Jump to content

Talk:Dilma Rousseff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What Colina and VAR Palmares ideology has to do with her?

Why is it so important for users to know Colina and VAR Palmares ideology? Portuguese Wikipedia excluded such trolling as "She later joined the communist organization known as COLINA which had as goal the downfall of the military dictatorship established in 1964 and the founding of a communist dictatorship" a long time ago. If people want to know their ideology, they can visit their pages.

You have erased sourced content. I have added back into the main body of the text. The way you put it will make it look like the group was trying to restore democracy, which was not the case. You have removed several times a sourced content. You do that again, I will report you. --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You can report me, 'cause I will report you for trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.66.194 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are free to report me. The books says:
"A luta armada fracassou por que o objetivo final das organizações que a promoveram era trasnformar o Brasil numa ditadura, talvez socialista, certamente revolucionária. Seu projeto não passava pelo restabelecimento das liberdades democráticas." (Gaspari, p.193)
Translation: "The armed struggle failed because the final goal of the organisations that promoted it was to turn Brazil into a dictatorship, maybe socialist, certainly revolutionary. Their project did not have as an objective the return of democratic freedoms."
So, I do hope you folks who are interested on turning this article into a piece of propaganda to stop changing the meaning of the text. --Lecen (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like the Portuguese article, this one reads like negative propaganda. For instance, the source for the "criminal file" Folha de São Paulo obtained through e-mail, is never stated. It was a website run by former military suspected to have been torturers of the military regime. All the article notes on the report, however, is that FSP received it by e-mail. Also, it should be stated that Folha de São Paulo is not an impartial media outlet, that it frequently makes veiled propaganda for Rousseff's main opponent, José Serra, and that last year it came out in support for the Brazilian dictatorship. Guinsberg (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even the awesome pictures portray her negative, right? No mention at all of the Lina case, or of José Dirceu's participation on her campaign... all that make this article look veeery negative. Right. --Lecen (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Just because these facts are not stated, it doesn't mean there isn't a clear negative bias against Rousseff, particularly against her leftist activities in her youth. And the facts you mention are not relevant enough to merit extensive coverage in her biography page. They do fit in an article about the elections, though. Guinsberg (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Her request to Lina Vieira, a public servant, to help José Sarney should be in here, not in an article about elections. But it isn't. A few monts a go this article had nothing written in it. Now there are plenty of "editors" eager to erase her past, such as her support for the creaton of a communist dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s. --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Avoid words such as "silly" or "pollute" or similar. Also, remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. There are rules in here. --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) P.S.2: I've noticed you are editing Brazil – United States relations and adding a lot of typical lefitist view on the big bad Yankee Empire. Now that I know your political view I can understand why you are so eager to remove anything that you consider 'harmful' to Dilma. Look, this is an encyclopaedia, not a political propaganda website. Take it easy, national elections in Brazil will soon be over. Until then, stop it. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only is the Lina Vieira case obscure, and uninteresting, to a non-Brazilian readership, but it has not been established by official investigation. That you mention it as an established fact, and an objection against Rousseff, just goes to show your personal bias. And so does your attempt to push the dictatorship tag on her, both in the Talk page and in the article. I'm waiting for you to prove, with sources, that youthful Rousseff's intention in joining the guerrilla was to impose a communist dictatorship. Until then, I'm not going to cease pointing out your obvious bias. Guinsberg (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again: this talk about me speaking ill of "Yankee empire" proves your biases. If there is one bad thing about the US in the article, is my detailed description of its support for the 64 coup. But precisely this part of the article is the one most richly endowed with sources, one of which comes from an American specialist on Brazilian history, James N. Green. As such, I don't see evidence of bias in it. Guinsberg (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There are rules in Wikipedia. Take a look in my user page. Do you see those many successful nominated articles that are among the best in here? That's a result of hard work. I am not playing around like you are. The communist organisation known as Colina had as main goal to turn Brazil into a communist dictatorship. Dilma was part of it. That's 2+2=4. Is it so hard to you to understand that? --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S.1: Who are you to say that the Lina Vieira is "uninteresting" to a non-Brazilian reader? And "obscure"? A case that was reported over and over for more than a year in newspapers and magazines all over Brazil? Are you serious? What about the dossier that she ordered on former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso? Or what about the present dossier against José Serra? There is plenty to write about her in here. But no one bothered to do that so far. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the Elio Gaspari quote all you have on it? The quote is an abstract one: it speaks of the guerrilla groups in abstraction; it should not be understood as a statement on all the armed groups that confronted the dictatorship. I will look further on the history of it, though. If I find something relevant to this question - that is, on whether or not Colina meant to establish a Communist dictatorship in Brazil - I will post that in here. Until then, I promise I will not change the article as it stands. Still, I see myself in the obligation to point out that, yes, there's a clear attempt to push the dictatorship tag against Rousseff, an attempt that, however correct or wrong it might be, is politically motivated. As for Elio Gaspari, there's one thing worthy mentioning on him: months ago he was accusing Rousseff of being Dulce Maria, a former guerrilla with a proven history of violent activities against the military regime. The lie only ceased being spread after Dulce wrote an article to the Observatório da Imprensa on her life. Guinsberg (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the case is obscure. "Uninteresting" might not be an objective description of it—but unproven is. As I said above, that accusation against Rousseff has not been ratified by official investigation. Neither has the newer one, the so-called dossier against Serra's daughter. None of these two cases have been officially verified. And yet you take them both as objections against Rousseff. Your briefs are showing... About José Serra, why don't you put in the article on him the 2002 scandal against Roseana Sarney, a scandal forged by the Federal Police under the command of president FHC with the clear intention to benefit his hand-picked candidate, José Serra? What about the vote-buying scheme in Southern Brazil — the scheme under which people were lured into a building where they were shown some videos about Dilma Rousseff and by the end of the session they were given a bag of candies after being told to vote for Serra? Haven't you read about that on Veja? Guinsberg (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you call "officially verified"? A condemnation by the Supreme Court? If that's the case, former President Fernando Collor is a saint and innocent man. Although it is well known and proven that his government was highly corrupted, even so he was considered "inocente" by the STF years after his impeachment. So, please, spare me.
I don't care about Serra. I never wrote anything in his article. And I am sorry, but I don't think you've read newspapers lately, but the Roseana Sarney case was made by a member of the Workers Party. And this is NO forum. Stop preaching in here, ok?
Lastly, "promise" won't touch? What is that? An act of mercy? And can't you read? The author is clear: none of the armed groups were after a democracy, but instead, in the creation of another dictatorship. God, you are boring. --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you won't charge me for making personal attacks — but this last post of yours was poor. As you said above, this is an encyclopaedia. It is supposed to describe facts, not to concede free space to accusations. It is supposed to keep the reader informed, not to pass on to him your personal view of random events. Of the charges against Rousseff that you mention — the Vieira case and the supposed dossier on Serra's daughter — none have been investigated and no court jugdment has been emitted. As such, one can't hold them against her. Not yet. At this and the elections article one can at most report that there have been such accusations — but that so far they remain unproven. That, as said above, you insist on citing them against Rousseff, shows that you have a bias against her. Also, the analogy with Collor was lame. So, if someone makes an accusation against a random politician, may I just use it against him, and cite it on wikipedia, even if it has not been investigated and ratified, just because "it is well known and proven that [Collor's] government was highly corrupted"? Frankly, man, what a poor argument you have in here! Rousseff's and Collor's cases are different and are almost two decades apart. Don't mix apples with oranges. As for Collor, you probably know that there has been an investigation on the accusations made against him. Whether the investigation was fair or not, I don't really know. But in Rousseff's case no such thing has yet occurred. And that's it, that is what is valid to report on a encyclopaedia. Leave the speculations for Veja. As for my promise that I won't change the article until finding further sources on Colina, it is not about mercy, it is about not waging an edit war, something for which I have no patience. Guinsberg (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Not in the mood to lose my time with the stereotypical leftist. I know you don't like the evil yankee empire, not Veja magazine, not FHC, etc, etc... You said all that when I never asked anything related on the matter. Please, don't give me you adress and don't tell me your favorite food. It is not needed, trust me. When you have a real discussion in here, call me. Until then, do not bother me with politics. --Lecen (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think I've just overwhelmed you. OK then, so long. By the way, improve your replies, they are really lame. Guinsberg (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry of Dilma

"Is it really important to give so much importance to Rousseff's Bulgarian ancestry? Somebody opened a section there about it. Opinoso (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)"

No, it definitely is not. I'm Bulgarian and while not much of a patriot, I'd rather this woman wasn't associated too much with Bulgaria, not to mention that she wasn't even born here, so I cannot see what her father's nationality has to do with her. Vaire paunova (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The section on "Bulgarian mania" is weird. I haven't actually heard anything about this. I think this is probably made up by the Brazillian media. For example there have been one or two reports in online media, but the reactions in the comments sections seem to be mockery, surprised amusement, and embarrasement. About her father's terrorist Communist past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nedelya_Church_assault -- biggest terrorist attack before 9/11, in 1925) and how she also turned to this in Brazil (Some of those verge on embarassingly racist towards Brazillians also, unfortunately), admiration towards Brazil that the Green candidate got so many votes and hopes they will go to her opponent.

Non-RS images

I have just reverted a series of images added by User:Hetzer. The sources of the images I have removed were blogs. Not only are there copyright images, as the blogs obviously do not hold copyright on the images and the original sources are unknown and uncredited -- but the lack of provenance also raises the question of whether these images are historically authentic. In particular, File:Dilma Rousseff Criminal Record.jpg appears to be a very crude photomashup, a "100 hours in MSPAINT" kind of thing. TiC (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The image File:Dilma Rousseff Criminal Record.jpg was proven to be fake. It was first published by the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper on April 5, 2009. After the state archives (where the supposed criminal record would have been stored) publicly denied the existence of the record, the newspaper admitted the fraud [1]. Limongi (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

I began to substitute and remove some images from the article. I don't see the need to have dozens of images in a biography article (Dilma smiling, Dilma during an interview, Dilma in Rio de Janeiro, Dilma in Porto Alegre, etc). I think that a couple of images are enough. I think we should include images that reflect the article's sections (childhood, early life, political career, etc). What do you guys think? Limongi (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Please don´t wage this edit war. Everything about this is probable cited. --93.82.8.84 (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several things going on here. The plastic surgery bit is trivial, it should definitely not be prominent and is likely not even worthy of mention. Changing "guerilla" to "Jew" in the categories is ridiculous. Mentioning "possibly Jewish" is out too, the source specifically says there is no proof, so it is speculation. Changing the category from communist to anti-communist is bizarre - but maybe it should instead be changed to "Brazilian socialists"? Franamax (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I command myself for exposing the hard truth. As the Wikipedia entry itself says her supposed role as Guerrila is disputed --93.82.8.84 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Please do not discuss here while edit-warring on the article at the same time. Leave the article the way it is, get consensus for your proposed changes here. If you are right, others will agree. "exposing the hard truth" is not really what we do here, it's an encyclopedia not an investigative tabloid. If you have a problem with the category listing as a guerilla, discuss it separately. Changing "guerilla" to "Jew" is not even remotely close to proper editing. Franamax (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

93.82.8.84/93.82.8.161: Please refrain from reintroducing the same text that is simply not supported by the references provided. Jarkeld (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are the references not supporting the text? Show me.--93.82.8.161 (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for this page. 93.82 you keep making multiple changes. Please leave the article as it is and present your case here for each different change. At least three independent editors have evaluated your edits and undone them, so it is you who needs to justify your edits. Make your case here on the talk page. Franamax (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbelieveably violations of Wikipedia:Rules you have commited right now. There was no vote no consensus whatsowever for that, I will now report you to Admim privileges abuse --93.82.8.161 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a biography of a living person so I actually can claim privilege. I've noted my action at the RFPP request and asked for admin reviem there. I have no particular interest in the content of this page, except that it conform to policy. Please outline here what is the basis for each of your proposed changes. Franamax (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are abusing this policy , as I can claim WP:BLPprivileges which states references which confirm the statement must be included. You are removing them --93.82.8.161 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC) [2] This edit was prior made by the IP above but deleted by an admin, now added by an admin. This confirms the unjustness of the entry lock. --Ftsw (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ftsw blocked as a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First Name

The persistent use of Rousseff's first name throughout this article violates WP:LASTNAME. I don't have close to enough time to correct this, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in a few weeks the Article can say "President Rousseff". . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Great article

God bless the United States, the Capitalism, the right and Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarok Addict (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; God bless you too; but is it pertinent in the Article?
Are you prepared to add documenting references? ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah-choo! 192.12.88.68 (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
haha, good joke. Genjix (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Her Current Political Views

I know that in the past she was a diehard Marxist, but the article makes no mention of her current political views. Whether she has changed/moderated or still follows her old beliefs? There's no mention here. What are her policies likely to be like? Genjix (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary Dictatorship

"groups that fought against the military dictatorship and for the creation of a revolutionary dictatorship. "

So... Now she fought for a revolutionary dictatorship????? Correct term should be...

"groups that fought against the military dictatorship." Period.

What kind of facist wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spizaex (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unbelievable that this garbage is not only inserted, but defended. User:Lecen appears to be inserting the claims about Rousseff's sinister communist aims based on a source's tangentially related statement of opinion that does not even mention Rousseff, and using procedural threats and chest-thumping to try and intimidate those who would quite properly remove it. Contemptible, and a clear violation of WP:BLP among other policies. 76.66.100.228 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Removed "and for the creation of a "revolutionary dictatorship" from the sentence. She did not fight for a communist dictatorship, but for the end of the military dictatorship at the time.Limongi (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It has been restored by User:Lecen, continuing his noble, lonesome struggle for truth and justice. *Facepalm.* 76.66.100.149 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, even though she was part of a communist group that had as main goal to turn Brazil into a communist dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s does not mean that she supports it nowadays. Having said that, I'd like to comment that it really bothers me to see unknown IPs that has the sole purpose of appearing in here to erase historical information. Those IPs make no other contribution to any other article in the entire Wikipedia and is quite obvious that it is the same person. Lastly, but certainly, not least, do not erase sourced content. --Lecen (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, how incredibly devious of me to edit from an IP address; but you have uncovered the nefarious plot!!1one! But anyway:
Sourced content is quite properly erased from Wikipedia all the time. Merely having a source doesn't somehow entitle content to a place in an article; Category:Wikipedia content policies contains scores of pages summing to many tens of thousands of words.
In this case, the problems with the proposed content have been repeatedly pointed out. To reiterate: the edits in question involve citing an author's opinion or judgment, that is to say a point-of-view, as if it were a fact. They cite a general statement about unnamed groups as if it were a specific statement about the goals of a particular group. And, by their wording and placement in this particular context, they strongly imply a statement about the goals of a particular individual (the subject of this bio,) even though the source has nothing to do with the individual.
In this case, given that the proposed content is so negative and inflammatory, and is poorly sourced, I think it can reasonably said to violate WP:BLP.
Because this has been explained repeatedly by four different editors, as opposed to one who favors the content, I really think the burden of proof is now conclusively on the one editor to show why the references to "communist dictatorship" have to stay, rather than on the multiple editors why favor removing it. Please come up with some new argument or compromise proposal here on the talk page for our consideration, rather than insisting on the same language that we have rejected, using the same arguments that we have found unconvincing. Or if you still think that your Wikipedia colleagues are a bunch of leftist goons working for the Fifth International, try bringing in third parties, perhaps by posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or Neutral point of view noticeboard or a WP:RFC. Absent such a measure I feel completely justified in removing the inflammatory information without further comment. 174.91.175.10 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I hope it is clear from the context that I am the same IP who made the last two comments on 27 September. I'd hate to face baseless accusations of sock-puppetry... again. 174.91.175.10 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC) edited 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC) to fix broken link to category
No, you can not remove sourced content. You've brought no reason to remove that piece of information except for your own personal opinion. I do understand that you are quite eager to make political propaganda in here, since she is a candidate at this moment. However, you must understand once and for all that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Readers want to understand the subject, not read propaganda. Or, are you telling me that the communist groups in the 1960s were trying to restore democracy? What's next? That the military presidents in the same period did not know that there were tortures? Or are you going to claim that Vargas was a democrat? I am quite tired of seeing sole-purpose editors in here... --Lecen (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comments about content are best categorized under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and your personal accusations are baseless and abusive. I have no intention of discussing this further, unless and until you bring something new to the table. 174.91.175.10 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You have removed sourced content without bothering at least to bring to this discussion another and reliable source that could be used as second opinion. If you continue to remove it, I will request an administrator to block you. --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
By all means, please seek third party intervention, although I suspect that it may not result in the precise remedy you mention. 174.91.175.10 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You have removed sourced content and you are the one who was supposed to have asked for third party intervention. I've requested an administrator to deal with the matter. --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That administrator is me. But I can't involve myself because I am too busy with other, WP-unrelated affairs. However, I've alerted people to this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No credible source state that Dilma Rousseff fought to establish a communist dictatorship in Brazil. Period. In fact, what all sources state - and is common knowledge, is that she fought against the military dictatorship. As for removing your "sourced content" please take note of WP:BLP: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. Limongi (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
According to whom Élio Gaspari and his series on the Military Dictatorship are not considered "credible source"? Is that your opinion? And who said that she was not fighting against the Military Dictatorship? She was, but not to restore democracry. --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Elio Gaspari - the same person that published a defamatory article on the Folha de São Paulo and O Globo newspapers in 2008 calling Dilma Rousseff a terrorist and falsely accusing her of using the pseudonym "Dulce Maia". The São Paulo State Court found him guilty of defamation and publishing false information. The newspaper had to publish an erratum, pay $18,000 in reparatory damages and publicly apologize for the mistake. [Ref http://www.viomundo.com.br/voce-escreve/elio-gaspari-mentiu-fez-dulce-maia-virar-dilma-rousseff.html]. And he didn't stop there. He continues to bash Dilma Rousseff and the Worker's Pary in all his articles (google "Dilma Rousseff Elio Gaspari" or "PT Elio Gaspari"). I cannot see how he can be considered a credible, unbiased source for this article. Limongi (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Lecen, I am following up on an administrators' noticeboard for incidents post asking for more review here.
Can you please specify what source says that she was fighting "for a revolutionary dictatiorship"?
If the sources do not contain those specific words, we should not use them here. I have reviewed the source which you apparently used for that section (the Bennett one) and it does not say that. If there is another source or I misread something please point out the actual supporting source.
You aren't allowed to synthesize new wording for something that's controversial like that. What the sources say, we report.
If there is a source which specifically says that, then it can be restored, with the specific source link. But you need to make it clear which one it's sourced to.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this is astonishing. It's bad enough that Mr. Gaspari was being cited for something he didn't actually say; now it appears that he has an obvious political tendency and his personal reputation is in serious question. If the information above is accurate, there is really no way that he should be cited for anything controversial on a WP:BLP. 174.91.173.36 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

isn't there an administrator that will block lecen? and the retar -ahem- brazili -oops- people (~)he argues with... really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.100.243 (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Energy policy, please. 99.39.184.178 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Position on Abortion

SHE IS NOT AGAINST ABORTION. HERE SHE IS SAYING HER OPINION (WITH SUBTITLES IN PORTUGUESE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdjN9Lk67Io&p=125AFF9721FCBC53&playnext=1&index=22 SHE IS TOTALLY PRO ABORTION.

Answer to above: IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER.ITS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PLAN NOT PERSONAL THOUGHTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.21.227 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

She said many times she is pro-abortion. What's wrong with Wikipedia, you can't have a balanced article?! and also she MUST be pro-abortion since her party (Workers Party) is pro-abortion. Read this article http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,ex-petista-cobra-punicao-a-dilma-por-polemica-do-aborto,624778,0.htm and either check the Abortion cell on the opinion table or put both. SHE'S DEFINITELY NOT AGAINST ABORTION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.12.111 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

She used to be pro-choice but recently changed her position for pro-life. The Workers Party isn't pro-choice. In fact it as many pro-life supporters, due to his conexion to the Liberation Theology. The President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also as stated several times that he is pro-life. There's a external link to the article were Dilma Rousseff states that she doesn't support abortion without any restrictions and I recently saw her on television saying similar statements.81.193.221.60 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

She is Pro-Life now, and so is the Catholic Church. Does this sentence in the Article make sense? "Her current pro-life view has been criticized by the Brazilian Roman Catholic Church and other religious, as well as by José Serra due to her past support for the decriminalization of abortion." To me, the sentence does not make sense and needs to be improved. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian reaction?

The "Dilma" reaction in Bulgaria is overstated in the article to a degree that is close to a mystification. Here in Bulgaria, Dilma Rousseff and the Brazil elections are given about as much attention as eg. French or Italian elections and candidates - more than Congo or New Zealand elections, but far less than USA or Russia elections. Most articles or messages note that Rousseff is of Bulgarian descent, but put it as a curiosity thing, like if she is notable for her height or weight. I am yet to see a single news, article or commentary that would pretend that she is Bulgarian; probably all satiric shows here will name it the top blunder of the week.

And, very definitely, there is no "Dilma fever" in Bulgaria. Few people have paid attention at all, and the commmon reaction is like "So what? A lot of people in the immigrant countries are of some Bulgarian descent. How did you said Manchester United fared?". (At this moment, the election results are still not known, but I don't expect big changes in the common opinion. Probably a little more of the same.) -- Григор Гачев (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I noticed that one too. --93.82.8.161 (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can absolutely confirm Grigor's words. The first time I heard of 'Dilma fever' in Bulgaria was yesterday when I checked out the article. Ivanicov (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More of this: I see in the article a sentence "Dilma Rousseff is described by the Bulgarian media as the "Iron Lady" - the Brazilian Margaret Thatcher.". However, the given source is Brazilian, and there is nothing about the Bulgaria and the BG media. I don't think that D.R. and the Brazilian election are paid more attention in Bulgaria than elsewhere. Why not add some 200 sections about every world country reaction?... All this looks increasingly more like a mystification. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Grigor, I think you should remove the ref and put the 'quotation needed' tag. I did some cleaning to that section (the hilarious analogy with Kenya celebrating Obama's victory) but it wouldn't look good if only one user is cleaning. Ivanicov (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If in Bulgaria there isn't a "Dilma fever", much less there are any concerns in Brazil about her being of Bulgarian descent, nor this has been of any relevance to her carreer - or to her presidential campaign. It is a perfect non-issue here. I wonder what this "information" is doing in this article? Ninguém (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it is not irrelevant to write a sentence or two about the Bulgarian reaction, but it really doesn't deserve a whole sub-section. And I agree that while Bulgarian media is certainly paying attention to the Brazilian ellections thanks to Dilma Rousseff, it is far from being "Dilma fever".Scheludko (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is not?Even the prime minister of Bulgaria said yes there is and asked Dilma to visit Bulgaria.Please.Personal thoughts should not be considered.The article justs confirms what Bulgaria's news were saying.I have never seen so much news about Dilma in a country outside Brazil.YES, there is a "Dilma fever", on the press, specially.But who cares?Why should you discuss in this article if it is TOTALLY brazilian dedicated?The article is not lying.Its from a news source in Brazil that interviewed people in Sofia.If it was an Bulgarian article you could discuss.Well, but it was totally idiot to take that off.I thought that bulgarian people were happier and friendly.But it is a poor country in the East Europe that needs help. Henrique (talk) 23:57, 03 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's RIDICULOUS to dedicate grand part of this article to connect her to her Bulgarian roots when it is clear that she doenst even care about it. SHE NEVER talks about it, she and her mother are Brazilian, she never been to her father's country and she doesn't speak her father's language. She is not Bulgarian, she is BRAZILIAN and doesn't even have double citizenship. So come on, let's focus on what is important here as this article is about the next president of BRAZIL and not about her father or Bulgaria. Denisxavier (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dilma's name and Citizenship

All of the Bulgarian hulabaloo, important or not, existing or not, should not be considered here because it is misleading to incorrect interpretation about Dilma's personal life. Simple fact Dilma's only connection with Bulgaria is her father, deceased when she was 15 and whose name was translated when of the time of arrival in Brazil. She doens't have any actual connections with Bulgaria or with her family there. She was born and raised in BRAZIL, SHE HAS ONLY ONE NATIONALITY and it is BRAZILIAN and there is only one proper way to write her NAME - that is in Brazilian Portuguese - which is DILMA VANA ROUSSEFF and the translation to the Bulgarian language and alphabet of her name is made up, so I'm removing the Bulgarian name on the introduction based of these facts, because the actual introduction is misleading readers to think she is Bulgarian.Denisxavier (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, there is no reason whatsoever for giving Bulgarian or any spelling of Dilma Rousseff's name other than its original one (Brazilian Portuguese, same in English). On another point, direct quotes should be given as they appear in the relevant source rather than modified. Apcbg (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

APCBG I did not modify it trying to mislead readers, it is the only way I found to leave that Bulgarian section there without affecting the way readers will understand the truth. The source http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/794470-eleicao-no-brasil-provoca-febre-dilma-na-bulgaria.shtml from which previous editors claimed she was "a bulgarian" is in fact a Brazilian newspaper showing the Brazilian reaction to improper point of view from the Bulgarian media. In this article, we can also read this: "Eu tento explicar para os jornalistas que ela não é búlgara, assim como não sou polonês", afirma Paulo Américo Wolowski, embaixador do Brasil em Sófia e que viu explodir o interesse da mídia local pelo Brasil. a quote from the Brazilian ambassador in Sofia trying to explain to the Bulgarian media that she is not Bulgarian and that he is not Polish just because they are brazilian-born with foreign last names. Other than that, if not modified to explain exactly this, this section should be completely removed from the article because it's not merely important and it is deviating the focus on a Brazilian person which will be the Brazilian president, over to her father's history and a pointless discussion. Denisxavier (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are modifying that direct quote in order to better inform the reader but that's not the way Wikipedia works. It's not about her being Bulgarian or not (she's not, no question about that), it's that direct quotes cannot be doctored for whatever reasons. I am not going into further reverts, leaving it to you to realise and correct your error. Apcbg (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So what do you reckon about removing the whole section in order not to misinform readers or to rewrite it to accomplish a better understanding? Any suggestions on a better text for the Bulgarian reaction?Denisxavier (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the present text is reasonably good, and the quotation problem could be resolved by removing the quotation marks; then your replacing 'Bulgarian' by 'Bulgaria-descendent' would be okay. Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Apcbg - I realized you made the changes yourself Thanks! Denisxavier (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Warning about recent changes made by User Flaviobm ip 201.2.53.105. I have reverted an edit done by him which said that Dilma was a terrorist and a bank robber. He has also tryied to do other minor changes to the article, also reverted by user Warshy (thanks for watching out, btw). Denisxavier (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Remove "Former Atheist"

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, I would like the "former atheist" portion of her religion to be removed. There is absolutely no factual evidence that she was an atheist at any point in her life. The only reference that is made is to the same Miami Herald article, but there is nothing factual to back up this claim. It has been leveled against her during the campaign by the religious zealots in Brazil who were just trying to damage her image.

I am fluent in Portuguese and I have searched all over the Brazilian news and journal articles for anything to back up the atheist claim, and I have found absolutely nothing.

I am a Master's student in a comparative politics program and my area of focus is Brazil. I hold no reservations that this claim about her is nothing more than a smear tactic that did not succeed because she was elected.

Feel free to e-mail me for further discussion on this, and please e-mail me if you do actually find a factual and accredited basis for this claim. Myself and many other Brazilian political scientists would LOVE to see it.

Thanks, Tony

Lonememe (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The Miami Herald is considered a reliable source and it says she is a former atheist. We report what others have written about a subject, and are specifically forbidden to do our own original research. Therefore, the reason you give for removal is against our policies and I must deny the request. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Atmoz,

I vehemently disagree with your decision. If I ask the original author of the Miami Herald article for his source on her being an atheist, and he cannot provide it, can you please remove this?

I wasn't requesting you perform original research, I am simply saying that one unverified claim in a newspaper article that cannot be verified ANYWHERE else is hardly a credible claim and therefore should not be taken as fact.

Further, the article isn't actually from the Miami Herald, it's reprinted from "McClatchy News Service".

Again, you're doing the community a disservice by leaving this in. The claim that she was an atheist was used to tarnish her image, and I do not appreciate Wikipedia furthering falsehoods.

Lonememe (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Tony

I just removed "former atheist" from the infobox. Whether she was or not an atheist in the past, that information does not belong there. The fact is that her current religion is Roman Catholic as can be verified by a number of credible sources. Her own official website states: "Dilma is Catholic and was baptized and chrismated" (Dilma é católica, batizada e crismada) [3]. No one better than her to know what faith she practices. Therefore stop adding unnecessary controversial material to a BLP article. Limongi (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT this category shouldn't even exist.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Final Cabinet Members Announced

When someone has a minute can they update the cabinet members list. Right now the page still says Ministry of Agrarian Development and Special Secretariat for Women's Rights are TBD. She released info about these last two posts on her site on 22 December.

Desenvolvimento Agrário (Agrarian Development) – Afonso Florence Mulheres (Special Secretary for Women) – Iriny Lopes

Here's the post with the whole list from her site. http://www.dilma.com.br/noticias/entry/ministerio-da-presidenta-dilma-rousseff/

Sorry if I didn't format this post correctly. I'm new to the contribution end of Wiki.

thanks

64.52.73.130 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)David

Forbes list

B. Fairbairn is constantly removing the mention of Rousseff being included in the Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People. The Forbes' list is mentioned in many BLP articles, such as Angela Merkel, Hu_Jintao, Sonia Gandhi, etc. B. Fairbairn's opinion about the Forbes' list is just that: his opinion (POV). The fact is that Forbes is considered a credible third-party source and published this list. Therefore, the user should stop removing sourced, relevant content from the article. Limongi (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Limongi. As I had mentioned in B. Fairbairn's talk page, Forbes is a reliable third party source, and its opinion is made use of in many articles, many of them being Good Articles(GA). Please see the articles Indra Nooyi, Angela Merkel, Chanda Kochhar, Bill Gates, and the Featured Article Elvis Presley. In all of these articles (and many more by the way), A Forbes list is mentioned. MikeLynch (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you both, but I'm looking forward to read B. Fairbairn's reply.
Maddox (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
B. Fairbairn hasn't replied here, but has went on to change the article nevertheless. I do not want to break 3RR, and so I would like a formal reply here by Fairbairn. MakingTheMark •Wassup doc? 12:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
B. Fairbairn hasn't made a single contribution to this article and only shows up here to erase sourced content. Like MakingTheMark pointed out, we started a discussion about his disruptive edits a month ago (30 November 2010) and B. Fairbairn has not replied here, preferring to continue his vandalism.Limongi (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Charles Rodney Chandler

I'm Brazilian and I'm surprised that in the English section of the article there's no mention of the Captain Charles R. Chandler, an US Army officer and a Vietnam War vet, who came to Brazil to study sociology and was assassinated in 1968, in front of his wife and 4yo son by Dilma's group, just because her group wanted to draw international media attention. She and her partners committed many crimes and acts of terrorism, but I don't expect this article to mention them and I won't discuss the reasons whatever they are. But an article in such size in English who contains even Dilma's opinion about a goalkeeper who killed his pornstar girlfriend while hiding the assassination of an American officer committed by an organization in which she took important rules...is really suspicious for me.

- Stalinácio Lula da Silva

Thank you for your opinions. You can write the relevant facts in the article yourself in the relevant section, but before adding anything, make sure that the added material is Notable, has Reliable sources, and generally complies with the Manual of style. TheMike •Wassup doc? 11:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Stalinácio Lula da Silva, by your signature we can tell how biased you are and the reason why you'd want to add defamatory material to Rousseff's article. Well, it ain't gonna happen. Here are the facts: Charles Chandler was in Brazil to help train the DOI-CODI and DOPS torturers. For this reason he was gunned down by the VPR militant group in 1968. Rousseff was never a member of the VPR. At that time - 1968 - she was a member of another organization called COLINA. She would later join VAR Palmares in 1969. Therefore, there are absolutely no links, whatsoever, between Rousseff and the assassination of Charles Chandler. Limongi (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Piauí as a source?

The two main sources for this article are

CARVALHO, Luiz Maklouf. "As armas e os varões: A educação política e sentimental de Dilma Roussef". Piauí, number 31 (April 2009), p. 22-31

and

Carvalho, Luís Maklouf (July 2009). "Mares nunca dantes navegados: Como e por que Dilma Rousseff se tornou a candidata de Lula à sucessão presidencial." Revista Piauí, nº 34, p. 26-33.


They are cited more than 40 times during this article. I have my doubts if this is a good source. Piauí is a highly controversial magazine in Brazil and often is not taken seriously by many people. "She reportedly knew how to handle weapons, confront the police, and use guerrilla tactics.[14]", for example, is not a known truth. See Dilma's interview @ Jornal Nacional, for example (http://video.globo.com/Videos/Player/Noticias/0,,GIM1367091-7823-JORNAL+NACIONAL+ENTREVISTA+A+PRESIDENTE+ELEITA+DILMA+ROUSSEFF,00.html , in Portuguese), in which numerous ex-colleagues of her in the leftist movements state that she never touched weaponry.

I am sorry if I do not take a look at other controversial spots in the article from the use of Piauí as a source, but the suggestion remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.13.152 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


I think this article needs a complete clean up. And I say that as one of its main contributors (Yes, I was the one who added the Piauí sources... :P) Now is more than adequate to performe this, since there are plenty of biographical sources in English. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that a collective effort could lead this article to a "good" or even "featured" status. It has potential. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Well, the fact that this article is locked for outside editing won't help much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.13.152 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. As you can perceive from the section below, rumors about Ms. Rousseff are widespread here in Brazil. Therefore, to protect readers from other countries from the vandalism perpetuated by Brazilian users, the article must be protected somehow. I agree it's unfair. But it must be done to respect Wikipedia's neutrality standards. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are some great bibliographical sources in English:

Her own website is also a great source, which happens to have an English version of her biography: http://www.dilma.com.br/paginas/dilma-roussefs-biography/

--Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The site of the President has also been updated: http://www.presidencia.gov.br/presidenta --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nando1301, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Clarification suggestions: (1) the terms "...being persecuted for" should be replaced by "...being prosecuted for". The article contains a typographical error. (2) the terms "...taken for inquiry..." should be replaced by "...taken for interrogation..." or "...taken for formal prosecution". This is a translation error from the Portuguese "inquérito" wrongly translated to "inquiry".

Nando1301 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

THERE'S A MISTAKE IN THE ARTICLE

VEJA IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER, IN FACT SOME OF IT'S JOURNALISTS HAVE A CLEAR PRO-ABORTION, PRO-GAY MARRIAGE AND EVEN ANTI-RELIGION POSITION, IN NAME OF INTELECTUAL HONESTITY PLEASE REMOVE THE "CONSERVATIVE" FROM THE ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.222.112 (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Veja is ultra-conservative, it's on the edge of being a facist pamphlet. Dornicke (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a pro-gay stance? Editor Reinaldo Azevedo recently compared PLC 122 to AI-5. I couldn't agree more with the user above. Veja has reached a point of no return in terms of adopting a right-wing (at times far-right) view of the Brazilian society. It might as well support views considered progressive every once in a while, but for the last 8 years or so it has always condemned broader progressive issues such as Keynesian economics, welfare state, trade unions, affirmative action, tax reform, land reform, cash transfer programs, Native Brazilian rights, and even homeless people's rights, as I witnessed once. I've also witnessed a defense of the death penalty. But Veja is hipocrite. They'll never admit that they are a conservative pamphlet inspite of that. They don't want to miss their few remaining readers. But fortunately, things are becoming clearer and clearer for the average Brazilian. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dilma's age

One paragraph gives her birth year as 1947, while another says she was 15 in 1965. They can not both be correct. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.95.26 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the Portuguesa article it was actually 1964 and she was 16 years old. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

head of govt too or just of state?

This makes a difference in how we code Brazil in the map at list of female heads of state. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

She is also Head of State. The map is wrong. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, I thought the wuestion was the other way around. She is also Head of Government, as Brazil is a full Presidential system. See: President of Brazil and Government of Brazil. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Will fix map. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Ethnicity is not a function of one's parents citizenship. We need a source that states that Roussef identifies as of Bulgarian ethnicity. The inclusion of a Bulgarian spelling and pronunciation of her name is not warranted for a person who does not speak Bulgarian or otherwise identify with Bulgarian ethnicity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring and discuss the issue here, or I will request the protection of this article. MBelgrano (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You can see that in my last rv. I replaced ethnicity with ancestry to stop the edit war. I don't want to search for sources, where Dilma declares Bulgarian ethnicity. If ancestry is put instead ethnicity I guess the problem will be solved, the fact that she is of half Bulgarian ancestry/orgin(not nationality or ethnicity) is supported by the put source, which states that her father is Bulgarian and you can't change that half of the her ancestries are Bulgarians, that will be written in the page beacause is true fact with a source. And for the name I was putting Bulgarian version, beacause her familly "Rousseff" derives from the Bulgarian language, if this is disputable may not to be put in the page, but the undeniable fact that she is of half Bulgarian orgin/ancestry (not ethnicity or nationality) have not to be deleted. Pensionero (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article (in the second paragraph of the lead in fact) and no one has proposed to remove it.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me why and according to which Wikipedia rule you was reverting when I wrote Dilma Rousseff is of half Bulgarian ancestry? Pensionero 20:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all you introduce a Bulgarian spelling and pronunciation of her name although she does not speak bulgarian herself and does not go by a bulgarian variant of her name. Secondly the article already mentioned that one of her parents was of Bulgarian ancestry, your version assigned undue weight to that rather inconsequential fact. You were also editwarring since your edit had been reverted several times by different editors who obviously didn't think it was an improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't her mother a Portuguese Brazilian? If so, then this should be mentioned as well and included in that category also (at the bottom of the page); this obsession with her Bulgarian-born father has overwhelmed the article to the extent that it seems to be saying Dilma herself is only of Bulgarian ancestry. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Forbes List

I have finally got around to reading the talk page. Though I believe the inclusion of a Forbes reference in the heading of a wiki page detracts from the credibility of wiki due to the subjective nature of the source I will relent in my pursuit of improving wiki content by moving or removing Forbes material for Dilma Rousseff and Sonia Gandhi.

It is interesting to note that the most powerful man in the USA (Obama) does not have a Forbes ranking on his page. Neither does Dmitry Medvedev, Shimon Peres, David Cameron, Stephen Harper, Julia Gillard, Bronisław Komorowski, Jalal Talabani or dozens of other world leaders. How about some consistency... B. Fairbairn (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn, I'll write it again over here as I did at Talk:Sonia Gandhi. The FA Elvis Presley, Manmohan Singh, and the FL List of United States graduate business school rankings does include rankings from Forbes. It is wise to see FAs as a standard of comparison. Yes Michael? •Talk 11:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dam

Shouldn't there be mention of this on her page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam 71.210.246.148 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Privatization

Dilma can say that she is anti-pivatization for political reasons. Ok, let's not judge that. However, we have to analyze facts impartially. And there are plenty of evidences that she supports privatization of airpoorts, roads and power plants.

She says one thing and does another. It is our duty either to put an yes mark or a question mark regarding her position on privatization. But stating that she is against privatization seems more like a political and biased attitude to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.225.123 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo

I'd fix it, but the article is locked. Second paragraph, first sentence under "Arrest": "were" should be "where". 76.167.253.199 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy resource

From http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,33#thinker42 ... "In 2011, she was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers, for "being the powerful voice of the new Global South".

99.190.81.65 (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

President or Presidenta?

It is known that our leader likes to be called "presidenta" in portuguese. Wouldn't be fair to repeat this trend in the English Wikipedia's references on her? 201.40.39.223 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. Political titles are usually translated to the receiving language (e.g., Wikipedia refers to the Japanese monarch as The Emperor, and not the Mikado). Zelani (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian spelling of Name

The Bulgarian spelling og her name is irrelevant - especially in the definition - it is Ok to mention it in the section about her family background, but it is NOT the first thing a person who comes to this page is interested in knowing. She doesn't speak Bulgarian, she never uses the cyrillic spelling. The one time it was discussed [[4]] the result was to keep it out even though User:Pensionero kept editwarring to insert it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Does her surname have any relation to Russia? 176.14.120.114 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, although there is always some relation between the cyrillic writing people and the slavic languages which are not written in cyrillic, like Polish. This is comparable to the interaction and relations between Italian, Spanish, French, and Portuguese speaking people. What is rather astonishing is the father's flight in 1929 because he was a communist in Bulgaria. He could have gone to the Soviet Union kind of next door. He could have been a communist in economic/social terms but might have been pro-religion which Stalin wasn't. I believe the name Rusev/Ruseva for women exists in Russia but that doesn't really prove anything as Russia is a multiethnic country. 144.136.192.10 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, too. The Bulgarian family name Rusev has nothing to do with Russia. It derives from the personal name Rusi which in turn comes from Bulgarian rus meaning blond. Hope this helps. Apcbg (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Im not sure what the issue is, but if there is a different variation we do, by precedent, mention that following the name too.Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

controversy section needs work/rewrite

The whole issue about the supposed "anti-homophobia" kits needs much greater support that this even remotely qualifies as a controversy in the first place to warrant inclusions. Additionally, the political and forum-like information repeatedly sprinkled into the article also needs to go, such as the beginning where it suggests that being a left winger should somehow make her some great ally of homosexuals, as an example. The whole section reads like a message board advocate for homosexuality-- far from encyclopedic. Whatzinaname (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Petrobras scandal and protests.

I'm curious as to why their is no mention yet of the Petrobras scandal or the massive protests that called for her impeachment. Granted she has not yet been charged with anything and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I do think a nice objective section of the scandal is warranted because it has ruined her public approval ratings and there are now calls for her impeachment.174.107.188.5 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I will look into it and possibly make a subsection in the "Controversies" section.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Presidential styles

Isn't the Styles infobox supposed to reflect the official usage? I'm personally against "presidenta", as I assume many here are, but our personal preferences shouldn't weigh in here. Presidenta is used in each and every official document and ceremony. I see no reason why the infobox should reflect otherwise, linguistic concerns notwithstanding. Zelani (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

April Protests

At this rate, Rousseff may be on her way out the door: http://news.yahoo.com/fresh-anti-government-protests-brazil-143611687.html Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The Brazilian impeachment system is stricter than a simple recall vote. She might be pressured into stepping down, though. Zelani (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Zelani (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Third head of government"

The article claims "Dilma is the third head of government in history." Who does this include, exactly? Are we counting Izabel as regent during the absence of Pedro II? Does she count as head of government in this case? Zelani (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered in two weeks, I'll take action my own. Here's the excerpt in question:

She became the third female head of government ever in the history of Brazil, and the first de facto female head of state since the death of Maria I, Queen of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1816.

None of this makes any sense. Leopoldina and Isabel took over as regents during the respective Emperors' absences, but that does not mean they 'took office'. As for heads of state, she is not the first de facto head of state since Maria I--she is the first de jure head of state since Maria I.
I'm going to rewrite the entire sentence to clarify. Zelani (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong. Maria I was the first head of state of Brazil as a sovereign nation. Leopoldina and Isabel were regents, which made them heads of state and heads of government. That they were temporary in their office does not matter. José Linhares and Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli served a similar purpose and they are regarded presidents of Brazil. Dilma was, however, the first female president. --Lecen (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the question lies in the distinction between acting head of state/government and incumbent head of state/government. Linhares and Mazzilli were sworn in because their predecessors left office (for one reason or another). They were not acting presidents, they were the de jure presidents at that point. Leopoldina and Isabel were not crowned Empresses, they were acting regents in the absence of Pedro I and II. They do not count as monarchs of Brazil, as, say, Marco Maciel does not count as President of Brazil even though he took over several times while Fernando Henrique was abroad.
So the question here is: How many women have been de facto head of state/government in Brazil? Three: Leopoldina, Isabel, Rousseff (as Maria was already ill when Brazil was elevated to United Kingdom). How many women have been de jure head of state government in Brazil? Two: Maria I and Rousseff. Zelani (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure logic of today applies for the XIX century. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say XIX-century logic holds the Emperor in an even higher scale of importance than the President today. Zelani (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Zelani (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

LGBT Section

I'm not clear on the LGBT section as it stands, its opening statement says that Rousseff is not as popular with the LGBT community as would be expected, but it only cites reasons why she would be expected to be it does not give the reasons why she isn't. Maybe I'm missing something on the syntax but the examples given do not seem to support the opening. Roterbaron (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Impeachment Proceedings

I added this section today after reading about the news in Brazil. I wasn't sure to make a new section, as the proceedings may become long and drawn out. Or they may not. Thanks 31jetjet (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)31jetjet

I imagine this page is going to experience significant changes it the near future, given the recent news. I would ask that editors refrain from any battleground behavior, and avoid any biased language even if factual. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks DaltonCastle. Since she is now suspended pending trial, VP Temer has replaced her according to The New York Times. I think this means she is no longer president as of right now? I don't want to make any bold changes.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
My (naive) understanding is that she's no longer acting president, just as she isn't when she's out of country. So she retains all the benefits and title, but Temer is the current acting president. UCaetano (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I think she is still technically president, but it is suspended. The VP is the acting president, since in Brazil's constitution there is a six month suspension from the presidency during impeachment trials. Perhaps we should label her as "Brazil's suspended President"? Or something like that. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Presidency status

She "was" the president, not she "is" as the article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, she's still President of Brazil until she either dies, resigns or is removed from office via impeachment conviction in the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean the title "Her Excellency" stays until impeachment conviction? Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 23:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, she also continues to use the official residence, use the official plane and retains her staff. Source (PT-BR) UCaetano (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The title "Her Excellency" remains on the Wikipedia article, regardless of the outcome of the trial, as is with any of the former Presidents. See the articles for Sarney, Franco or Collor, for example. Zelani (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Then what do you say about the "acting president" Michel Temer? If he is the acting president that means there is no current president, right?

We've a new IP, trying to edit in that Rousseff is no longer President. Furthermore, the IP (45.72.167.132) has already promised to evade any blocks (via multiple computers) to enforce his edits. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016

Since the article on Dilma Rousseff is semi-protected in compliance with the biographies of living persons policy, I request that the {{Pp-semi-BLP}} template be added to the top of the article. 67.248.123.143 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13(talk) 15:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

August 31 Verdict

Instead of

"On 31 August 2016, the Senate voted 61–20 in favor of impeachment, finding Rousseff guilty of breaking budgetary laws and removing her from office.[9][10]"

as it is currently written, it may be better to write:

On 9 August 2016, the Senators, by a 59 to 21 vote, "decided that there was enough evidence against Ms Rousseff to proceed to the trial phase." (Brazil impeachment: Key questions) The impeachment trial ended on 31 August 2016 when the Senate decided, by a 61 to 20 vote, on a verdict of guilty and a sanction of permanent removal from office (Brazil impeachment: Key questions) without prejudice to being elected again for a public office [10b] (even the presidency). IPlusDrama (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

removed text

I don't see that it adds much and it's uncited. If someone really wants it can go back in if it has a reference this time:

According to Rousseff, it was in this school that she became aware of the political situation of her country, getting "very subversive" and realizing that "the world was not a place for debutantes".[citation needed]

Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Petrobras section

"No direct evidence implicating Rousseff in the scheme has been made public, and she denies having any prior knowledge of it." -- is there any evidence at all? The sentence seems to imply that there might be indirect evidence which has not been made public Elinruby (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Until now, nothing changed. No evidence at all - of reliable sources, at least.Arcanj106 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

early life needs references

There seems to be enormous reliance on the piauí magazine. Please improve the references; surely there are more available than this and some what the article says is a) disputed and b) perhaps defamatory -- it's hard to know if you aren't Brazilian whether being a guerrilla and robbing banks for money to fight a dictatorship is equivalent to the French Resistance (ie a badge of honor) or a black mark against her. Or both. In any event, a (former) president surely has more than one biography in print. Elinruby (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

charges "had sufficient weight"

does this mean "were so grave" or "were sufficiently backed by evidence"? Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation

I ripped off the cittation 43 since the webpage no longer exists...

Rouseff is not "French"

WHo is the ignorant who wrote that Petar Rusev changed his surname into "French" version Rousseff??? That is ashkenazi jews interpolation of Russian surnames. One example is Sergei Rachmaninoff, who was of ashkenazi origins (turkic tatar just like khazarians, who converted into jews in 9th century of our era). There are no "French" names with such Slavic construction - Rusev means "son of a Rus". Rus is Russian. French is nowhere to be seen here. France has absolutely nothing to do with Rusev interpolation into Rousseff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.134.107 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

her name is bulgarian

it is said that one of her paternal grandfathers had been jewish !

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dilma Rousseff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So it says this: " According to O Globo, a Rio de Janeiro newspaper, she believes private sector jobs should be prioritized by her government's policies "

And provides basicly this link, but it's broken on the page. " https://web.archive.org/web/20160806181748/http://blogs.oglobo.globo.com/panorama-politico/post/a-coluna-panorama-politico-5-do-jornal-globo-458529.html "


Now, in that link, Dilma doesn't say anything, it's not an interview... at least, 1, when you say "according to O globo", I'm not sure it's 100% stated that it isn't from an interview with her; 2nd, should that opinion of that journalist go there?, it isn't even backed up in the note, it's like a 2 words short comment for like a loose opinion, I think; and 3, I think the article is rather saying "state workers are in strike, but they're being well paid and have stable jobs, in difference with private sector's jobs, according to Dilma, so she's not going to attend to their strike", which, apart from being only the journalist's sayings, it's different from what the quoted text on the page is saying I think.

I'm not going to edit it, I leave the suggerence. Maybe I'll come edit it later, prolly not though.

--181.165.200.99 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dilma_Rousseff/Archive_1&oldid=1136663157"