Talk:Roberto Jefferson

Resignation of all team

You mention all Lula´s team were forced to resign, you must inform it was Brazil biggets corruption scandal, and the biggest crisis so far of his gov. This i snot mentioned anywhere... Lulu Margarida ^yes? 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all of "Lula's team" was forced to resign. Dirceu resigned, Gushiken was "downgraded" to secretary from minister (and left the government much later). This is mentioned in the Mensalão article. There's no need to add opinion when adding this type of context. I actually respect Thomas Skidmore tremendously, but his opinion is not necessary to give context to the scandal. People can just click on the Mensalão link. I've added factual context which should explain how bad the scandal was.--Dali-Llama 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dou you have a list with all the names of those who had to resign? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I could reference the Wikipedia article, but that'd be a violation of WP:SELF. Here's Veja's account of who actually was actually "thrown out" (as opposed to resigning): [1]--Dali-Llama 17:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It´s said several ministers not all of it. It´s VERY imporant Skidmore´s analysis --not opinion. It´s aimed at showing how far did the crisis go. and how important was Jef´s denunciations. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have to stop reverting outright. In this article you're reverting even when I'm adding sources to {{Fact}} tags. This is disruptive, you have been warned about this before and you need to stop doing that. Change what you think needs to be changed, instead of reverting outright. That is disruptive editing, and considering your record, I don't think you have a lot of leeway in how you can behave here.

What is in contention is the following:

"His denunciations led Lula´s government to an unprecedent crisis and the resignation of several of his key ministers. Some scholars state "mensalão scandal" is the worst corruption scandal in the country´s history"

My point is that characterizations of the scandal which are based on opinion ("unprecedented", "word corruption scandal in the country's history"), are better left for the article on the scandal itself. We can add the same level of context by stating the number and offices of the people involved rather than unnecessarily adding opinion to this article. I've proposed a compromise edit. If you disagree, we'll get a third-opinion.--Dali-Llama 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe reverting outright is the only way out I have. You started to revert, wihtout justification, as you already did it many times with many other articles, including ignorign Sparks work and third opinion. As much as in this article you are talking abt Collor´s impeachment, it´s VERY important to underline Jeff´s denunciations and consequences --Skidmore´s as well, in both articles. It is cited, is is within the context. You are giving YR opinion that you simply think it shoudn´t be there --but you haven´t given any reason so far (as much as you think it´s my opinion that Diogo Mainardi is ironic and saracastic --although I can provide sources for that as well, and it´s not my opinion). Lulu Margarida ^yes? 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Name ONE example where I reverted without a justification and I'll give you TEN examples of where you reverted without saying anything either in the edit summary or the talk page. Don't mix up issues we're talking about in different articles with this one. Address the issue for this article. You keep making this personal when it's not: talk about the issues for each particular article. So for this article, I've already outlined the consequences--40 people were indicted. There's is no need to add opinion. And you're absolutely right: It's my opinion that adding quotes about what others think about the scandal is not relevant and is a violation of NPOV. But try to understand that when I'm making these changes, they're my interpretation of the policies, not whether it's good or bad. I could care less about whether it paints Lula or Jefferson in a good or bad light--I care about facts over opinion, and NPOV over partisanship. I've proposed a compromise edit. If you reject it, let me know and I'll post on WP:3O for a third-opinion.--Dali-Llama 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "("unprecedented", "word corruption scandal in the country's history"), are better left for the article on the scandal itself." Will insert it on the article abt Mensalão? Will you mention Supreme Court? Will you cut where impeachment is mentioned? Anyway, if you do so, I still think theyare necessary in this particular article. It is totally within the issue quoting Skidmore, who does not offer hsi opinion --but his analysis-- as well as mentioning the unprecedent scandal (it shows how far Jef´s reached)...Lulu Margarida ^yes? 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're asking whether or not I'll insert them in the article about the Mensalão. Honestly, that doesn't matter. We're talking about this article. You again are questioning my motivations by implying that I'm trying to cover something up. If you have an issue with the Mensalão article, bring it up there, not here. As far as Skidmore is concerned, there is no difference between opinion and analysis. The only difference is that he's a scholar, and arguably his opinion carries more weight than that of a random person. That does not alter the fact that it is opinion, and is not necessary. Remember WP:NPOV: asserting the facts is better than asserting an opinion. Tell readers how many people were indicted and let them decide whether or not that was the worse scandal in history. Skidmore's is important as a source of context of the zeitgeist, and if that is appropriate for inclusion, it most certainly wouldn't be in a peripheral article, but perhaps for the main article.--Dali-Llama 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You change yr midn very fast: the paragraph is no longer important for this article nor for the other?

1. Jeff didn´t suport Collor on his imp. process --but throughout his gov., but you insist to mention the word imp.;

2. On Pedro Malan artcile yo mentioned WRONGLY Palocci as his succesor --which is...????; Palocci belongs to Lula, Malan to FHC --there is no link between them...

3. Before I edit these articles I was astonished by the lack of primary infos, such as: Supreme Court decisions, the dimensions of this corruption scandal, the lack of the link between Lula his team and Jeff´s denunciations;

4. I see a lot of minor details: who is who, who did what, but a total lack of historical context --they all seem to be isolated and relieving Lula and his gov.

5. There is no link between Faucher and Bresser, since the first is a poltical analysis and teh alter an economic one;

6. Although I have changed TWO paragraphs of Collor´s article, you ignored this and only considered your edition;

I again give up editing, but Iam again making of this a public claim that this should all be reconsidered. If there is anyone else reading this...Lulu Margarida ^yes? 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You've always been free to find a third opinion, but you've never done so. Full reply on your talk page here.--Dali-Llama 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Whether or not appending the following passage in bold to the end of the paragraph is a necessary use of a POV:

"The scandal included dozens of parliamentarians of the government's coalition and two government ministers, among others, resulting in the indictment of forty people by the Supreme Federal Tribunal, for their alleged role in one of the country's biggest corruption scandals in recent years."

Source for the quote: BBC News

For it's a clear-cut case of unnecessary POV. One can state the gravity of a situation by adding someone's opinion or by adding facts. We can show, or tell. Forty parliamentarians being indicted is clearly an important corruption scandal. That's a fact. "Biggest corruption scandal in recent" years is highly debatable. Should we measure corruption scandals by the number of people involved or the office they hold? The breadth of corruption, or the amount of money involved? Etc, etc, etc. This passage adds a POV and a debate which, despite being from a respectable source, is not necessary. I think using basic common sense, 40 indictments, including two cabinet ministers and the president's chief-of-staff, makes it clear that this was big without resorting to someone's opinion.--Dali-Llama 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My inclination is to agree with you. The phrase in question - although I think that few would dispute that it is a fairly accurate representation of the seriousness of the situation - is an opinion which is not backed up by a citation, which means it does not strictly adhere to the policy on NPOV. The facts given before it do indeed establish in a more rigorous way the truth of the the opinion; so, I would lean towards keeping it out. Since it does not add appreciably to the content of the article and is an unsupported opinion, it might as well be removed. Hilosoph (Talk) 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

However (I missed this while I was writing my previous comment), the BBC article you cite does back this up (it is after all, in the title.) Since the opinion is now substantiated by a quality source, it could be defendably included. There are now two choice. First, that part of the BBC's title could be quoted and identified in the text as coming from the BBC, making it verifiable and thus admissible. However, I still think it unnecessary because the facts speak for themselves, so I would, as purely a matter of personal preference, omit it. Hilosoph (Talk) 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my rationale Hilosoph. I'm not disputing the assertion at all, but I do find the quote unnecessary. Thanks for the help.--Dali-Llama 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)