→questioned text: new section |
Saturnalia0 (talk | contribs) →Proposed addition to the lead: new section |
||
Line 448: | Line 448: | ||
"For this whole second phase of the process, the Committee was supported by the president of the [[Supreme Federal Court (Brazil)|Supreme Federal Court]], [[Ricardo Lewandowski]]." |
"For this whole second phase of the process, the Committee was supported by the president of the [[Supreme Federal Court (Brazil)|Supreme Federal Court]], [[Ricardo Lewandowski]]." |
||
:unclear what this means [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 07:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
:unclear what this means [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 07:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Proposed addition to the lead == |
|||
I have undone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_of_Dilma_Rousseff&diff=775204123&oldid=775195533 this] proposed addition to the lead. Since the editor refused to discuss the changes I will start this section for him. The first sentence is an opinion from an American reporter that barely gets mentioned in the article it comes from. None of the two pieces of opinion added to the lead can be found anywhere in the article body. The editor claimed in my talk page that he was attempting to fix [[WP:NPOV]] issues with the article, but one does not fix [[WP:NPOV]] by introducing a loose [[WP:UNDUE]] sentence to the lead. If there is due weight for the inclusion of the opinions of these editors surely there's a place for them in the body of the article. The second sentence is from an editorial from the NYT and I can see it being included in the article body, but again, it seems that the proposer was simply concerned in changing the lead at will, instead of trying to make it reflect the main aspects of the article. [[User:Saturnalia0|Saturnalia0]] ([[User talk:Saturnalia0|talk]]) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:31, 13 April 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Charges for impeachment
This process of impeachment refers that the President was guilty of breaking budgetary laws by borrowing from state banks to cover a shortfall in the deficit and pay for social programs in the run-up to her 2014 re-election. Suspection of corruption while chairwoman in Petrobras is not part of this process and I think that sections "Tax evasion and corruption at Petrobras" and "Operation Car Wash" must be removed.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- The impeachment request submitted by the authors addresses the "Operation Car Wash." See here. Érico (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to the original text of the request made by lawyers. The process for impeachment admissibility voted in Chamber and sent to Senate contained only the charges of "tax pedaling" and supplementary decrees not authorized in 2015 budget. No charges of corruption or involvement of Rousseff with "Operation Car Wash" were cited in the process, which is subject of this article.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to the original text of the request made by lawyers. The process for impeachment admissibility voted in Chamber and sent to Senate contained only the charges of "tax pedaling" and supplementary decrees not authorized in 2015 budget. No charges of corruption or involvement of Rousseff with "Operation Car Wash" were cited in the process, which is subject of this article.
Not impeached yet
Dilma Rousseff was suspended, not impeached definitively, by Senate votation on 12 May. In next 180 days, the process will be judged, in final phases that could result in definitive impeachment or no. In this last case, Rousseff returns to presidency. I'm not sure that is correct to move ever the article title.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Text improvements
The second part of the introductory section should be incorporated into the text, giving sequence to the section "Process in Congress." The process will continue for up to six months and the whole development can not be cited in the introductory section.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the first few sentences, the introduction has grammar issues that make it unclear. Copy editing this section could make it easier to understand:
According to the impeachment request,[1] Rousseff was also accused of omission concerning irregularities in Petrobras that, facing serious facts investigated by Operation Car Wash while occupying the office of president of Brazil, failed to fend off the suspects. Also according to the report, the fact is aggravated by Rousseff had been president of the board of directors in Brazilian oil company, when occurred the investigated facts, including the controversial acquisition of Pasadena Refining System, cited on page 3 of impeachment request.[1] According to the request, this omission would configure crime of responsibility.[2] However, the charges of omission were not included in the process.[3] After the acceptance of the request, a special committee was formed in the Chamber of Deputies to decide on its admissibility. It began with the testimony of the authors of the request, followed by a presentation of Rousseff's defense. Meanwhile, street protests for and against the impeachment occurred periodically throughout the country.[4][5] The committee's report was favorable to impeaching the President: 38 deputies approved the report while 27 did not.[6] A vote was held in the chamber on the 17 April in favor of beginning impeachment proceedings against Rousseff, and was confirmed with a 55–22 vote by the Senate on 12 May, resulting in the suspension of Rousseff's presidential powers and duties up to 180 days. During this period, while the judgment of the process occurs (which decides whether the president is definitively impeached or not), Michel Temer will serve as acting president.[7]
In particular, these sentences sound as though they might contain machine-translated text from the original Portuguese sources:
Rousseff was also accused of omission concerning irregularities in Petrobras that, facing serious facts investigated by Operation Car Wash while occupying the office of president of Brazil, failed to fend off the suspects. Also according to the report, the fact is aggravated by Rousseff had been president of the board of directors in Brazilian oil company, when occurred the investigated facts, including the controversial acquisition of Pasadena Refining System, cited on page 3 of impeachment request.[1] According to the request, this omission would configure crime of responsibility.[8]
ChrisC550 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
There are even more problematic translation issues, resulting in difficult to interpret English, in other sections. For example, this paragraph doesn't make much sense:
"Experts consulted by Agência Brasil commented on the political crisis. They stated that the poor skills with which the Rousseff negotiated with Congress and the number of political parties present caused a great loss of governability. Moreover, according to experts, the opposition was fighting against Rousseff from the previous year's elections, trying in every way to destabilize the government, without regard to the political and economic situation of the country, which was seriously committed to the application of impeachment. However, the outbreak of the process could be beneficial for Rousseff, who would be free from blackmail and could potentially reorganize her government. Political scientists believed Cunha could lose his mandate and that the opposition would try to push the process in Congress for 2016 in order to mitigate the "electoral ecstasy" and "act of revenge" which was the host of the application.[33]"
Olinto (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a grammar error (double negative) in one of the quotes:
"She lied on national television network and this is very serious. If she had not participated directly I don't would speak." — Eduardo Cunha,
Please check the translation. Thanks
Original Article References
- ^ a b c Helio Bicudo, Miguel Reale Jr, Janaína Paschoal (lawyers) (15 October 2015). "Pedido de impeachment da presidente Dilma Rousseff" (PDF) (in Portuguese). p. 11. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Felipe Amorim (2 December 2015). "Veja 8 razões a favor e contra o impeachment da presidente Dilma Rousseff" (in Portuguese). UOL Notícias - Política. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
- ^ "Could Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff be impeached?". BBC News. 10 May 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
- ^ Nathalia Finch and Fernanda Calgaro (17 March 2016). "Chamber elects committee members to consider impeachment Dilma" (in Portuguese). Rede Globo. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
- ^ Mariana Schreibe (14 March 2016). "Five visions: how the protests will impact the process of 'impeachment' '" (in Portuguese). BBC News. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
- ^ Fabiana Maranhão and Ricardo Marchesan (12 April 2016). "Assent to Rousseff's impeachment is approved in House committee" (in Portuguese). Universo Online. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
- ^ "Brazil's Dilma Rousseff to face impeachment trial". BBC News. 12 May 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2016.
- ^ Felipe Amorim (2 December 2015). "Veja 8 razões a favor e contra o impeachment da presidente Dilma Rousseff" (in Portuguese). UOL Notícias - Política. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
Article title?
Would Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff be a more appropriate title? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I initially moved the article to that title, but having read this NYT article, reversed the move. Perhaps once she's convicted the title should be changed. Brandmeistertalk 10:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Other remarks
Is the phrase remarking that she is the second woman to be impeached in any way relevant or interesting? I recommend removing it. Chris (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's also uncited and difficult to prove. Who keeps track of all impeachments (even of low level officials) everywhere? I'm removing it. --134.96.225.185 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Article needs wikification
The introductory section is being expanded improperly. Last decisions are in lead section and lacking details in the article, especially in relation to the Senate voting. Part of lead section should be in the article topics. For better organization, the procedures in Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate could be described in separate topics.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Made.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Cannes visibility
Should the Cannes selected Aquarius drama crew protest during the red carpet of the event be cited in the article? Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/17/brazil-is-not-a-democracy-aquarius-premiere-cannes-red-carpet-protest http://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/cinema/noticia/2016/05/equipe-de-aquarius-protesta-em-cannes-contra-impeachment-de-dilma.html http://oglobo.globo.com/cultura/filmes/sessao-de-aquarius-em-cannes-marcada-por-protesto-contra-impeachment-video-19320526
They gave global visibility to the impeachment process by protesting in a highly visible film festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oarcanjomiguel (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Theories, not serious analysis
It seems that some fanciful conspiracy theories are being spread through suspicious websites. I haven't seen in any of those publications, a detailed analysis of the reasons for impeachment, cited on request or any citation to ritual of process and its complexity, involving hundreds of actors and the voting in Chamber and Senate, everything lawfully defined by Supreme Federal Court. They don't even know that the process is still in course and is in accordance to Brazilian laws.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- One section of the article is basically just conspiracy theories from poor sources. I consequently removed that section. The user "Luizpuodzius" keeps re-inserting that section though and without any reasons provided. Is there something that can be done about this? I don't know the rules of wikipedia well enough but you need to ensure that "Luizpuodzius" can't keep re-inserting that content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: The process still in progress. On next 24 May, the Special Comission for Impeachment (CEI) will present and deliberate the work plan for next phases of the process. (Atividade Legislativa Senado Federal Template:Pt). I find it too early to create a section "international response" (or repercussion), before the outcome.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough and I agree. It was just a proposal for a path forward on the section I deleted in case someone would disagree with the deletion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Section removed
I agree absolutely with the removal. I would do the same.
The section "Repercussion and criticism" has been removed by a lot of problems in sources, some them mentioning the exact opposite of what they are referencing, like this, others with conspiracy theories, other inactive, like elpais.com/elpais/2016/05/13/inenglish/1463136338_819983.html
and this, other partial from pro-govern parties and also and essentially because the process was not completed. It is premature to cite all that, with political aim, whereas the process isn´t concluded. Please wait for the final result to create a section with the definitive international opinions or this article will become a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I completely and vehemently disagree with the removal of crucial part of the article. The argument used to castrate the other side of the story is unfounded and completely against the 5 pillars. Let me show you how you justification lacks logic and rational support.
- (1) - Your support, PauloMSimoes, stating that the section "(...) has been removed by a lot of problems in sources,... fails to explain why the UNCLASSIFIED US intelligence documents is a "problem souces"? The CIA and the United States embassy in Brazil are lying when they present the leadr of Brazil as "informant for US intelligence"? What is the problem of The Guardian, a souce founded 195 years ago, to publish that "Rousseff remained defiant, denying that she had committed any crime, and accusing her opponents of mounting a “coup”."? What exactly is the problem about the "'Repercussion" of Dilma's criticism in the Guardian? Is the fact that Carta Major published that "United States is the accomplice of coup plan against Dilma" that is the real problem? Maybe is the fact that the publication has too much awards or too many readers?
- (2) - What is the souce for you information that Glenn Greenwald is "partial from pro-govern parties'"? Let educate you: In fact, Mr. Glenn Greenwald published that After Vote to Remove Brazil’s President, Key Opposition Figure Holds Meetings in Washington; but you really wish that the reader believe that Glenn Greenwald, the * 2009 Izzy Award for independent journalism; the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary; the 2013 EFF Pioneer Award for coverage and analysis of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures; the 2013 George Polk Award the 2014 Geschwister-Scholl-Preis for No Place to Hide; and the 2015 Siebenpfeiffer-Preis or Noam Chomsky, that pointed out that "President Dilma Rousseff is the only leading politician in the country that has not engaged in theft to enrich herself", and opined that she has been “impeached by a gang of thieves(...)through a soft coup led by the opposition parties in the country",are both "partial from pro-govern parties"? What are your rational base to formulate such improbable accusations? Rede Globo?
- (3) - Is it honest or prescribed by Wiki rules to ignore relevant parts of the sources in order to decapitate a section of the article?
- (4) - The worse part of your argument is the lack of logic. It is exact the part that you use to justify your action: You point as your motivation to supress information because "...the process was not completed. It is premature to cite all that, with political aim, whereas the process isn´t concluded. Please wait for the final result to create a section with the definitive international opinions or this article will become a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia." Where is the logic?
- (a) Let us look if what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep in mind that the crux of your argument lays in the fact that the process was not completed. Why, in your impartial judgement, the part that says that "Experts consulted by Agência Brasil commented on the political crisis." must be part of the article, while the part that the same Agência Brasil commented that the "Nobel Peace says impeachment of Rousseff is a coup" must be removed, if - as you told us - the process was not completed?
- (b) Why experts like Noam Chomsky are not allow in this "one-side" article?
- Isn't completely illogical your complete agreement to place "Experts...commented on the political crisis"; although, you profess that "It is premature to cite all that, with political aim? What are the aim of political experts that instead of declaring a a soft coup, "They stated that the poor skills with which Rousseff negotiated with Congress...". Ah, this kind of "political remark is obviously NOT "...a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia.", correct? Why the poll of " Datafolha Institute, 61% of Brazilians believed that Rousseff should have been impeached", but the poll that "...71% of Brazilians believed that the impeachment process presided by Cunha should not be valid.." must be removed?
- Specially, knowing that "the process was not completed" you decided to have a section of "Comments by agencies and public opinion"; but you remove the part that agency Reuters says that: Brazil's biggest labor confederation, the CUT, which represents 25 million workers, does do not recognize the legitimacy of Temer's interim government. What is it: 25 million workers opinion are not public opinion or the Reuters is not an agency.
- Please understand that just because the American electoral process of 2016 is not completed, this does not necessarily mean that we have to castrate the email controversy until "the process was not completed"
- (5) Please, restore the section "Repercussion and criticism" and, if necessary, edit the section to increase the quality of the article....OR, on the hand, b so kind as to explain what kind of logic are using. Dr. LooTalk to me 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- PauloMSimoes, when you are considering what was said above, I reccomend that you read today's report by ABC news (partial from pro-govern parties??) about Brazil Interim Gov't Under Fire in Wake of Leaked Recording and The Guardian's secret tape reveals plot to topple President Rousseff. Dr. LooTalk to me 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The sources mentioning the WikiLeaks make assumptions based on conspiracy theories[citation needed]. These presumptions is the least interested in the article[citation needed]. Sources of government parties are partial, not exempted[citation needed]. The Guardian, depreciates the process, citing arguments that make for debunk the ritual legally constituted, according to Brazilian law[citation needed]. It is only repeating the arguments that Rousseff and the PT is spreading[citation needed]. Be elected with 54 million votes isn't a plausible argument to justify any illegality on President acts nor in the process. The Guardian as much unaware of the case[citation needed], that put a picture of impeachment supporters. Obviously, that should be also mention the criticisms in the article. I am not claiming that the article does not have the section, I just think better to wait, because there is a lot of misinformation in the media. These international opinions may well be cited at the end of the process, Roussef can be acquitted and return to office. I think advisable to wait the outcome, to create this section, citing reputed and reliable sources. Please, be patient. Regards.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- PauloMSimoes, you said "The sources mentioning the WikiLeaks make assumptions based on conspiracy theories". Let me see if I undertand. You are saying that ABC news, The Guardian, NY Times, etc are making assumptions based on conspiracy theories spanned by WikiLeaks? WOW! Can you give the sources that you are utilizing as base for your revealing accusations, so I can add the info into the ABC News article, in order for everybody be educated and understand that ABC News is not a respectful source, but only a bunch of reporters that make assumptions based on conspiracy theories. Put some sources, please! Dr. LooTalk to me 21:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Bothers me
"In the course of Operation Car Wash, many illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras". Was the purchase illegal. Couldn't see a referenced statement for that. Moriori (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Moriori: I improved the text. I hope that has clarified. Thanks.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)- You did? How? I still can't see a reference justifying "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Who says the purchase was illegal? Moriori (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Moriori: Who said were the lawyers in the approved impeachment request. This article describes the impeachment in details, not for introduce sources to prove or deny the charges against Rousseff. The central theme, besides the impeachment, obviously, is the document that started the process, i.e., the request. However, I added sources about your questions, even not considering it necessary.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Moriori: Who said were the lawyers in the approved impeachment request. This article describes the impeachment in details, not for introduce sources to prove or deny the charges against Rousseff. The central theme, besides the impeachment, obviously, is the document that started the process, i.e., the request. However, I added sources about your questions, even not considering it necessary.
- You did? How? I still can't see a reference justifying "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Who says the purchase was illegal? Moriori (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@PauloMSimoes:Now hold on. This article has a definite whiff about it in my opinion, so let's look at some of the content.
- "Rousseff was also accused of omission"
- "According to this request, her omission would indicate criminal responsibility".
- "The request was based on allegations of omission"
- "....charges of omission were not included in the process...."
W-h-a-t?
Furthermore, the statement that says "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase..." of the refinery is still not supported by the references. You may not consider them necessary but Wikipedia does and if you don't provide them, that info will be removed. Moriori (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Moriori: wich kind of source have you in mind? The fact was sourced, and is cited in request because the withdrawn President chaired the director's board in Petrobras at that time. Afterwards, while the request approval by Chamber of Deputies, this charge was removed of the process (but not of the request), as well the charges of omission. The text of section "Request for impeachment" is strictly describing that document that, as explained, is the "backbone" of the process.PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The kind of source I have in mind is the kind of source that Wikipedia demands for information in any article, especially something that some might consider defamatory. Read WP:RS. You saying the source was "cited in request" is meaningless. The two references given do not mention "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Where is it established that the refinery purchase was illegal? Either provide a reference, or the info will be removed. Moriori (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, go ahead. I'm not comfortable by has been unique editor there. Anyway, I hope a better analysis than yours. We are writing an article about "impeachment", that is reporting the details of the process, introduced by the parts involved.
This is not WP:RS. For your information, a translate of citation on page 4 of request: "On that occasion, the President was chairman of Council and gave as an excuse a mistake concerning a contractual clause (mine emphasis). At the time, many asked whether this alleged failure does not lessen the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, however, no one had the audacity of distrust the probity of the President." A mistake concerning a contractual clause is the same as ilegal business.PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, go ahead. I'm not comfortable by has been unique editor there. Anyway, I hope a better analysis than yours. We are writing an article about "impeachment", that is reporting the details of the process, introduced by the parts involved.
- The kind of source I have in mind is the kind of source that Wikipedia demands for information in any article, especially something that some might consider defamatory. Read WP:RS. You saying the source was "cited in request" is meaningless. The two references given do not mention "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Where is it established that the refinery purchase was illegal? Either provide a reference, or the info will be removed. Moriori (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Sources in article
Needs the article more sources, per This article needs additional citations for verification
? I think that the entire text can be verified through the 134 references, spread over all about 70 paragraphs.PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed this and the neutrality tag, since there are no discussions on this talk page about it. This could still use a copyedit. Mamyles (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Could use a copyedit" is an understatement: much of the article is indecipherable. I understand the translation process is difficult. Still, it is clear to see there are rather severe neutrality issues that are compounded by the editing issues. Rouseff's defense is supported by an "occultly recorded conversation." The fact that the "Rousseff self-defence" section is one-sentence long should certainly ring alarm bells. Or how about this one: "[...] the lawyer of senator Jucá said that his client never thought to perform any interference in the Operation Car Wash and the dialogue does not suggest that." This wording can cut two different ways - was the lawyer or Juca lying about the interference, or does the dialogue suggest they were being truthful? If we take a look at Impeachment of Bill Clinton, there are multiple paragraphs throughout the prose describing the legal defense, comments from defenders of the impeached president, etc, that are completely absent in this article. Of course that trial had a different result than Rousseff's, but still there is a lot of content on the losing side and their arguments. The citations here seem fine, except that sources which provide evidence sympathetic to Rousseff's arguments are used to support sentences that do not (such as the example I provided above, see the NYT source). I sincerely appreciate all the work everyone has put into this article, but let's not get carried away. I'll try to take a whack at some of the editing, but I would strongly argue in favor of reinstating the neutrality tag until these WP:NPOV issues are cleared up. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- A neutrality tag must be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page, and that was not done. I agree that the article is a work in progress. Feel free to add it back, linking to this section, in the hope of attracting more attention here. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're quite right. I'll hold off adding back the neutrality tag for now, because there has been a flurry of activity today on some of these issues and don't mean to detract from the editors working on them. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- A neutrality tag must be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page, and that was not done. I agree that the article is a work in progress. Feel free to add it back, linking to this section, in the hope of attracting more attention here. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Could use a copyedit" is an understatement: much of the article is indecipherable. I understand the translation process is difficult. Still, it is clear to see there are rather severe neutrality issues that are compounded by the editing issues. Rouseff's defense is supported by an "occultly recorded conversation." The fact that the "Rousseff self-defence" section is one-sentence long should certainly ring alarm bells. Or how about this one: "[...] the lawyer of senator Jucá said that his client never thought to perform any interference in the Operation Car Wash and the dialogue does not suggest that." This wording can cut two different ways - was the lawyer or Juca lying about the interference, or does the dialogue suggest they were being truthful? If we take a look at Impeachment of Bill Clinton, there are multiple paragraphs throughout the prose describing the legal defense, comments from defenders of the impeached president, etc, that are completely absent in this article. Of course that trial had a different result than Rousseff's, but still there is a lot of content on the losing side and their arguments. The citations here seem fine, except that sources which provide evidence sympathetic to Rousseff's arguments are used to support sentences that do not (such as the example I provided above, see the NYT source). I sincerely appreciate all the work everyone has put into this article, but let's not get carried away. I'll try to take a whack at some of the editing, but I would strongly argue in favor of reinstating the neutrality tag until these WP:NPOV issues are cleared up. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Red links
OK, so I get that some links are red cause the articles are available on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but do they have to be? I mean, IMO, all of them should just link to the pt wiki. Sorry, red links just trigger me. Esmost πк 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that there should be links to foregin language Wikipedias in article text at all. WP:MOS/Linking also discourages it. Mamyles (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Esmost and Mamyles: I don't know if, for example, Janaina Paschoal, in lieu of Janaina Paschoal, the first format is accepted. I don't like red links also, but the template: ILL has no details about the conditions under which the template can be used. I intended that the links could help the text undestanding, in some way. Thanks for the opinion. PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I personally think that it would be better to use that template, than directly linking to another wikipedia or leaving just a red link. I like that the template adjusts the format when the red-linked article is created. Red links aren't necessarily bad, but too many can detract from an article. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Esmost and Mamyles: I don't know if, for example, Janaina Paschoal, in lieu of Janaina Paschoal, the first format is accepted. I don't like red links also, but the template: ILL has no details about the conditions under which the template can be used. I intended that the links could help the text undestanding, in some way. Thanks for the opinion. PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I always link to the foreign-language wiki if it adds information. If it's just a stub over there, well.... Here we have something about Brazilian history where the Portugese wiki presumably has more editors on the topic. But on the subject of redlinks, I asked about this about a year ago as there was a slow editor-war on one article about this and the thinking is that 1) redlinks signal that an article is needed but 2) the ILL allows anyone who speaks the language or is motivated enough to organize a translation, machine or otherwise, to get more information. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
No mention of coup accusations?
It seems common for stuff like this to only really gain ground long after something has happened, but with all the sources that accuse it of being a coup that view definitely needs to be included. I'm not saying it should be equal in weight as the legal process, but so far it's practically buried deep within a few lines of the article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prinsgezinde: Is given a extensive coverage for defense in the article, more than for the prosecution. However, it could created a topic "Criticism", supported by reliable sources (not conspiracy theories). In fact, these criticisms (calling "a coup", the process), are originated by the removed president and her supporters, for having been a political trial and not judicial. I see this article as essentially descriptive of the whole process, without addressing the merits of the case. And that's what it does. The ruling on the merits was made by the judges (senators), is not the WP that should do it.PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it's mentioned by the former President and her supporters. But the dispute over whether it was a coup or not—with that word especially being important—is missing from this article. The article currently gives a mostly legal description of the process. I'm well aware of the general view, mind you. The following sources discuss it one way or another:
- But just to be clear: I was simply surprised at the lack of focus on it as I was coincidentally trying to find something on it. I hardly feel obligated to change it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Rousseff was Constitutionally impeached & convicted/removed from office. Where's the coup? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: this process may be contextualized by some economics indicators. Two indicators can show the situation: the decline of Brazilian PIB since 2010 (in 2015, was the worst in 25 years) and growing unemployment (7 million in 2014 to 11 million in 2016). These facts caused the political crisis in Rousseff government, despite the social programs. The Request for impeachment cites all these facts (besides the corruption in Petrobras) and were considered by the Senators in the decision. These facts led to a 68% disapproval of Rousseff's government on second half of 2014. This is the context, however, the article needs to cite both sides. If the process is "a coup" or not, this is under the perspective of each side. I remember that Rousseff had 54 million vote when re-elected on 2014, however her opponent had 51 million vote. This is symptomatic. If you think to cite that opinions about "coup", go ahead, but supported by reliable sources. PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- whether you agree with her or not it's her side of the story. I don't think I am qualified to decide whether her removal was proper or constitutional. though. But you do have to present her side of the story as well. Right now the article reads like it was written by her political opponents. Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
International reactions
So far, we have the reactions of Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, who repeat Dilma's claims of a coup, and Argentina, who doesn't. But what about the reactions of the United States, and other actual world powers? Usually, when a new head of state takes office in a country, the leaders from other countries send some diplomatic congratulations, which imply that they accept the new ruler as a legitimate one (that, or attend the oath of office, if diplomatic relations are strong enough). This is a bit trivial when a president simply wins an election, but may be worth to point in a controversial case like this one. I have found here an article written when Temer became interim president, saying that Obama was staying silent, awaiting the definitive results. I have not found yet any article about Obama calling Temer now that he's confirmed as president, but neither an article discussing a lack of reactions from the US. Cambalachero (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
request to Portugese speakers
I am here because the article is listed at Pages in need of cleanup after translation and have made a number of copy edits. Please feel free to let me know if I have introduced any errors, but I am fairly careful about these things. My request is this however -- the title field in references should be the title in Portugese, and then the english translation should be in the trans-title field. Right now there are some strangely-worded translations and I can't tell if this is translation error or strangely-worded original. Well, maybe I can, but my Portugese is miniscule and it would be an enormous amount of work with reference material. Could someone please verify these translations? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to anyone working on this. I was going to go in and fix one myself, but it turned out to be in English. So a further comment: the language=en and language=pt fields are also useful I fixed the one I was looking at and I am requesting that other editors doe the same. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
NPOV - ok, I will be the one to do this
there are several things about this that raise red flags for me. The article reads like the minutes of the committee drafting the indictment, both in accusatory tone and in bureaucratese. This may be inadvertent translation problems to some extent, but the issues are there. "Excuse" is never a neutral word, for instance. Due weight is definitely not given to the defense, yet loving detail is lavished on the formulation of the charges, and her accusers' titles are elaborated several times. The latter may be due to multiple hasty editors -- I deleted lede-like material from the final paragraph that looked cut-and-pasted and which definitely duplicated material in the lede. I am working on the language aspects but the article is bad enough to warrant listing on the boards imho. I'll list other issues in this section as I find them..Elinruby (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
list of silly questions
Please remember that the purpose of these is to correctly edit the English.
- "Rousseff has edit in 2014 and 2015, six unnumbered decrees that resulted in the provision of additional credit to social programs with electoral purposes, without authorization from Congress."
Pasadena Refinery System was being piped to Pasadena Refinery -- 1) does the company only have one refinery? (companies like that exist) 2) English Wikipedia says its *headquarters* is in Pasadena, and in that town (a Houston suburb) it could be either industrial or an office campus. Also, are we talking about the debt the parent company had developped before the sale? Is this the contract mistake? Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: the mistake is "Petrobras paid $1.18 billion for a refinery that had cost Belgium´s Astra Oil (then refinery's owner) $42.5 million", per The Washington Times. More: 1 and 2. PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- right... well, I have to think about what I think of the Washington Times and FT is paywalled for me, but I got this link to work -- this is what we are talking about: Houston Chronicle? How do the financials compare to the total Brazilian economy at the time and who approved the purchase? Albert Frère is who they bought it from, right? Give or take a holding company? Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: what about the fire at the refinery and this thing I see about the permit being expired? Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) By the way I think the Financial Times is a fairly good source. I need to go look up whether the Reverend Moon still owns the Washington Times and look at their recent news coverage; I wasn't real impressed with it when I was living there but that was a while ago. Also the Houston Chronicle is a good source for this story. Pasadena is on the Port of Houston and is essentially part of the metropolitan area. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- right... well, I have to think about what I think of the Washington Times and FT is paywalled for me, but I got this link to work -- this is what we are talking about: Houston Chronicle? How do the financials compare to the total Brazilian economy at the time and who approved the purchase? Albert Frère is who they bought it from, right? Give or take a holding company? Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- separate question do we trust FireEye on a statement about weaponized Russian hackers? I am not arguing that we don't but it is an important statement. Where is the Department of Homeland Security on all this? Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UT
- fourth question: I saw something about someone trying to indict her successor Michel Temer; did that succeed?
- A lawsuit was filed in Superior Electoral Court claiming that there was electoral crime in the political campaign of the alliance Rousseff-Temer, with donations made by companies investigated in Operation Car Wash. (details are in article). Besides, was filed a impeachment process against Temer, but this is out of scope in the article (although, this can be cited there, imho - are distinct subjects) PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- out of scope for extended discussion but it is notable is it not that there are so many politicians implicated? Number three and number four in the line are also open to impeachment are they [not?
- 'Number three', Rodrigo Maia (Chamber president - first now in succession line) insn't with justice problems to assume office. 'Number four', Renan Calheiros (Senate president - second now in sl - have justice charges and can't assume office. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) @PauloMSimoes: aha. For some reason I assumed Calheiros would move up but they are elected to different legislative bodies, doh. The Chamber president is elected by a vote of the deputies I guess? And when you say "can't" assume office there has been a decision to this effect then? Elinruby (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- out of scope for extended discussion but it is notable is it not that there are so many politicians implicated? Number three and number four in the line are also open to impeachment are they [not?
- fifth question: I saw that the man who filed the indictment was arrested.
Did he go to jail?. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- (partial answer to myself) yes, because he was denied bail due to his resources and his Italian citizenship. I have not found anything about a trial; did that happen? This probably needs an update Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you refers to Eduardo Cunha, yes, he was arrested in "Car Wash Op" (CWO) by 'black mailing'. He filed the indictment, because was his attribution, while president of Chamber, then. By the way, a lot of politicians were denounced and some arrested in last weeks in CWO. There's not a trial, the arrests were made preventively.PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- right. I understand that it was his job to receive these petitions. I am not certain I understand which ones he decided to archive, but right now when you have a moment I would like to know about the blackmail part. I didn't understand that part in the article either; can you explain it?. Elinruby (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you refers to Eduardo Cunha, yes, he was arrested in "Car Wash Op" (CWO) by 'black mailing'. He filed the indictment, because was his attribution, while president of Chamber, then. By the way, a lot of politicians were denounced and some arrested in last weeks in CWO. There's not a trial, the arrests were made preventively.PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- (partial answer to myself) yes, because he was denied bail due to his resources and his Italian citizenship. I have not found anything about a trial; did that happen? This probably needs an update Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
His was arrested for old accusations of receiving kickbacks when Chamber president. It has not connection with impeachment process. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: ok, except context, right? Aren't these some of the charges Dilma was accused of delibrately overlooking? I realize that a court said she could not be impeached for thisngs he did before she was president. Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elinruby: yes, Roussef's charge "deliberately overlooking on corruption in Petrobras" was removed from impeachment trial, for the "legal obstacle that prevents investigating a president for acts prior to mandate" (however, it's in Request for Impeachment, and this is the reason for citation in article).
Cunha was suspended of his Deputy mandate in 12 September 2016 for "ethical misconduct" ("lying during testimony at a Congressional Committee of Investigation on the Petrobras corruption scandal") and arrested preventively in 19 October 2016. He is accused of corruption and was arrested preventively for "potential 'flight risk', since he possesses dual Italian and Brazilian citizenship". Similar fact was occurred with Henrique Pizzolato, condemned for bribery and money laundering on Mensalão scandal. Two days after his sentence, he fled to Italy, where has citizenship. Only after two years of his escape, he was extradited back to Brazil, after a complex inter-diplomatic judicial battle.
I hope to be helping. PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC) g
- yes I think you are. The point about Pizzolato is interesting; I did not know that, although I'd encountered mention of the Mensalao scandal. It also explains why the Italian citizenship was considered such an issue. But the corruption that Rousseff is accused of overlooking, does it include the corruption Cunha is charged with? Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: no, Cunha did not belong to the board of directors of Petrobras, He was a federal deputy and is accused on received bribes to approve contracts to manufacture equipments for Petrobras. Rousseff was accused of 'overlooking' in the situations described on section "Omission" PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- yes I think you are. The point about Pizzolato is interesting; I did not know that, although I'd encountered mention of the Mensalao scandal. It also explains why the Italian citizenship was considered such an issue. But the corruption that Rousseff is accused of overlooking, does it include the corruption Cunha is charged with? Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry, I walked on a couple of you
I am going to move down the page and edit, say 5.3 down. That should help. Then we can work on any style discrepancies.... actually I will go work on another article so we don't start with edit conflicts. Back later, ping if you need something Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC) @Sau226: @Akld guy:
if this is the second ping my apologies -- i think i did this wrong last time though. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hardly any weight given to Rousseff's defence? Or did she have no defence?
In the entire article, I can find only the following defence arguments put forward by Rousseff:
- a mistake had been made in a contractual clause
- the bringing of impeachment charges is a kind of coup
- the setting up of Operation Car Wash was solely to bring about her impeachment
- she was a victim of a conspiracy
If she refuted any of the financial misdealing charges, it's not to be found in the article. My question is, did she have any defence against the allegations of improper financial dealings or didn't she? Akld guy (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: thank you for the recent edits, improving the article. There is a whole section ("Rousseff self-defence..."), supported by several sources, that perhaps may be expanded. The entire defence piece by Roussef's lawyer José Eduardo Cardozo (536 page - unfortunately in Portuguese) can be read here. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: Thank you, Paulo. I don't read Portuguese and machine translation has all kinds of problems. Maybe the best option would be for you to write a summary of the 536 pages on this Talk page. @Elinruby: and I could improve your translation, if necessary, before you paste it into the article. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh... Is a lot of work! May be a synthesis. Perhaps anyone more that claims NPOV, can help too. On time: I'll do it, as possible. I saw now that I included this document in article (section "Rousseff interrogatory and final arguments"). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Strictly it may be necessary, in order to maintain equity, also to translate the piece of prosecution, (131 page, also in article in same section). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think he means he might able to produce a summary, not that doing so would be synthesis in the specialized meaning when the word is used on en.wikipedia. I will try to help as I can with translation on the understanding that I don't really speak portugese; I definitely can't write it and I would not trust my reading much past possibly being able to discern, in very broad strokes, the gist of an article. I am better at spotting translation issues. But I would be happy to help as I can. We now have two independent assessments that yes there is a weight problem (three if you count me, but I was not entirely fresh eyes, since I encountered Operation Car Wash On Panama Papers (and said there that I did not understand it). I think it is important to realize that this is party politics going back twenty years. But I will now go back to working on the English as I read through the article. I think maybe we don't need a blow-by-blow of the committee motions, and perhaps we can explain the consequences to Brazil if this *were* a coup. But those are discussable. I'll stick for now to less controversial changes that probably are language issues, in case people DO want to discuss. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: Thank you, Paulo. I don't read Portuguese and machine translation has all kinds of problems. Maybe the best option would be for you to write a summary of the 536 pages on this Talk page. @Elinruby: and I could improve your translation, if necessary, before you paste it into the article. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
is the rationale for the impeachment
specifically
- 1. The economy tanked
- 2. A bunch of corruption surfaces at Petrobas, a state-owned oil company, while Rousseff was chairman of the board
- 3. Rousseff is believed to have participated (even if this is so far not demonstrated)
- 4. 2 and/or 3 are blamed for 1
- 5. The general disgust with the situation led to calls for general regime change
I am uncertain how much of the situation was specifically directed against Rousseff or if the population simply was essentially performing a vote of no confidence Elinruby (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: besides this (less "Pasadena case" - this fact is cited in Impeachment Request - please read it in the article lede and in the proper section), Senate judged her guilty for "criminal responsibility, administrative misconduct and disregarding the federal budget in violation of Brazilian Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Law (signed budget decrees without Senate authorization and "fiscal pedalling" with alleged purpose "to conceal the economic problems" in a electoral year). More here. Please, read the several sources in English, that gives many additional details. I insist in apologises about my English and I'll reply as possible. Cheers. PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that I think, but I am asking for example, is the Pasadena purchase the error she was talking about? If so I agree that this is kind of a big error, but I am still in translation mode. And please. I cannot discuss objects in Portugese let alone complicated ideas. What is the criminal responsibility? Haven't I seen that as a crime of responsibility? Does that mean public corruption ie being a corrupt public official? Is this for not sufficiently pursuing prosecution at Petrobras? The budget degrees without authorization are part of this thing about funding social programs before an election? The Constitution infraction is something about the budget being solely the province of the egislative branch? Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- This law that Rousseff broke -- when was that passed, please? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- 2012 to 2014, per TCU concludes that the government has violated the Fiscal Responsibility Law, as cited in article. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- This law that Rousseff broke -- when was that passed, please? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that I think, but I am asking for example, is the Pasadena purchase the error she was talking about? If so I agree that this is kind of a big error, but I am still in translation mode. And please. I cannot discuss objects in Portugese let alone complicated ideas. What is the criminal responsibility? Haven't I seen that as a crime of responsibility? Does that mean public corruption ie being a corrupt public official? Is this for not sufficiently pursuing prosecution at Petrobras? The budget degrees without authorization are part of this thing about funding social programs before an election? The Constitution infraction is something about the budget being solely the province of the egislative branch? Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, dear... but the trial lasted a total of 320 hours of work, of which 109 in Plenary and 211 in the Special Committee on Impeachment, which yielded 4,300 pages tachygraphed, 52 witnesses were heard, being 44 in the Commission and 8 in Plenary, to instruct a process that reached more than 27,000 sheets, distributed in 73 volumes. These numbers were extracted from the Official Senate Report "O Julgamento da Presidente Dilma Rousseff pelo Senado Federal - 2016" - (translated title: "The Trial of President Dilma Roussef by Senate - 2016"). Is very difficult to me, to explain all that in a simple way. There are 180 sources, that reference the entire text in article and I don't know what more can be added. Sorry, againPauloMSimoes (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yep I totally admit I am blundering around asking stupid questions that betray a total lack of understanding and I am glad you are this patient, but better her than in the main article. I am kind of hoping other people will chime in Elinruby (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all, you are right. I hope so anyone more can help here. Thank you PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like that law was passed in 2000. I thought I saw a constitutional amendment; maybe that was in the Temer administration. When this law was passed Dilma was Lula's chief of staff, is that correct? I am off to check. It *would* seem like she should know about it then. But if Temer needed to do it too then what is it exactly and why is it illegal again? Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all, you are right. I hope so anyone more can help here. Thank you PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yep I totally admit I am blundering around asking stupid questions that betray a total lack of understanding and I am glad you are this patient, but better her than in the main article. I am kind of hoping other people will chime in Elinruby (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
What law? I really reiterate that this article describes (with sources) the procedures that occurred during the 8 months that lasted the process, culminating in the Senate's decision to permanent ousting the President from office, in a section chaired by the President of the Supreme Court. I don't think we're here to dispute what the Senate has decided, or are we? PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Elinruby, sorry the misunderstanding about the law you cited. As cited in lede, the charges were "administrative misconduct and disregarding the federal budget in violation of article 85 of the Brazilian Constitution, items V and VI and violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, article 36 (references in text, with translation). Can you give more details, please? Or another editor try to explain/reply? Akld guy, can you help? Thanks. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: Am I trying to dispute the Senate decision? I completely lack standing with respect to the Senate decision, if you are asking in the legal sense. If you by dispute you mean "take issue with" or "denounce as wrong" nope nope don't understand it well enough. At some point I may do that however. For the moment I am just a stubborn translation wikignome trying to rewrite this article for idiom. As a separate matter the article fails formal definitions of fairness on Wikipedia if you omit Rousseff's own account of the actions she was impeached for because you don't believe her. At least that is the way I understand this. Did/does she deny that she did these things? Does she agree that she did these things but say that these actions were necessary? Not illegal? If you or another editor believe(s) she lied or said something untrue then this can be neutrally stated somehow also but her version does need to be there. The articles I posted above are reliable in my opinion, at least until someone objects to one of them, and several of them said that her removal from power was not a coup. I would like to make the article accurate is what I want, and easier to read. I see the legal citation in the lede. I have not found the translation yet. I would like to move the letter of the law further down the article, and summarize in the lede, so that is why I keep asking what specifically she did. Authorize the Treasury to fund social programs via an executive order? I am ok with some formulation that says legal procedure was followed, since there seems to be great emphasis on this point. However shouldn't we also mention that Michel Temer has also issued some of these edicts, and what is that about? I have no opinion on the legality or constitutionality of the process. Personally, from what I have seen far. I have seen much disagreement with her formulation, although I do have to take issue with the source that claims that this was not a coup because coups are very rare these days. That newspaper is usually a reliable source, too. Does Brazil have a treaty with the United States that mandates its intervention if there is a coup? Maybe the 1952 agreement, is that still in effect? I realize that this was intended to keep Communists out of government not keep them in power. I was just wondering because there was one with Honduras. If the 2000 law is the one she is accused of breaking isn't there an exception for necessity? Elinruby (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elinruby: You asked, "This law that Rousseff broke -- when was that passed, please?". According to the section "Committee meetings/Witnesses hearings", the Fiscal Responsibility Law was enacted in May 2000. Akld guy (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Insisted in thesis
I don't understand that phrase, which is in the 'Omission' section. Here is the sentence:
- According to the report, the President insisted in thesis that the allegations would be a kind of coup....
Does it mean that she wrote a document (a thesis)? Is it saying that she insisted on a conspiracy theory (translated as thesis?) that it was a coup? What is meant here? Akld guy (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: no, this is part of the Request for Impeachment, page 5:
"durante todo o processo eleitoral, a denunciada [Rousseff] negou que a situação da Petrobras, seja sob o ponto de vista moral, seja sob o ponto de vista econômico, era muito grave. Com efeito, mesmo com todas as notícias veiculadas, a denunciada insistiu na estapafúrdia tese de que as denúncias seriam uma espécie de golpe, mera tentativa de fragilizar a Petrobras" Translating:
"during the entire electoral process, the denounced [Rousseff] denied that the Petrobras situation, whether from the moral point of view or from the economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news published, the denounced insisted on stupid thesis that the accusations would be a kind of coup, a mere attempt to weaken Petrobras"
PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Too much detail
The section "Committee meetings" has two sub-headings: "Work plan and preliminary requests" and "Witness hearings". These two sub-headings contain, in my opinion, far too much detail that is of no interest to readers of English in the western world. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into typing them, with translation also involved, and while each tiny step of the impeachment process is of interest to Brazilian and other South American readers, it's not so for us in the west. These two walls of text should be reduced in size to perhaps a couple of paragraphs each, summarizing the main facts. If nobody is willing to do this, I'll do it myself after a day or two. Akld guy (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Akld guy. Thank you for your support, improving the text.
I have some comments:
1) I think that, in face of the claims of NPOV in article, if you remove the statements of the defence witnesses, it would be worst in this aspect (as cited in the text, "a total of 44 witnesses were heard, six convened by prosecution and 38 by defence"). Per lawsuit's praxis, are heard first the prosecution and after the defence witnesses.
Imho, witnesses statements are very important to be removed, like:
Prosecution witnesses
- Julio Marcelo de Oliveira - Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) prosecutor
- Antonio Carlos Costa D'avila Carvalho, Tiago Alves de Gouveia Lins Dutra and Leonardo Rodrigues Albernaz - TCU auditors
TCU report was the 'starting' document for the Request for Impeachment.
Defence witnesses
- former National Secretary of Planning and Strategic Investment, Gilson Bittencourt
- former Secretary of Agricultural Policy of the Ministry of Agriculture, André Nassar
- former Minister of Planning, Budget and Management, Nelson Barbosa
- former Minister of Education, José Henrique Paim
and other secretaries and ministers, that stated relevant opinions for defence instruction.
2) In Janaína's image caption, you included "prosecutor". What shall be included in Cardozo's image caption ?
3) In this edit, why you removed text and reference ? I considered it relevant to be cited. Attorney Cardozo and defence Senators left the section in protest against Lira.
Thank you. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it because it was a trivial detail. OK they had a little dispute with Lira. It's of no interest to western readers. That is the point I'm trying to make here. Readers in the West do not want to read all the little trivial details. Please don't be offended. It's just that every little detail that seems important to Brazilians is not to us. We just want to read a summary of what happened. I included "prosecutor" to Janaína's photo caption and will add something to Cardozo's. Akld guy (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: Ok, no objections. As for the statements of witnesses, whatever you decide to improve article, will be fine. Cheers. PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Akld guy, only a doubt, after your changes in the text: "...also heard were the assistant..." in lieu of "...were also heard the assistant..." is grammatically correct ? PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: That sentence says: "João Correia Serra, prosecution lawyer in lieu, praised Anastasia's report and..." I did not change the wording at in lieu, it was already there. I interpret it to mean that Serra took the place of the prosecutor Janaina Paschoal who appeared at earlier hearings, but I don't know that for sure since I can't read the Portuguese reference. Therefore I decided to leave it. It makes sense to readers of English, but if I knew the circumstances I might be able to word it better. For example, if I knew for sure that Serra appeared in place of Paschoal, I would say so explicitly, like this: "João Correia Serra, prosecution lawyer who appeared in lieu of Janaina Paschoal, praised Anastasia's report and..." Akld guy (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: isn't this phrase that I referred. Is the phrase, which you wrote "...also heard were the assistant..." in this edit, that I don't understood. (is really this ?) Sorry my badly explanation. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: That's a different sentence. It reads: "Also heard were the assistant to the prosecution, Selene Péres Nunes and the assistant to the defense, Ricardo Lodi Ribeiro." I didn't write that, but merely changed assistant by the prosecution and assistant by the defence to assistant to because that's what I thought it meant. Now, if those two people, Nunes and Ribeiro, were assistants, I will change it to:
- "Also heard were counsel assisting the prosecution, Selene Péres Nunes and the counsel assisting the defense, Ricardo Lodi Ribeiro." That is better English. Paulo, please confirm whether those two people were assistants as I just described. Akld guy (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: yes, they were (respectively) prosecution's and defense's expert assistants. Just below in text, in section "Rousseff interrogatory and final arguments", the first reference is this source, which confirms it. (
"This Tuesday (5), the senators heard the defense's and prosecution's expert assistants, who analyzed the expert testimony made by Senate technicians..."
Agência Brasil have a list of sources in English (not all, however), that can help in many cases. See this page and roll down the list ("Veja mais" button) until you reach the news date that you seek. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: That's a different sentence. It reads: "Also heard were the assistant to the prosecution, Selene Péres Nunes and the assistant to the defense, Ricardo Lodi Ribeiro." I didn't write that, but merely changed assistant by the prosecution and assistant by the defence to assistant to because that's what I thought it meant. Now, if those two people, Nunes and Ribeiro, were assistants, I will change it to:
- several things confuse me here. First, en lieu is unclear and possibly a term of art. I agree that italicizing it and asking about it is the correct action. It also occurs to me that it may be used here in an older meaning, in the place of not meaning substitution but in that place. A couple of semantic jumps and it could mean who has jurisdiction. All of that -- who had jurisdiction to try a president -- may have been unclear, thus the enormous detail about work plans. I agree, we don't need to know about when the work plan was approved, for example, though. The enormous detail does seriously impede readability. If someone feels strongly that certain details are needed, perhaps they could be moved to notes or even the talk section where they would at least be available. This is, I suspect, or at oen point was, a translation from Portugese, where, yes, there would have been intense interest in every detail. Also, I don't know anything about the Brazilian court system but I am guessing it is not a common law legal system. I realize that France is not Brazil but I have gotten into the nuts and bolts of the French system and it has special terms for the examining magistrate who has jurisdiction and the representatives of the prosecution office who have jurisdiction (called substitutes unless they are "the" prosecutor, except that the prosecutor is more like the barrister for the government case developed by the examining magistrate). So yes the term requires an explanation and it is probably better to use the portugese term rather than trying to parse the meaning of a french term imported into portugese if that is what it is, or whether this French term imported into English in fact conveys the correct meaning for these events, because the french roots mean place and so the term could conceivably mean "who has jurisdiction" Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I used the expression in lieu, that means "in place of", as only a "expression refinement". Change it, please, as you want. About the excessive detail, I'm not sure what to say. Each paragraph is sourced and many sources are relevant to be removed. However, on the section "Committee meetings", the most of about 50 sources are in Portuguese (I don't found it in English). I really don't know how to solve this. If you submit each part separately, that you think should be removed, we can analyze case by case. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- oK. Thank you for clearing up the linguistic point. So it is used here in the usual english meaning. good. I will take another look at this later -- I promised to look at another page yesterday and fell asleep so I thnik I should do that first. Can you let me know if there is something to the speculation that there was not an exact procedure in the law and therefore one needed to be determined, and and this is why we have the detail about how the decision-making was reached? I think one way to reduce intricate detail which people nonetheless feel is important is to move it to a note. (?) Since we do have this going on then yes we should discuss. My current question is why do we need the date when they decided what the work plan is? Elinruby (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
could somebody please explain this sentence
"When the Workers' Party announced its support for the wedge term loss on the Board of Ethics, he accepted the request for impeachment as an instrument of blackmail." Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
what is a wedge term? A wedge term loss on the Boards of Ethics? What is a Board of Ethics and what is its scope? what is an instrument of blackmail? the request for impeachment is an instrument of blackmail? What? This isn't the first time I have asked about this blackmail; It seems like it would be important if true. Elinruby (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: oh, it's laughable... This text is not mine. Some editor translated the name "Cunha" to the simple name "wedge", that means also "cunha" (in Portuguese, 'cunha' is a wedge - device to lock pieces). "wedge term loss" means "Cunha term loss", i.e. the loss of Cunha's mandate.
I will try to explain the phrase, translating part of this reference in text and explaining the text in article. "Cunha said that Rousseff lied to society when she pronounced in a national network, that her government does not participate in "bargains" with Congress."
As in article: "The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha, was investigated in Operation Car Wash for allegedly receiving bribes and keeping secret Swiss bank accounts. The ethics council pt filed a lawsuit against him, putting Cunha in risk of losing his mandate. (note: the Council of Ethics is responsible for judging and applying penalties to deputies, in cases of non-compliance with norms regarding parliamentary decorum). Rumors emerged about attempts to reach an agreement between the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) [Cunha's party] and the Workers' Party (PT) [Rousseff's party] to archive this lawsuit [an agreement for Cunha not accept the impeachment request], which Cunha strongly denied. When the Workers' Party announced on the Council of Ethics, its support for the wedge Cunha term mandate loss, he accepted the request for impeachment [supposedly] as an instrument of blackmail retaliation." (links and brackets are mine changes).
According the source. "Cunha stated that the opening of the impeachment process is his constitutional duty, as Chamber's president and the decision was based only on facts related to the disregarding of the Budget Laws. He reiterated that he had no personal reason or retaliation against Rousseff."
I hope I have elucidated. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Was that changed in the article? Dr. LooTalk to me 01:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have not changed anything, personally. I do not know whether @PauloMSimoes: has done so. I have not looked recently. Yes, would someone please clear that name problem up. Could you please also check to make sure there are no mistranslated rude puns based on his name. I haven't noticed one but I might not notice, and I know that one is possible. That would be bad...Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am still processing the part about the blackmail. So that should read retaliation? that Cunha's loss of his position would be tit-for-tat for accepting a request for Rousseff's impeachment? Because that is not what it says right now. Also, weren't their parties the ruling political alliance? Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have not changed anything, personally. I do not know whether @PauloMSimoes: has done so. I have not looked recently. Yes, would someone please clear that name problem up. Could you please also check to make sure there are no mistranslated rude puns based on his name. I haven't noticed one but I might not notice, and I know that one is possible. That would be bad...Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no longer any problem related to the confusion with the words "wedge" and "Cunha". I have already fixed all errors related. Further details on the "divergences" between Cunha and Rousseff, can be read in sources in the article, such as this one and this one. Additionally, read this one. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC) OK I will Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- so #1 says that Cunha receives the request for Rousseff's impeachment from those three lawyers. I understand that he felt this was his job, but why was this request different than the requests he had previously received? Doesn't the article say there had been 30+ previous request?
- @Elinruby: I'll cite some examples of other requests cited in the source in article:
- 12 March 2015 - Complaint for Crimes of Responsibility against the President of the Republic, Dilma Vana Rousseff, facing facts related to the incompetent management of the President of the Republic, which has provided the destruction of the Brazilian State. Author: Jair Messias Bolsonaro - Deputy Federal.
- 18 March 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff, for understanding a configured crime of responsibility, in facts investigated by the Federal Police in Operation Car Wash, involving Petrobras. Author: Marcelo Pereira Lino.
- 22 April 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Vana Rousseff, for act of administrative improbity when, as chairman of the Petrobras Board, appointed to the Board of Executive Officers, who dilapidated the company's equity. Author: Rafael Francisco Carvalho.
- 12 August 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff, for irregularities in the execution of the Law of Budgetary Guidelines, in operations carried out with federal public resources, in violation of the Constitution, Annual Budget Law and Fiscal Responsibility Law. Author: Luís Carlos Crema.
- 11 September 2015 - Complaint (request for impeachment) facing of the President of the Republic Dilma Rousseff, for actions / omissions related to the management of Petrobras, for abuse of political and economic power in the electoral campaign, fiscal maneuvers ("fiscal pedalling"). Author: Eder Xavier.
Cunha chose that one, for being more detailed. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- so #2 says that Cunha says Rousseff lied when she denied negotiating a deal with Cunha's party (dropping an Ethics Committee investigation into charges Cunha lied at a hearing connected to Operation Car Wash and his finances in return for not accepting the request for impeachment against Rousseff. Is that right? She denied that there was a deal between them and he said she was lying when she denied it.
- and #3 says that after Rousseff has impeached Cunha was removed from office for conduct unbecoming a Brazilian deputy for lying about his finances.
I think I understand the above but apparently that's still wrong, or I don't sound like I understand it, anyway...Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- oh and then after Cunha was removed from office one of the same lawyers filed a request for impeachment against Temer, Right? Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: no, the lawyer Mariel Marley Marra filed the request for impeachment against Temer. PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- oh and then after Cunha was removed from office one of the same lawyers filed a request for impeachment against Temer, Right? Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
btw brazilian constitution in english Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What is "the Union"?
The section Illegal practices of accounting disinformation and so-called "fiscal pedalling" starts with a sentence that refers to "the Union". Is this the Tribunal de Contas da União, also known as TCU? I'd like to make that clearer. Akld guy (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Akld guy: "Union" means Federal government of Brazil. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I would never have guessed that Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
so given that TCU could be translated as national fiscal court? Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Contas=Accounting? Elinruby (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: ipsis litteris, TCU (Tribunal de Contas da União) means "Union Court of Accounts". "União" is the abbreviated form of the political designation "Federal government of Brazil", according to the Brazilian Constitution: Brazil is "an indissoluble union of states and municipalities and the federal district". PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am coming to understand that @PauloMSimoes:. Like Confederation in Canada?. U = Union, Contas=Accounts and Tribunal, well, is a tribunal.(?) When I ask apparently stupid questions I am trying to make sure a translation is correct. (well, at least some of the time. I am also capable of asking stupid questions because I misunderstand). The part I am trying to verify is that this is the top-level court (because a contravention of the Constitution was alleged), and Union implies federal? and that Contas means "Accounts", or would Treasury be closer? Another legal terminology question: I have seen "crime of responsibility" -- may imply public corruption, and then I have also seen criminal responsibility. Is this a concept in Brazilian law? Either of them for that matter? Elinruby (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: I think it Brazil should be included in Examples of federal or confederal union, but I'm not really sure. "Tribunal" or "Corte" ("Court") are the same in Brazil. You are correct to ask and so I am also learning more about. TCU isn't "top-level" (or supreme) court. It's a court that judges the legality of public accounts within federal scope. The supreme court in Brazil is the Supreme Federal Court ( "Supremo Tribunal Federal" - STF). The first reference in Impeachment article gives a description of what are "crimes of responsibility" cited in the Constitution:
Art. 85: Are crimes of responsibility the acts of the President of the Republic which attempt on the Federal Constitution and, especially, against the probity in administration (item V) and the budget law (item VI) of the Brazilian Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Law , article 36.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: I think it Brazil should be included in Examples of federal or confederal union, but I'm not really sure. "Tribunal" or "Corte" ("Court") are the same in Brazil. You are correct to ask and so I am also learning more about. TCU isn't "top-level" (or supreme) court. It's a court that judges the legality of public accounts within federal scope. The supreme court in Brazil is the Supreme Federal Court ( "Supremo Tribunal Federal" - STF). The first reference in Impeachment article gives a description of what are "crimes of responsibility" cited in the Constitution:
- I am coming to understand that @PauloMSimoes:. Like Confederation in Canada?. U = Union, Contas=Accounts and Tribunal, well, is a tribunal.(?) When I ask apparently stupid questions I am trying to make sure a translation is correct. (well, at least some of the time. I am also capable of asking stupid questions because I misunderstand). The part I am trying to verify is that this is the top-level court (because a contravention of the Constitution was alleged), and Union implies federal? and that Contas means "Accounts", or would Treasury be closer? Another legal terminology question: I have seen "crime of responsibility" -- may imply public corruption, and then I have also seen criminal responsibility. Is this a concept in Brazilian law? Either of them for that matter? Elinruby (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I just remembered that Canada has a parliamentary system though, not a president. Just correcting myself Elinruby (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
translation question
does "process" in this article=the next step of the legal proceeding? Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
another translation question
"According to the report, the president insisted on a theory that" -- is there a reason we aren't just saying "The president insisted" if we are saying "the president keeps saying this"? Also, what is the report in this sentence? Elinruby (talk)
@Elinruby: I will try to translate pages 4 and 5 of Request for Impeachment.
In effect, the competence mask was first scratched on the episode involving the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras. From every angle analyzed, is impossible to fail to recognize that the business, even at the time, was extremely damaging to Brazil. It is reported that the losses were over R$ 700 million. On that time, Rousseff was president of the board of directors in the company and gave as an excuse a mistake about a contractual clause. But, as it is popularly said, Pasadena was only the "tip of the iceberg", because Operation Car Wash discovered the real waste in the company. In all business done by Petrobras, the works and achievements proclaimed as great achievements of the Rousseff Government were nothing more than a means to bleed the promising statal, which is currently completely de-capitalized and discredited internationally. To the unhappiness of the country, the losses with Pasadena were small, facing of the collapse unfolded. Every day, there is a growing conviction that some companies were chosen to be promoted internationally, and from then on, participating in unrealistic bids, draining the state-owned company, returning a large part of the amounts by means bribes, or "apparently" legal gifts. In October 2014, on his second testimony in a "award-winning" collaboration, Alberto Youssef [the major target of Operation Car Wash] asserted that, among other authorities, the President of the Republic was aware of what happened at Petrobras. On 25 August 2015, Youssef reaffirmed that Lula and Dilma knew of the kickback scheme at Petrobras. In a ruling issued by Minister Dias Toffoli (Supreme Court), published in Habeas Corpus No. 127.483 / PR, the Supreme Federal Court upheld the validity of the "award-winning" collaboration performed with Youssef. Due to the findings of Operation Car Wash, were arrested the former Minister José Dirceu, the former treasurer of the Worker's Party, João Vaccari Neto and the former leader of Petrobras Nestor Cerveró, people whom Rousseff insisted on revering, until denying the damage was impossible. Despite ongoing investigations and strong indications that many irregularities had been committed, the accused continued to addressing through Brazil, reinforcing confidence in the leaders of the state company, such as then president of Petrobras, Graça Foster [who resigned in February 2015, after a meeting with Rousseff, without being formally accused of participation in the corruption scheme, however]. Moreover, throughout the electoral process, the denounced denied that the situation of Petrobras, whether from the moral point of view or from an economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news reports, the accused insisted on the stupid theory that the denunciations would be a "kind of coup", merely an attempt to weaken Petrobras, always highlighting its expertise in the area of economy and energy, that is, Rousseff assured the "company health"!
PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The apparent (reputation of?) competence was first marred when Petrobras bought a refinery in Pasadena, Texas. No matter how it is evaluated this deal was not good for Brazil, which lost R$700 million on the transaction. Rousseff, who was president of the company board of directors at the time, said that there was an error concerning a contractual clause. But the purchase of the over-priced decrepit Pasadena refinery was then followed by Operation Car Wash, which uncovered many instances of corruption and waste, and what the request for impeachment documents called a "de-capitalized" Petrobras. The prosecution (suspect this is the wrong word) outlined a scheme in which friendly contractors submitted inflated bids and once they were approved, then skimmed the profits from these sweetheart deals and shared them with the politicians who had approved the bids. In October 2014 Alberto Youssef, a figure deeply implicated in Operation Car Wash, asserted that Rousseff, who by then was president of Brazil, was well aware of what went on at Petrobras. On 25 August 2015, Youssef reaffirmed that Lula and Dilma had known of the bribery scheme at Petrobras. In a ruling issued by Minister Dias Toffoli (Supreme Court), published in Habeas Corpus No. 127.483 / PR, the Supreme Federal Court upheld the validity of the "award-winning" collaboration performed with Youssef. Due to the findings of Operation Car Wash, were arrested the former minister José Dirceu, the former treasurer of the Worker's Party, João Vaccari Neto and the former leader of Petrobras, Nestor Cerveró, people whom Rousseff defended until denying the damage became impossible. Ongoing investigations gave strong indications that many irregularities had been committed, but Rousseff continued to speak throughout Brazil, reinforcing confidence in the leaders of the state-owned company, such as then-president Graça Foster. Foster resigned in February 2015 after a meeting with Rousseff, without being formally accused of participation in the corruption scheme, however. Throughout the electoral process. Rousseff denied that the situation at Petrobras, whether from the moral point of view or from an economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news reports, she insisted that the denunciations were a "kind of coup", merely an attempt to weaken Petrobras, always highlighting its expertise in the area of economy and energy
So I see why a lot of the tone sounded prosecutorial. So... just maybe you could call her the "the accused" but "the president' would be better, or even "defendant" but that word may not apply to this type of proceeding. The 'denounced' is definitely too editorial in my opinion. For now I replaced all of these words with "Rousseff". I put tried to distill an account of events from your translation. Can you look at it when you get a chance?
- @Elinruby: "accused" is the word used in the Request for Impeachment. Refers to Rousseff's condition in this document (Request)~. PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PauloMSimoes: I gotcha. I was saying that it wasn't surprising that the article has an prosecutorial tone since it seems that big chunks of the article are from the request for prosecution. Did you get get chance to look at the rewrite of the translation? Unless there are mistakes in what I have there I was thinking of re-writing the article section that deal with these events based on the above re-written translation. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Also there are some questions below:
- "award-winning"? this word pops up in a couple of places and I don't know what it means in those contexts. I suspect a translation issue.
- @Elinruby: "award-winning collaboration", as cited in text, is a Plea bargain, in which an investigated person obtains advantages in his process, if collaborate in the investigations, denouncing others involved. However, these statements needs to be ratified by the Supreme Court. PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) OK. To me, well I usually see in contexts like "award-winning playwright" or "Academy Award-winning". Is there a difference between that and a plea bargain? Does it always imply cooperation? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Elinruby, understood. In fact, plea bargain is a type of agreement diverse of the Brazilian agreement. Well, I have detailed above what is this agreement in Brazil. A better translation of the Brazilian agreement would be "rewardable delation", you got it now ? PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- note to self "the business" could mean the company that owned the Pasadena refinery, or the deal to buy the refinery or just Petrobras itself just sucking resources.
- "the business" is the "purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras". PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) So *that business deal* not either organization entity, right? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: right, a better translation for that text is
...impossible to fail to recognize that the
PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)businesspurchase, even at the time, was extremely damaging to Brazil.
- @Elinruby: right, a better translation for that text is
- "the business" is the "purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras". PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) So *that business deal* not either organization entity, right? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...president board of directors and "gave as an excuse a mistake" -- this needs to be worded otherwise, I mean "excuse"? What was the mistake exactly? Paid too much and got saddled with some debt? Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- As in article (better explained): "
Rousseff was president of the board of directors of Petrobras and gave as a defence that a mistake had been made concerning a contractual clause. She stated that "her decision was based on a technically and legally flawed summary" of the purchase document drawn up by Nestor Cerveró, who was then the financial director on Petrobras Distribuidora, fuel distribution and trading subsidiary of Petrobras
". PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) But what was the mistake exactly? The price? They got stuck with a lot of debt? They didn't inspect the facility? Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)- @Elinruby: I've explained this before. All I know is on the sources. Please, read: Scandal involving refinery hits Brazil’s Petrobras; Brazil prosecutors say bribes paid in Petrobras Texas refinery deal. Further details in this appeal "Astra Oil versus Petrobras". You can understand better than I do. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Whose reputation are we talking about in this sentence, which appears above in the translation: "Many wondered whether this supposed failure would not undermine the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, but no one had the audacity to distrust the probity of the president." (?) Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: in other words, the text in Request for Impeachment is:
Many [people] inquired if this alleged mistake would not demeans the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, but no one had the audacity to distrust the probity of the President.
The "reputation" refers to Rousseff, who before had been Secretary of Mines and Energy in state of Rio Grande do Sul (1993/94 and 1999/2003) and Brazil Minister of Mines and Energy (2003/05). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
further question (Operation Car Wash)
granted that Cunha was not an employee of Petrobras, wasn't he accused of receiving (as opposed to paying) graft ? Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Elinruby (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps this source could clarify. When federal deputy and after president of Chamber of Deputies, Cunha was accused of "being a lobbyist in the Petrobras scandal"[...]"bribery and money laundering for receiving $5 million in kickbacks over Petrobras drillship contracts".PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC) drillship contracts? Is that the same thing as an oil lease? Offshore or not? I just found a source that says there are no regulations on lobbying in Brazil, although it's pretty old. Is this still true? True until recently? Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: The lobbyist is Fernando Soares (also known as "Fernando Baiano" - arrested in 2014). He confirmed in a statement, bribes paid to Cunha, to ensure contracts for drillship production
forby shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries. more details PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC) - @PauloMSimoes: thank you; I had not encountered Soares before. Will read up. Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: The lobbyist is Fernando Soares (also known as "Fernando Baiano" - arrested in 2014). He confirmed in a statement, bribes paid to Cunha, to ensure contracts for drillship production
drillship Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
news story
CPMF
I've just completed an edit of the 'Political context' section and something puzzles me. This appears:
- "In turn, Rousseff denied any attempted deal to save Cunha in order to stop her impeachment, and denied agreements to interfere with the Ethics Board in exchange for the approval of a CPMF (pt) (Provisional Contribution on the Movement or Transmission of Values and Credits and Financial Nature Rights), which was another great need of the government."
It's not stated what the CPMF is. I strongly suspect that it was a bill that the government was trying to get passed. @PauloMSimoes: please clarify what the CPMF was. Akld guy (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Akld guy: CPMF is a "Provisional Contribution on the Movement or Transmission of Values and Credits and Financial Nature Rights", a tax defunct in 2007, that Rousseff and her economic staff were trying to re-introduce, with purpose of help the shattered economy. However, it's should be approved in Chamber and following to Senate. Was a very unpopular tax, which had great improbability of approval in Chamber (where Cunha was president). Cunha accused Rousseff of a "bargain" [CPMF approval] X [Worker's Party (and allied parties) deputies vote to quit the process against Cunha]. More details on these sources: Lower House Speaker: Rousseff lied when denied political bargaining; Jaques Wagner refutes allegations and says Cunha lied; Minister: presidency not to meddle in party's decision on lower house speaker. PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@PauloMSimoes: Thank you. I think I've made it clearer what the CPMF was and that the government was trying to re-introduce it. Akld guy (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
adding in quotes from Rousseff
I have found a number of articles in English about this process and will be adding in quotes from Rousseff's speech and from international press coverage. I would ask that all of the people who have been happy to leave this article one-sided discuss here anything they wish to take issue with. We can escalate any questions that we need to, but now that the translation has been worked on a bit she really does need to have her say added in. Elinruby (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
However, he did just to meet your interest, as sought avoid being accused of a crime committed for not meet the fiscal targets set out in law.
if you want to include this sentence please improve the english and provide some source other than the petition for impeachment Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
questioned text
"For this whole second phase of the process, the Committee was supported by the president of the Supreme Federal Court, Ricardo Lewandowski."
Proposed addition to the lead
I have undone this proposed addition to the lead. Since the editor refused to discuss the changes I will start this section for him. The first sentence is an opinion from an American reporter that barely gets mentioned in the article it comes from. None of the two pieces of opinion added to the lead can be found anywhere in the article body. The editor claimed in my talk page that he was attempting to fix WP:NPOV issues with the article, but one does not fix WP:NPOV by introducing a loose WP:UNDUE sentence to the lead. If there is due weight for the inclusion of the opinions of these editors surely there's a place for them in the body of the article. The second sentence is from an editorial from the NYT and I can see it being included in the article body, but again, it seems that the proposer was simply concerned in changing the lead at will, instead of trying to make it reflect the main aspects of the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)