which HAS NO RELATION AT ALL with Faucher´s words. Faucher is talking abt impeachment process and Bresser´s abt Collor ´s macroeconomic agenda. The paragraph where I´ve inserted talks abt the macroconomic agenda and the following admministrations (it also helps us to understand that Lula followed FHC who followed Collor). "Maybe", that´s why you don´t like the citation to remain there --because it does link Lula to FHC, to Collor and to his macroeconomic agenda!!!!!!!!

--By saying this Iam trying to show adms that you give me no time to edit, you are persecuting me, you change any and all editions without asking (you were the one who asked to discuss BEFORE any edition!!!). Let´s rememeber you started to edit theis article repeatedly complaining form all Collor´s achievements; that yr main edition (the only full text you worte so far) was abt impeachment and Collor´s corruption (which as I said you were not even honest) and that you linked a Veja magazine cover that said "The year we got rid of him". Finally, althoug I don´t like Lula, I would never do that on his article!!! Never!!! This is a transparent POV!!!! You did that on

Telebras, Plano Collor

articles. This is chilhood behaviour.

3. Posso citar o Aurélio que define "Pioneirismo", já que vc citou para "downfall"?

Wasn't you who said it before? One is an adjective, the other is a noun? And Coren already addressed this (the pioneer part), but you ignored him.--Dali-Llama 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nada a ver. A sua comparação anterior era um ataque pessoal --pioneirismo é um substantivo. Ademais, citar dicionários não justifica nada. A palavra é negativa e pejorativa.

yes?

01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Downfall" is pejorative? Maybe. But like I said, that's over and done with. It's no longer in the text.--Dali-Llama 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Translation:

Can I cite "Aurelio dictionary", once you´ve cited the meaning for "downfall" (trying in vain to prove dthis word is not a POV)?

My answer: Not related. Yr previous comparison was a personal attack (he gave an example of a POV). And besides, it is pointless to cite a dictionary. The word is pejorative and negative.

You see, all the issues I bring are over or solved. You were the one to raise a dictionary citation. Not me. And still, my good God, pioneirism, is a noun!

4. O que vc fez no texto para impedir que minhas edições fucionem?

yes?

01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do anything. You're probably not closing tags right or something. Look at the article by the way--you're duplicating a section.

Não conheço essse tipo de edição, com tags.

yes?

01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna clean your mess anymore. You're reverting even my spelling corrections. Until we have Carioca coming back, this is your mess to contend with.--Dali-Llama 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the fact that I don´t know this tag editions, and once I insert a text it duplicates the last subtitle.

yes?

11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm going to ask you again, communicate in English. This not appropriate, especially if a third-party whose first language is not Portuguese would like to contribute or review the dispute. This is the second time I've told you this.--Dali-Llama 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuarei em port.

yes?

01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Per

WP:TALK, you should communicate in English, or find someone who will translate for you. That's just being inconsiderate of others.--Dali-Llama

02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not important. Iam just saying I´d like to speak in portuguese.

yes?

11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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?

12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2. The place where it should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&oldid=154917999

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

Both myself and Carioca have already explained why they should be connected and at the end of the paragraph. Just read a few pages above.--Dali-Llama 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where?

yes?

15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Third opinion again."--Dali-Llama 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What doyou mean by "a posteriori"?

yes?

15:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

a posteriori (After-the-fact, in retrospective, not at the time it happened).--Dali-Llama

18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the meaning of the word but I could never imagine you would really say that since all citations are a posteriori --which is obvious!

yes?

11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. What we mean is that both authors are conducting a retrospective on Collor's administration, not just describing facts. They're not saying what the inflation rates were--they're saying what they think the rates' significance is, writing some 10 years in the future. Where all the other sources in that section serve to either demonstrate the narrative of events (who, what, when, etc.), the Faucher and Bresser quotes (and to some extent the Zélia too), are looking back and giving an opinion, not describing events. That's why myself and Carioca felt they needed to be placed at the end of the section, and together.--Dali-Llama 11:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Iam sorry, Revista Isto é, "looks back to the events", Faucher does an anlyses of whta happened, Bresser too, IMF director as well. It´s impossible that they did something different from that --Collor´s government happened years ago. It´s not their opinion --it´s historical and critical analyses. I insist the place where you put it is definetely not an apropriated one. FAcuher´s citations occured along the text and are the issue of other paragraphs. So, his a posteriori is already mentioned previously.

yes?

13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference when you use Faucher to cite the fact that Collor privatized 15 companies and then when you use Faucher's opinion on events. One is a factual source, the other is opinion. For Faucher, it is a peer-reviewed paper trying to prove a thesis, and thus the facts can be used, but the opinion still needs disclosure and in this case isolation. Bresser is stating his opinion--and not in any academic or scholarly context: just his gut opinion. In both cases, I've accepted them, but they should be properly disclosed and remanded to the end of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalillama (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 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)

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)

By placing Bresser´s quote and Fauchre´s one after the other as you did, will drive reader to think that Faucher is saying that Collor´s brave agnda (Bresser) led him to impeachment. That´s a blatantly POV.

Bresser´s is a compliment an analysis of his neoliberal agenda. Faucher talks abt another subject, whihc is his political problems. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By placing them together you are building a blatantly POV

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

Correct seuquence

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

This paragraph is Faucher´s analysis and its subject is Collor´s political crisis. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

You cited Faucher (remember Fuacher? LOL) on the previous paragrahp and than put together his citations after Bresser´s --they are taliking abt different issues --this isn´t rational. If you say "According to Faucher this political crisis...etc" --you must insert that wtihin the context of political crisis --otherwise reader will be misguided and pushed to conclude that Bresser and Faucher are sharign the same view --which is completely absurd. There is no opinion on the artcile --only citations. Otherwise the whole artcile you wrote abt 1964 Brazilian coup is Gaspari´s opinon and you will be invited to rewrite it all again. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Citations do not equal fact: citations are references to what the original source states. You can have a citation for a fact (IE: Population of Brazil is X) just as you can have a citation for an opinion ("Faucher says Y"). I'm not saying that this is your opinion--I'm saying that any opinion should be segregated from the facts at the end of the section. Again, I invite you to read

WP:3RR rule, which may lead to you being blocked. In the meantime, we can still continue this discussion here. --Dali-Llama

20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any link between Bresser and faucher? Don´t you think Faucher is mentioned on the paragraphs above? What do you mean by putting them in the same paragrapgh? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The link is that both are opinions. Whether he's mentioned in the paragraph above is irrelevant: we should focus on facts and leave opinion to the end of the section, as a "retrospective" of what people think about his presidency today. That's what I meant by paragraph: leave them together (whether it's the same paragraph or not, doesn't really matter), at the end of the narrative of facts.--Dali-Llama 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!

But didn´t you say I can´t mention Skidmore´s opinion?

So if I find another opinon, no matter the contaent of it, I should put it after on the same paragraph, rigt after B and F?

What abt skidmore? Should I leave to the end of Jeff´s artcile? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the contrary, if anything, I'm saying there shouldn't be opinion, but that I've agreed to having Bresser and Faucher as a compromise so you'll stop adding more POV. Just because I've given you a hand, doesn't mean you can take the arm. =) Again, address the issues on their respective pages. If you'd like to talk about Skidmore, do so on the relevant page.--Dali-Llama 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. [15] - link for corruption charges lifted, although political rights were only restored later; as your subtitles concludes: charges were lifted (you must mention the word "corruption")

That is already covered under "In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, tried the criminal charges stemming from the incident, and ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights.", with footnote 14 as source. You're adding the same information twice.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact I´m adding the same info is aimed at offering a chronology, for a post presidency subtitle. YOU named it "Post Presidency", so one can add all issues realted to that period. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion again...--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you ignored Spark´s third opinon and since Iam offering a source of a real fact, I assume I can ignore it either. Besides, mentioning that "after 14 years" and mentioning "he tried again and lost" is POV; and YOU are repeating what ia already mentioned on yr own paragraph, just as you think Iam repeating ....Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion requested.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Hyperinflation --was a result of bigger initiatives, such as: state reforms, free trade and priv. program;

Hyperinflation is part of the greater "reform" agenda. Hyperinflation was the greatest issue, and any economist will tell you that state reforms have a secondary impact on hyperinflation, when compared to monetary and fiscal policy. So if you'd like, you can substitute free trade and privatization for reforms, but hyperinflation is a relatively separate issue, which is discussed in a separate context.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you can change for reforms, instead of State reforms. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but his reforms were Statet refomrs, as the link on the "External links" proves that. Do you agree? But anyway, what do you mean by the word reforms on Collor´s gov? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me correctly: I think ending hyperinflation is composed of monetary and fiscal policies, which are separate from things like free trade and reforming government institutions. These help, but generally stabilization plans fail or succeed largely on account of fiscal and monetary policy. So my point is if you're going to replace something with reforms, replace "privatization, free trade", not hyperinflation.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I´ve changed minister for team Lulu Margarida ^yes? 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to be specific. You did the exact opposite of what you were supposed to do. Celso Lafer was foreign minister under both presidents, Armínio Fraga was a secretary in Marcilio Marques Moreira's cabinet, and 6 years later he returned to the government. You're trying to imply a continuity where it may or may not exist. Be specific and include the jobs each one held. And I would honestly look for another source. An article from the communist party of Brazil is hardly NPOV when it comes to asserting continuity between one government and the next.--Dali-Llama 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, I can mention each of his jobs, but it´s not necessary as much as I am not obliged to mention what each one of them did. The citation is a simple fact, just an additiona info of Collor´s admisnitration. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary. The PcB article is basically implying that FHC just carried over Collor's administration, and they're implying that's a bad thing. Instead of, again, resorting to opinion, cite the specifics and let people make up their mind. Personally, I wouldn't mention it at all because everyone switches sides so quickly in Brazilian politics (let's not forget Henrique Meirelles used to be in the PSDB), but if you do want to mention, be as specific as you can so that people have a feel as to what could and could not be considered continuity. Armínio Fraga, for example, left the government for a number of years, only to be invited back by FHC in a position far higher than his previous one. So if you're adopting a "facts", approach, be very specific about those facts.--Dali-Llama 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don´t think it is. The jobs they assumed will only emphasize. As much as when one cites all those who are a Chico Buarque interpreter --and one can add it to his article but don´t need to mention which song he/she interpretates. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a false analogy. Implying political continuity is a serious matter, and is an implication used by both supporters and detractors. Ideally I'd leave it out on account of undue weight, but if you must mention it, be specific about the functions they occupied in the Collor administration, and the position they went on to occupy in the FHC administration. Otherwise the lack of specificity may be implying a greater (or indeed lesser) degree of continuity than what is accurate, which can be considered a violation of NPOV.--Dali-Llama 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

In 1994, By December the Brazilian Supreme Court declared that all corruption charges were lifted. ^[10]

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)

Third opinion reply

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

I'd also like to offer some unsolicited opinions on the "Corruption charges and impeachment" section. I think it's generally good, but I believe it should be a top-level section, and not a subsection of "Rewards" (which is probably better titled "Awards"; "reward" implies a quid pro quo situation). The unattributed quote at the end, though, is unacceptable. Unattributed, factual-sounding quotes must be

summaries. That is taken directly from the subject's web site, which we must presume to be biased. If Brazil's highest court actually found him "innocent", find a legal scholar or some other neutral person saying so, and quote that. Quoting the court's decision would be fine as well. Note, however, that saying somebody is "not guilty" means that the charges couldn't be proved, which is what courts of my acquaintance generally do. Declaring that somebody is "innocent" is a much higher bar. It's also possible to write the closing paragraph in terms of multiple views. E.g., "Although John Smith maintains his innocence[1], most commentators outside his political party believe that he escaped conviction on a technicality. [2][3]"

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

William, I appreciate the feedback. On the issue of the redundant factoid, I see your point. I think the post-presidency paragraph is less of a timeline than is appears to be, but for the moment I'll let it lie.

However, you identified what is in fact the most serious issue in this article, which is NPOV. Unfortunately, the other editor in this case has admitted to pushing a particular POV in the article, which makes it incredibly difficult to resolve the situation. That and a troubled history by the other editor I'm glad you're able to provide a sanity check on the NPOV issue--just so I know I'm not going crazy for no good reason. =) I'll have to see what my alternatives are to solve this situation.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

H. CLinton

Check this [16], you will see lots of links to her official web site. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand:

Whether or not a politician's personal webpage is considered a

reliable source

when addressing his own achievements and legacy.

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

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

This seems to me a blatant violation of

22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems it would be ideal to use outside sources but we certainly do include self-published items and will continue to do so as self-published websites become more common. To be more wikipedic you may try qualifying any use such as "according to Collor's website" or "self-professed clean politician", etc. In all cases our job is to write a good, and balanced, article and let the reader decide what is true from the various perspectives offered.

Benjiboi

00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am always in favor for disclosure, as you've proposed, and I agree with doing it in this case. However, you seem to proposing that "in the absence of reliable sources" one could use a self-published source. This is not the case, however, as "accomplishments" are already covered under the far-more reliable sources of the Plano Collor section, and certainly the latter section about clean politician violates NPOV as is. The alternative is to be in a somewhat awkward situation where we use reliable sources for some accomplishments, and for the accomplishments where no reliable sources are available, we use an unreliable source. Is that really the kind of article we're writing? And "a good, and balanced, article" still needs to conform to

WP:RS, which I believe the use of this source does not further.--Dali-Llama

00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I came here from

WP:SELFPUB policy, but given this article is about a former president of the fifth most populous country in the world^[11], there is probably voluminous information available from better sources. I think the self-published information should stand for now, until such time as the information from the better sources can be digested and analyzed by editors with some expertise on the topic. In the meantime I have changed some of the citations to Collor's official website to the {{cite web}} format. 64.26.98.90

00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just undid my edits. I've reverted you as you failed to explain how my edits negate the status quo. And you missed the points--there are better sources currently in the article.--Dali-Llama 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I apparently forgot to press save page on my rationale: While we work out RS issues, I've segregated the accomplishments portion and the impeachment section into its own section and added the disclosure William has suggested. --Dali-Llama 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind, I'm going to re-add this page to 3O so someone can give an actual third opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Dali-Llama 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

Hope that helps. -

19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They were attributed to Collor's website and identified as such after I disputed the source. Compare the version

the lonely guy with the finger in the dike for the past 4 months, one is bound to get a little frustrated.--Dali-Llama

20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave my opinion based on the state of the article when I wrote the opinion. I understand your frustration. I think you came to a good compromise and I hope the other editor agrees. I will point out that copying and pasting from a web site constitutes a

Amatulic

20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Spark´s TO was ignored I don´t know why it should now be considered. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a third opinion--this is in fact three different people (myself, Amatulic, William Pietri) clearly outlining the requirements on disclosure and NPOV for including the content and source you've added.--Dali-Llama 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, so it's now at least four. — Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy artciles, they all link to their own web site and relate their governments achievements. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are not reliable sources when it comes to what their achievements are, which is what we're all saying. At the most, you can include them with disclosure, which is what we've done.--Dali-Llama 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems the agreement has stuck - can the neutrality tag now be removed? It looks a little strange because the text makes it quite clear that (and why) the section isn't neutral. Bagunceiro (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)