Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello/Archive 3

message: Ludovicapipa yes? 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The real latest version

message: After facing probl. to make it available online, I finally could do that. I wil fix links, sources and citations later. Ludovicapipa yes? 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you deleted a bunch of sources, I don't know why. --Dali-Llama 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Online

message: I plan to move forward with Collor´s article, develop even more. As for the last paragrapgh it´s wrong: Faucher says FHC benefited  from Collor´s impeachment processand hyperinfla.. You AGAIN inverted the text. Ludovicapipa yes? 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludovica, be careful with your edits, as of this edit, you duplicated the impeachment section. Nothing wrong with making a mistake (I myself forgot to close a reference a couple of days ago), but let's both be careful. You're welcome to develop the article further, as long as you respect the policies we've been having issues with. I've reverted your edits. Here's what you changed why they're incorrect. Please address them before you choose to change them:
*"The end result"- I agree the wording may be misunderstood, so I've reworded to say that "During the Plano Collor, yearly inflation was at first reduced from 30,000 percent in 1990 (Collor's first year in government) to 400 percent in 1991, then climbing to 1,020 percent in 1992 (when he left office). Inflation continued to rise  to 2,294.0 percent in 1994 (two years after he left office).". --Dali-Llama 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can talk abt infation indicators; we can leave the last paragraph I ´ve just added. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both myself and Carioca feel that your paragraph is not relevant to the article, as it talks about inflation rates up to 16 years after Collor took office and with an intervening economic plan. My paragraph talks only about the inflation rates during his presidency and up until the introduction of the next economic plan--it's not the same as what you're doing.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can draw a distinction between his monetary policies, but not concerning his macroagenda. I can add several sources abt that. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my point--I'm not saying FHC did or did not follow his macroeconomic agenda. I'm saying there are nuances in the differences which are not reflected accurately in the paragraph. To disclose those nuances, I added "part", since you've chosen to add three different presidents to the article, when not all of them followed all of Collor's policies. That's all.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I´ll check it later.Ludovicapipa yes? 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, do it later.Ludovicapipa yes? 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is his jstification? Ludovicapipa yes? 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under "Third Opinion".--Dali-Llama 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: I put in a request for page protection and Riana granted it, to prevent further edit wars. Considering Carioca's and now Kim's involvement, hopefully we'll sort this out soon enough.--Dali-Llama 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protected (again) 

message: Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?--Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reset button 

message: Ludovica, just so we're advancing here, can you point out what you'd like to change from the article as-is?--Dali-Llama 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reset button 

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

message: :This political crisis had negative consequences on his ability to carry out his policies and reforms.[5] The Plano Collor I, under Zélia would be renewed with the implementation of the Plano Collor II; the government's loss of prestige would make that follow-up plan short-lived and largely ineffective.[3]. The failure of Zélia and Plano Collor I led to their substitution by Marcílio Marques Moreira and his Plano Collor II. Moreira's plan tried to correct some aspects of the first plan, but was too late. The Collor government was paralyzed by the fast deterioration of Collor's image, through a succession of corruption accusations.[6] According to Philippe Faucher, professor of political science at McGill University,[7] the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor's credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place, precipitated by Pedro Collor's (Fernando Collor's brother) accusations and other social and political sectors which thought would be harmed by his policies.
::This paragraph is Faucher´s analysis and its subject is Collor´s political crisis. Lulu Margarida yes? 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cited Faucher (remember Fuacher? LOL) on the previous paragrahp and than put together his citations after Bresser´s --they are taliking abt different issues --this isn´t rational. If you say "According to Faucher this political crisis...etc" --you must insert that wtihin the context of political crisis --otherwise reader will be misguided and pushed to conclude that Bresser and Faucher are sharign the same view --which is completely absurd. There is no opinion on the artcile --only citations. Otherwise the whole artcile you wrote abt 1964 Brazilian coup is Gaspari´s opinon and you will be invited to rewrite it all again. Lulu Margarida yes? 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Citations do not equal fact: citations are references to what the original source states. You can have a citation for a fact (IE: Population of Brazil is X) just as you can have a citation for an opinion ("Faucher says Y"). I'm not saying that this is your opinion--I'm saying that any opinion should be segregated from the facts at the end of the section. Again, I invite you to read WP:NPOV, where it clearly states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Even having these quotes as they are, is not really NPOV--but I'm fine to have them as a compromise. In any case, I have to stress again that Carioca had already agreed that the opinions should be segregated towards the end of the article, so that is the current consensus. I'm more than willing to engage you on the issue, as I'm doing right now, but like I said, you need to shift the consensus before you make these changes. You can do so by inviting others to participate (read WP:CANVAS on way to that properly), calling Carioca back here or asking for a third opinion. I'm reverting you once more, after which I'll no longer revert. If you choose to revert, you'll break the WP:3RR rule, which may lead to you being blocked. In the meantime, we can still continue this discussion here. --Dali-Llama 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any link between Bresser and faucher? Don´t you think Faucher is mentioned on the paragraphs above? What do you mean by putting them in the same paragrapgh? Lulu Margarida yes? 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link is that both are opinions. Whether he's mentioned in the paragraph above is irrelevant: we should focus on facts and leave opinion to the end of the section, as a "retrospective" of what people think about his presidency today. That's what I meant by paragraph: leave them together (whether it's the same paragraph or not, doesn't really matter), at the end of the narrative of facts.--Dali-Llama 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct seuquence

message: :But didn´t you say I can´t mention Skidmore´s opinion? 
:So if I find another opinon, no matter the contaent of it, I should put it after on the same paragraph, rigt after B and F?
:What abt skidmore? Should I leave to the end of Jeff´s artcile? Lulu Margarida yes? 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the contrary, if anything, I'm saying there shouldn't be opinion, but that I've agreed to having Bresser and Faucher as a compromise so you'll stop adding more POV. Just because I've given you a hand, doesn't mean you can take the arm. =) Again, address the issues on their respective pages. If you'd like to talk about Skidmore, do so on the relevant page.--Dali-Llama 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow!!

message: : Check  this , you will see lots of links to her official web site. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: H. CLinton

message: The issue at hand:
:Whether or not a politician's personal webpage is considered a reliable source when addressing his own achievements and legacy.
User Lulu Margarida has added content on the article's subject's achievements and corruption scandal and referenced the article's subject's own website as the source.
Note: this issue is also relevant to the articles Plano Collor and Zélia Cardoso de Mello, as they also cite the same source in the same context
This seems to me a blatant violation of WP:SELFPUB: one cannot consider Collor an NPOV source for Collor when it deals with issues such as legacy and achievements. Were these biographical issues (where he was born, etc.) that's another issue. But when you're throwing out vague statements such as "Decreased the government payroll" and "he is the only politician in Brazil to have an officially clear record", Collor can't be used as a reliable source.--Dali-Llama 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems it would be ideal to use outside sources but we certainly do include self-published items and will continue to do so as self-published websites become more common. To be more wikipedic you may try qualifying any use such as "according to Collor's website" or "self-professed clean politician", etc. In all cases our job is to write a good, and balanced, article and let the reader decide what is true from the various perspectives offered. Benjiboi 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always in favor for disclosure, as you've proposed, and I agree with doing it in this case. However, you seem to proposing that "in the absence of reliable sources" one could use a self-published source. This is not the case, however, as "accomplishments" are already covered under the far-more reliable sources of the Plano Collor section,  and certainly the latter section about clean politician violates NPOV as is. The alternative is to be in a somewhat awkward situation where we use reliable sources for some accomplishments, and for the accomplishments where no reliable sources are available, we use an unreliable source. Is that really the kind of article we're writing? And "a good, and balanced, article" still needs to conform to WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, which I believe the use of this source does not further.--Dali-Llama 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I came here from WP:3o.  I agree with User:Benjiboi's comments, and do not see a blatant violation of the WP:SELFPUB policy, but given this article is about a former president of the fifth most populous country in the world, there is probably voluminous information available from better sources.  I think the self-published information should stand for now, until such time as the information from the better sources can be digested and analyzed by editors with some expertise on the topic. In the meantime I have changed some of the citations to Collor's official website to the  format.  64.26.98.90 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you just undid my edits. I've reverted you as you failed to explain how my edits negate the status quo. And you missed the points--there are better sources currently in the article.--Dali-Llama 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apparently forgot to press save page on my rationale: While we work out RS issues, I've segregated the accomplishments portion and the impeachment section into its own section and added the disclosure William has suggested. --Dali-Llama 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you guys don't mind, I'm going to re-add this page to 3O so someone can give an actual third opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.--Dali-Llama 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: They were attributed to Collor's website and identified as such after I disputed the source. Compare the version Lulu Margarida was pushing for and the one after I isolated the opinion. This is not an issue about not finding sources to back up the claim--this is an admitted POV-pusher with serious behavioral problems trying to whitewash the legacy of a controversial (if not outright infamous) figure of Brazilian politics. She literally copy and pasted verbatim what was Collor's version of his own impeachment from his website without any disclosure or regard for NPOV. I'm sorry if I'm overreacting to a single issue, but when you're the lonely guy with the finger in the dike for the past 4 months, one is bound to get a little frustrated.--Dali-Llama 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my opinion based on the state of the article when I wrote the opinion. I understand your frustration. I think you came to a good compromise and I hope the other editor agrees. I will point out that copying and pasting from a web site constitutes a copyright violation and should be deleted or revised immediately. -Amatulic 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Spark´s TO was ignored I don´t know why it should now be considered. Lulu Margarida yes? 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a third opinion--this is in fact three different people (myself, Amatulic, William Pietri) clearly outlining the requirements on disclosure and NPOV for including the content and source you've added.--Dali-Llama 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: As I said, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy artciles, they all link to their own web site and relate their governments achievements. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they are not reliable sources when it comes to what their achievements are, which is what we're all saying. At the most, you can include them with disclosure, which is what we've done.--Dali-Llama 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the agreement has stuck - can the neutrality tag now be removed? It looks a little strange because the text makes it quite clear that (and why) the section isn't neutral. Bagunceiro (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] Third Opinion 

message: Well, for what it's worth, these are my opinions:
* A politician's personal web page is a reliable source for that person's own opinions.
* A politician's personal web page is a reliable source for quoting claims the politician makes about himself and his achievements.
* Stating the politician's personal claims as fact in this article violates WP:RS. This article doesn't do that, but comes close by not citing backup sources.
* I don't see any serious violation of WP:SELFPUB here because the claims are clearly attributed to Collor's web site. However, I find it hard to believe that a country the size of Brazil wouldn't generate some secondary sources to back up the claims on Collor's web site. The difficulty here is that such sources may not be in English.
* As to the question on whether the statements and webpage cite should be deleted from the article, I would say "no" as long as the article clearly states that these "facts" are in fact personal claims.
Hope that helps. -Amatulic 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were attributed to Collor's website and identified as such after I disputed the source. Compare the version Lulu Margarida was pushing for and the one after I isolated the opinion. This is not an issue about not finding sources to back up the claim--this is an admitted POV-pusher with serious behavioral problems trying to whitewash the legacy of a controversial (if not outright infamous) figure of Brazilian politics. She literally copy and pasted verbatim what was Collor's version of his own impeachment from his website without any disclosure or regard for NPOV. I'm sorry if I'm overreacting to a single issue, but when you're the lonely guy with the finger in the dike for the past 4 months, one is bound to get a little frustrated.--Dali-Llama 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my opinion based on the state of the article when I wrote the opinion. I understand your frustration. I think you came to a good compromise and I hope the other editor agrees. I will point out that copying and pasting from a web site constitutes a copyright violation and should be deleted or revised immediately. -Amatulic 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Spark´s TO was ignored I don´t know why it should now be considered. Lulu Margarida yes? 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a third opinion--this is in fact three different people (myself, Amatulic, William Pietri) clearly outlining the requirements on disclosure and NPOV for including the content and source you've added.--Dali-Llama 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: As I said, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kennedy artciles, they all link to their own web site and relate their governments achievements. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they are not reliable sources when it comes to what their achievements are, which is what we're all saying. At the most, you can include them with disclosure, which is what we've done.--Dali-Llama 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the agreement has stuck - can the neutrality tag now be removed? It looks a little strange because the text makes it quite clear that (and why) the section isn't neutral. Bagunceiro (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion