Talk:Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Charges for impeachment

This process of impeachment refers that the President was guilty of breaking budgetary laws by borrowing from state banks to cover a shortfall in the deficit and pay for social programs in the run-up to her 2014 re-election. Suspection of corruption while chairwoman in Petrobras is not part of this process and I think that sections "Tax evasion and corruption at Petrobras" and "Operation Car Wash" must be removed.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The impeachment request submitted by the authors addresses the "Operation Car Wash." See here. Érico (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the original text of the request made by lawyers. The process for impeachment admissibility voted in Chamber and sent to Senate contained only the charges of "tax pedaling" and supplementary decrees not authorized in 2015 budget. No charges of corruption or involvement of Rousseff with "Operation Car Wash" were cited in the process, which is subject of this article.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not impeached yet

Dilma Rousseff was suspended, not impeached definitively, by Senate votation on 12 May. In next 180 days, the process will be judged, in final phases that could result in definitive impeachment or no. In this last case, Rousseff returns to presidency. I'm not sure that is correct to move ever the article title.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Text improvements

The second part of the introductory section should be incorporated into the text, giving sequence to the section "Process in Congress." The process will continue for up to six months and the whole development can not be cited in the introductory section.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the first few sentences, the introduction has grammar issues that make it unclear. Copy editing this section could make it easier to understand:

According to the impeachment request, Rousseff was also accused of omission concerning irregularities in Petrobras that, facing serious facts investigated by Operation Car Wash while occupying the office of president of Brazil, failed to fend off the suspects. Also according to the report, the fact is aggravated by Rousseff had been president of the board of directors in Brazilian oil company, when occurred the investigated facts, including the controversial acquisition of Pasadena Refining System, cited on page 3 of impeachment request. According to the request, this omission would configure crime of responsibility. However, the charges of omission were not included in the process. After the acceptance of the request, a special committee was formed in the Chamber of Deputies to decide on its admissibility. It began with the testimony of the authors of the request, followed by a presentation of Rousseff's defense. Meanwhile, street protests for and against the impeachment occurred periodically throughout the country. The committee's report was favorable to impeaching the President: 38 deputies approved the report while 27 did not. A vote was held in the chamber on the 17 April in favor of beginning impeachment proceedings against Rousseff, and was confirmed with a 55–22 vote by the Senate on 12 May, resulting in the suspension of Rousseff's presidential powers and duties up to 180 days. During this period, while the judgment of the process occurs (which decides whether the president is definitively impeached or not), Michel Temer will serve as acting president.

In particular, these sentences sound as though they might contain machine-translated text from the original Portuguese sources:

Rousseff was also accused of omission concerning irregularities in Petrobras that, facing serious facts investigated by Operation Car Wash while occupying the office of president of Brazil, failed to fend off the suspects. Also according to the report, the fact is aggravated by Rousseff had been president of the board of directors in Brazilian oil company, when occurred the investigated facts, including the controversial acquisition of Pasadena Refining System, cited on page 3 of impeachment request. According to the request, this omission would configure crime of responsibility.

ChrisC550 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There are even more problematic translation issues, resulting in difficult to interpret English, in other sections. For example, this paragraph doesn't make much sense:

"Experts consulted by Agência Brasil commented on the political crisis. They stated that the poor skills with which the Rousseff negotiated with Congress and the number of political parties present caused a great loss of governability. Moreover, according to experts, the opposition was fighting against Rousseff from the previous year's elections, trying in every way to destabilize the government, without regard to the political and economic situation of the country, which was seriously committed to the application of impeachment. However, the outbreak of the process could be beneficial for Rousseff, who would be free from blackmail and could potentially reorganize her government. Political scientists believed Cunha could lose his mandate and that the opposition would try to push the process in Congress for 2016 in order to mitigate the "electoral ecstasy" and "act of revenge" which was the host of the application.[33]"

Olinto (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a grammar error (double negative) in one of the quotes:

"She lied on national television network and this is very serious. If she had not participated directly I don't would speak." — Eduardo Cunha,

Please check the translation. Thanks

Original Article References

Article title?

Would Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff be a more appropriate title? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I initially moved the article to that title, but having read this NYT article, reversed the move. Perhaps once she's convicted the title should be changed. Brandmeister^talk 10:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Other remarks

Is the phrase remarking that she is the second woman to be impeached in any way relevant or interesting? I recommend removing it. Chris (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's also uncited and difficult to prove. Who keeps track of all impeachments (even of low level officials) everywhere? I'm removing it. --134.96.225.185 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Article needs wikification

The introductory section is being expanded improperly. Last decisions are in lead section and lacking details in the article, especially in relation to the Senate voting. Part of lead section should be in the article topics. For better organization, the procedures in Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate could be described in separate topics.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Made.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Cannes visibility

Should the Cannes selected Aquarius drama crew protest during the red carpet of the event be cited in the article? Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/17/brazil-is-not-a-democracy-aquarius-premiere-cannes-red-carpet-protest http://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/cinema/noticia/2016/05/equipe-de-aquarius-protesta-em-cannes-contra-impeachment-de-dilma.html http://oglobo.globo.com/cultura/filmes/sessao-de-aquarius-em-cannes-marcada-por-protesto-contra-impeachment-video-19320526

They gave global visibility to the impeachment process by protesting in a highly visible film festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oarcanjomiguel (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Theories, not serious analysis

It seems that some fanciful conspiracy theories are being spread through suspicious websites. I haven't seen in any of those publications, a detailed analysis of the reasons for impeachment, cited on request or any citation to ritual of process and its complexity, involving hundreds of actors and the voting in Chamber and Senate, everything lawfully defined by Supreme Federal Court. They don't even know that the process is still in course and is in accordance to Brazilian laws.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

One section of the article is basically just conspiracy theories from poor sources. I consequently removed that section. The user "Luizpuodzius" keeps re-inserting that section though and without any reasons provided. Is there something that can be done about this? I don't know the rules of wikipedia well enough but you need to ensure that "Luizpuodzius" can't keep re-inserting that content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The process still in progress. On next 24 May, the Special Comission for Impeachment (CEI) will present and deliberate the work plan for next phases of the process. (Atividade Legislativa Senado Federal (in Portuguese)). I find it too early to create a section "international response" (or repercussion), before the outcome.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough and I agree. It was just a proposal for a path forward on the section I deleted in case someone would disagree with the deletion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Section removed

I agree absolutely with the removal. I would do the same.

The section "Repercussion and criticism" has been removed by a lot of problems in sources, some them mentioning the exact opposite of what they are referencing, like this, others with conspiracy theories, other inactive, like elpais.com/elpais/2016/05/13/inenglish/1463136338_819983.html and this, other partial from pro-govern parties and also and essentially because the process was not completed. It is premature to cite all that, with political aim, whereas the process isn´t concluded. Please wait for the final result to create a section with the definitive international opinions or this article will become a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I completely and vehemently disagree with the removal of crucial part of the article. The argument used to castrate the other side of the story is unfounded and completely against the 5 pillars. Let me show you how you justification lacks logic and rational support.

• (1) - Your support, PauloMSimoes, stating that the section "(...) has been removed by a lot of problems in sources,... fails to explain why the UNCLASSIFIED US intelligence documents is a "problem souces"? The CIA and the United States embassy in Brazil are lying when they present the leadr of Brazil as "informant for US intelligence"? What is the problem of The Guardian, a souce founded 195 years ago, to publish that "Rousseff remained defiant, denying that she had committed any crime, and accusing her opponents of mounting a “coup”."? What exactly is the problem about the "'Repercussion" of Dilma's criticism in the Guardian? Is the fact that Carta Major published that "United States is the accomplice of coup plan against Dilma" that is the real problem? Maybe is the fact that the publication has too much awards or too many readers?

• (2) - What is the souce for you information that Glenn Greenwald is "partial from pro-govern parties'"? Let educate you: In fact, Mr. Glenn Greenwald published that After Vote to Remove Brazil’s President, Key Opposition Figure Holds Meetings in Washington; but you really wish that the reader believe that Glenn Greenwald, the * 2009 Izzy Award for independent journalism; the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary; the 2013 EFF Pioneer Award for coverage and analysis of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures; the 2013 George Polk Award the 2014 Geschwister-Scholl-Preis for No Place to Hide; and the 2015 Siebenpfeiffer-Preis or Noam Chomsky, that pointed out that "President Dilma Rousseff is the only leading politician in the country that has not engaged in theft to enrich herself", and opined that she has been “impeached by a gang of thieves(...)through a soft coup led by the opposition parties in the country",are both "partial from pro-govern parties"? What are your rational base to formulate such improbable accusations? Rede Globo?

• (3) - Is it honest or prescribed by Wiki rules to ignore relevant parts of the sources in order to decapitate a section of the article?

• (4) - The worse part of your argument is the lack of logic. It is exact the part that you use to justify your action: You point as your motivation to supress information because "...the process was not completed. It is premature to cite all that, with political aim, whereas the process isn´t concluded. Please wait for the final result to create a section with the definitive international opinions or this article will become a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia." Where is the logic?

(a) Let us look if what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep in mind that the crux of your argument lays in the fact that the process was not completed. Why, in your impartial judgement, the part that says that "Experts consulted by Agência Brasil commented on the political crisis." must be part of the article, while the part that the same Agência Brasil commented that the "Nobel Peace says impeachment of Rousseff is a coup" must be removed, if - as you told us - the process was not completed?

(b) Why experts like Noam Chomsky are not allow in this "one-side" article?

Isn't completely illogical your complete agreement to place "Experts...commented on the political crisis"; although, you profess that "It is premature to cite all that, with political aim? What are the aim of political experts that instead of declaring a a soft coup, "They stated that the poor skills with which Rousseff negotiated with Congress...". Ah, this kind of "political remark is obviously NOT "...a mess of political opinions, opposed the objective of an encyclopedia.", correct? Why the poll of " Datafolha Institute, 61% of Brazilians believed that Rousseff should have been impeached", but the poll that "...71% of Brazilians believed that the impeachment process presided by Cunha should not be valid.." must be removed?

Specially, knowing that "the process was not completed" you decided to have a section of "Comments by agencies and public opinion"; but you remove the part that agency Reuters says that: Brazil's biggest labor confederation, the Central Única dos Trabalhadores, which represents 25 million workers, does do not recognize the legitimacy of Temer's interim government. What is it: 25 million workers opinion are not public opinion or the Reuters is not an agency.

Please understand that just because the American electoral process of 2016 is not completed, this does not necessarily mean that we have to castrate the email controversy until "the process was not completed"

• (5) Please, restore the section "Repercussion and criticism" and, if necessary, edit the section to increase the quality of the article....OR, on the hand, b so kind as to explain what kind of logic are using. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

PauloMSimoes, when you are considering what was said above, I reccomend that you read today's report by ABC news _{(partial from pro-govern parties??)} about Brazil Interim Gov't Under Fire in Wake of Leaked Recording and The Guardian's secret tape reveals plot to topple President Rousseff. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources mentioning the WikiLeaks make assumptions based on conspiracy theories. These presumptions is the least interested in the article. Sources of government parties are partial, not exempted. The Guardian, depreciates the process, citing arguments that make for debunk the ritual legally constituted, according to Brazilian law. It is only repeating the arguments that Rousseff and the PT is spreading. Be elected with 54 million votes isn't a plausible argument to justify any illegality on President acts nor in the process. The Guardian as much unaware of the case, that put a picture of impeachment supporters. Obviously, that should be also mention the criticisms in the article. I am not claiming that the article does not have the section, I just think better to wait, because there is a lot of misinformation in the media. These international opinions may well be cited at the end of the process, Roussef can be acquitted and return to office. I think advisable to wait the outcome, to create this section, citing reputed and reliable sources. Please, be patient. Regards.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

PauloMSimoes, you said "The sources mentioning the WikiLeaks make assumptions based on conspiracy theories". Let me see if I undertand. You are saying that ABC news, The Guardian, NY Times, etc are making assumptions based on conspiracy theories spanned by WikiLeaks? WOW! Can you give the sources that you are utilizing as base for your revealing accusations, so I can add the info into the ABC News article, in order for everybody be educated and understand that ABC News is not a respectful source, but only a bunch of reporters that make assumptions based on conspiracy theories. Put some sources, please! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 21:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Bothers me

"In the course of Operation Car Wash, many illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras". Was the purchase illegal. Couldn't see a referenced statement for that. Moriori (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Moriori: I improved the text. I hope that has clarified. Thanks.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You did? How? I still can't see a reference justifying "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Who says the purchase was illegal? Moriori (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Moriori: Who said were the lawyers in the approved impeachment request. This article describes the impeachment in details, not for introduce sources to prove or deny the charges against Rousseff. The central theme, besides the impeachment, obviously, is the document that started the process, i.e., the request. However, I added sources about your questions, even not considering it necessary.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes:Now hold on. This article has a definite whiff about it in my opinion, so let's look at some of the content.

• "Rousseff was also accused of omission"
• "According to this request, her omission would indicate criminal responsibility".
• "The request was based on allegations of omission"
• "....charges of omission were not included in the process...."

W-h-a-t?

Furthermore, the statement that says "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase..." of the refinery is still not supported by the references. You may not consider them necessary but Wikipedia does and if you don't provide them, that info will be removed. Moriori (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Moriori: wich kind of source have you in mind? The fact was sourced, and is cited in request because the withdrawn President chaired the director's board in Petrobras at that time. Afterwards, while the request approval by Chamber of Deputies, this charge was removed of the process (but not of the request), as well the charges of omission. The text of section "Request for impeachment" is strictly describing that document that, as explained, is the "backbone" of the process.PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The kind of source I have in mind is the kind of source that Wikipedia demands for information in any article, especially something that some might consider defamatory. Read WP:RS. You saying the source was "cited in request" is meaningless. The two references given do not mention "....illegal operations were investigated, including the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery....". Where is it established that the refinery purchase was illegal? Either provide a reference, or the info will be removed. Moriori (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So, go ahead. I'm not comfortable by has been unique editor there. Anyway, I hope a better analysis than yours. We are writing an article about "impeachment", that is reporting the details of the process, introduced by the parts involved. This is not WP:RS. For your information, a translate of citation on page 4 of request: "On that occasion, the President was chairman of Council and gave as an excuse a mistake concerning a contractual clause (mine emphasis). At the time, many asked whether this alleged failure does not lessen the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, however, no one had the audacity of distrust the probity of the President." A mistake concerning a contractual clause is the same as ilegal business.PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. Moriori (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources in article

Needs the article more sources, per This article needs additional citations for verification ? I think that the entire text can be verified through the 134 references, spread over all about 70 paragraphs.PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed this and the neutrality tag, since there are no discussions on this talk page about it. This could still use a copyedit. Mamyles (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Could use a copyedit" is an understatement: much of the article is indecipherable. I understand the translation process is difficult. Still, it is clear to see there are rather severe neutrality issues that are compounded by the editing issues. Rouseff's defense is supported by an "occultly recorded conversation." The fact that the "Rousseff self-defence" section is one-sentence long should certainly ring alarm bells. Or how about this one: "[...] the lawyer of senator Jucá said that his client never thought to perform any interference in the Operation Car Wash and the dialogue does not suggest that." This wording can cut two different ways - was the lawyer or Juca lying about the interference, or does the dialogue suggest they were being truthful? If we take a look at Impeachment of Bill Clinton, there are multiple paragraphs throughout the prose describing the legal defense, comments from defenders of the impeached president, etc, that are completely absent in this article. Of course that trial had a different result than Rousseff's, but still there is a lot of content on the losing side and their arguments. The citations here seem fine, except that sources which provide evidence sympathetic to Rousseff's arguments are used to support sentences that do not (such as the example I provided above, see the NYT source). I sincerely appreciate all the work everyone has put into this article, but let's not get carried away. I'll try to take a whack at some of the editing, but I would strongly argue in favor of reinstating the neutrality tag until these WP:NPOV issues are cleared up. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A neutrality tag must be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page, and that was not done. I agree that the article is a work in progress. Feel free to add it back, linking to this section, in the hope of attracting more attention here. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right. I'll hold off adding back the neutrality tag for now, because there has been a flurry of activity today on some of these issues and don't mean to detract from the editors working on them. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Red links

OK, so I get that some links are red cause the articles are available on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but do they have to be? I mean, IMO, all of them should just link to the pt wiki. Sorry, red links just trigger me. Esmost ^πк 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be links to foregin language Wikipedias in article text at all. WP:MOS/Linking also discourages it. Mamyles (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Esmost and Mamyles: I don't know if, for example, Janaina Paschoal, in lieu of Janaina Paschoal, the first format is accepted. I don't like red links also, but the template: ILL has no details about the conditions under which the template can be used. I intended that the links could help the text undestanding, in some way. Thanks for the opinion. PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that it would be better to use that template, than directly linking to another wikipedia or leaving just a red link. I like that the template adjusts the format when the red-linked article is created. Red links aren't necessarily bad, but too many can detract from an article. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I always link to the foreign-language wiki if it adds information. If it's just a stub over there, well.... Here we have something about Brazilian history where the Portugese wiki presumably has more editors on the topic. But on the subject of redlinks, I asked about this about a year ago as there was a slow editor-war on one article about this and the thinking is that 1) redlinks signal that an article is needed but 2) the ILL allows anyone who speaks the language or is motivated enough to organize a translation, machine or otherwise, to get more information. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention of coup accusations?

It seems common for stuff like this to only really gain ground long after something has happened, but with all the sources that accuse it of being a coup that view definitely needs to be included. I'm not saying it should be equal in weight as the legal process, but so far it's practically buried deep within a few lines of the article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Is given a extensive coverage for defense in the article, more than for the prosecution. However, it could created a topic "Criticism", supported by reliable sources (not conspiracy theories). In fact, these criticisms (calling "a coup", the process), are originated by the removed president and her supporters, for having been a political trial and not judicial. I see this article as essentially descriptive of the whole process, without addressing the merits of the case. And that's what it does. The ruling on the merits was made by the judges (senators), is not the WP that should do it.PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's mentioned by the former President and her supporters. But the dispute over whether it was a coup or not—with that word especially being important—is missing from this article. The article currently gives a mostly legal description of the process. I'm well aware of the general view, mind you. The following sources discuss it one way or another:

• Al Jazeera
• The Atlantic
• Slate
• BBC
• RT
• Salon
• NY Times

But just to be clear: I was simply surprised at the lack of focus on it as I was coincidentally trying to find something on it. I hardly feel obligated to change it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it was not a coup, regardless of what the former president said and says. It's a matter of time until she and Lula go to jail for the widespread corruption scheme that they led during their administration. --Lecen (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Rousseff was Constitutionally impeached & convicted/removed from office. Where's the coup? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: this process may be contextualized by some economics indicators. Two indicators can show the situation: the decline of Brazilian PIB since 2010 (in 2015, was the worst in 25 years) and growing unemployment (7 million in 2014 to 11 million in 2016). These facts caused the political crisis in Rousseff government, despite the social programs. The Request for impeachment cites all these facts (besides the corruption in Petrobras) and were considered by the Senators in the decision. These facts led to a 68% disapproval of Rousseff's government on second half of 2014. This is the context, however, the article needs to cite both sides. If the process is "a coup" or not, this is under the perspective of each side. I remember that Rousseff had 54 million vote when re-elected on 2014, however her opponent had 51 million vote. This is symptomatic. If you think to cite that opinions about "coup", go ahead, but supported by reliable sources. PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

whether you agree with her or not it's her side of the story. I don't think I am qualified to decide whether her removal was proper or constitutional. though. But you do have to present her side of the story as well. Right now the article reads like it was written by her political opponents. Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

International reactions

So far, we have the reactions of Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, who repeat Dilma's claims of a coup, and Argentina, who doesn't. But what about the reactions of the United States, and other actual world powers? Usually, when a new head of state takes office in a country, the leaders from other countries send some diplomatic congratulations, which imply that they accept the new ruler as a legitimate one (that, or attend the oath of office, if diplomatic relations are strong enough). This is a bit trivial when a president simply wins an election, but may be worth to point in a controversial case like this one. I have found here an article written when Temer became interim president, saying that Obama was staying silent, awaiting the definitive results. I have not found yet any article about Obama calling Temer now that he's confirmed as president, but neither an article discussing a lack of reactions from the US. Cambalachero (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

request to Portugese speakers

I am here because the article is listed at Pages in need of cleanup after translation and have made a number of copy edits. Please feel free to let me know if I have introduced any errors, but I am fairly careful about these things. My request is this however -- the title field in references should be the title in Portugese, and then the english translation should be in the trans-title field. Right now there are some strangely-worded translations and I can't tell if this is translation error or strangely-worded original. Well, maybe I can, but my Portugese is miniscule and it would be an enormous amount of work with reference material. Could someone please verify these translations? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to anyone working on this. I was going to go in and fix one myself, but it turned out to be in English. So a further comment: the language=en and language=pt fields are also useful I fixed the one I was looking at and I am requesting that other editors doe the same. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV - ok, I will be the one to do this

there are several things about this that raise red flags for me. The article reads like the minutes of the committee drafting the indictment, both in accusatory tone and in bureaucratese. This may be inadvertent translation problems to some extent, but the issues are there. "Excuse" is never a neutral word, for instance. Due weight is definitely not given to the defense, yet loving detail is lavished on the formulation of the charges, and her accusers' titles are elaborated several times. The latter may be due to multiple hasty editors -- I deleted lede-like material from the final paragraph that looked cut-and-pasted and which definitely duplicated material in the lede. I am working on the language aspects but the article is bad enough to warrant listing on the boards imho. I'll list other issues in this section as I find them..Elinruby (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

list of silly questions

Please remember that the purpose of these is to correctly edit the English.

• "Rousseff has edit in 2014 and 2015, six unnumbered decrees that resulted in the provision of additional credit to social programs with electoral purposes, without authorization from Congress."

does this mean she issued executive decree to fund popular social programs ahead of the election? Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pasadena Refinery System was being piped to Pasadena Refinery -- 1) does the company only have one refinery? (companies like that exist) 2) English Wikipedia says its *headquarters* is in Pasadena, and in that town (a Houston suburb) it could be either industrial or an office campus. Also, are we talking about the debt the parent company had developped before the sale? Is this the contract mistake? Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: the mistake is "Petrobras paid $1.18 billion for a refinery that had cost Belgium´s Astra Oil (then refinery's owner) $42.5 million", per The Washington Times. More: 1 and 2. PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

right... well, I have to think about what I think of the Washington Times and FT is paywalled for me, but I got this link to work -- this is what we are talking about: Houston Chronicle? How do the financials compare to the total Brazilian economy at the time and who approved the purchase? Albert Frère is who they bought it from, right? Give or take a holding company? Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: what about the fire at the refinery and this thing I see about the permit being expired? Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) By the way I think the Financial Times is a fairly good source. I need to go look up whether the Reverend Moon still owns the Washington Times and look at their recent news coverage; I wasn't real impressed with it when I was living there but that was a while ago. Also the Houston Chronicle is a good source for this story. Pasadena is on the Port of Houston and is essentially part of the metropolitan area. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

*separate question do we trust FireEye on a statement about weaponized Russian hackers? I am not arguing that we don't but it is an important statement. Where is the Department of Homeland Security on all this? Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UT

• fourth question: I saw something about someone trying to indict her successor Michel Temer; did that succeed?

A lawsuit was filed in Superior Electoral Court claiming that there was electoral crime in the political campaign of the alliance Rousseff-Temer, with donations made by companies investigated in Operation Car Wash. (details are in article). Besides, was filed a impeachment process against Temer, but this is out of scope in the article (although, this can be cited there, imho - are distinct subjects) PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

out of scope for extended discussion but it is notable is it not that there are so many politicians implicated? Number three and number four in the line are also open to impeachment are they [not?

'Number three', Rodrigo Maia (Chamber president - first now in succession line) insn't with justice problems to assume office. 'Number four', Renan Calheiros (Senate president - second now in sl - have justice charges and can't assume office. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) @PauloMSimoes: aha. For some reason I assumed Calheiros would move up but they are elected to different legislative bodies, doh. The Chamber president is elected by a vote of the deputies I guess? And when you say "can't" assume office there has been a decision to this effect then? Elinruby (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• fifth question: I saw that the man who filed the indictment was arrested. Did he go to jail?. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(partial answer to myself) yes, because he was denied bail due to his resources and his Italian citizenship. I have not found anything about a trial; did that happen? This probably needs an update Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you refers to Eduardo Cunha, yes, he was arrested in "Car Wash Op" (CWO) by 'black mailing'. He filed the indictment, because was his attribution, while president of Chamber, then. By the way, a lot of politicians were denounced and some arrested in last weeks in CWO. There's not a trial, the arrests were made preventively.PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

right. I understand that it was his job to receive these petitions. I am not certain I understand which ones he decided to archive, but right now when you have a moment I would like to know about the blackmail part. I didn't understand that part in the article either; can you explain it?. Elinruby (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

His was arrested for old accusations of receiving kickbacks when Chamber president. It has not connection with impeachment process. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: ok, except context, right? Aren't these some of the charges Dilma was accused of delibrately overlooking? I realize that a court said she could not be impeached for thisngs he did before she was president. Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: yes, Roussef's charge "deliberately overlooking on corruption in Petrobras" was removed from impeachment trial, for the "legal obstacle that prevents investigating a president for acts prior to mandate" (however, it's in Request for Impeachment, and this is the reason for citation in article).

Cunha was suspended of his Deputy mandate in 12 September 2016 for "ethical misconduct" ("lying during testimony at a Congressional Committee of Investigation on the Petrobras corruption scandal") and arrested preventively in 19 October 2016. He is accused of corruption and was arrested preventively for "potential 'flight risk', since he possesses dual Italian and Brazilian citizenship". Similar fact was occurred with Henrique Pizzolato, condemned for bribery and money laundering on Mensalão scandal. Two days after his sentence, he fled to Italy, where has citizenship. Only after two years of his escape, he was extradited back to Brazil, after a complex inter-diplomatic judicial battle.

I hope to be helping. PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC) g

yes I think you are. The point about Pizzolato is interesting; I did not know that, although I'd encountered mention of the Mensalao scandal. It also explains why the Italian citizenship was considered such an issue. But the corruption that Rousseff is accused of overlooking, does it include the corruption Cunha is charged with? Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: no, Cunha did not belong to the board of directors of Petrobras, He was a federal deputy and is accused on received bribes to approve contracts to manufacture equipments for Petrobras. Rousseff was accused of 'overlooking' in the situations described on section "Omission" PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

sorry, I walked on a couple of you

I am going to move down the page and edit, say 5.3 down. That should help. Then we can work on any style discrepancies.... actually I will go work on another article so we don't start with edit conflicts. Back later, ping if you need something Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC) @Sau226: @Akld guy:

if this is the second ping my apologies -- i think i did this wrong last time though. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hardly any weight given to Rousseff's defence? Or did she have no defence?

In the entire article, I can find only the following defence arguments put forward by Rousseff:

• a mistake had been made in a contractual clause
• the bringing of impeachment charges is a kind of coup
• the setting up of Operation Car Wash was solely to bring about her impeachment
• she was a victim of a conspiracy

If she refuted any of the financial misdealing charges, it's not to be found in the article. My question is, did she have any defence against the allegations of improper financial dealings or didn't she? Akld guy (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: thank you for the recent edits, improving the article. There is a whole section ("Rousseff self-defence..."), supported by several sources, that perhaps may be expanded. The entire defence piece by Roussef's lawyer José Eduardo Cardozo (536 page - unfortunately in Portuguese) can be read here. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: Thank you, Paulo. I don't read Portuguese and machine translation has all kinds of problems. Maybe the best option would be for you to write a summary of the 536 pages on this Talk page. @Elinruby: and I could improve your translation, if necessary, before you paste it into the article. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh... Is a lot of work! May be a synthesis. Perhaps anyone more that claims NPOV, can help too. On time: I'll do it, as possible. I saw now that I included this document in article (section "Rousseff interrogatory and final arguments"). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, a synthesis is a summary. Akld guy (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Strictly it may be necessary, in order to maintain equity, also to translate the piece of prosecution, (131 page, also in article in same section). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think he means he might able to produce a summary, not that doing so would be synthesis in the specialized meaning when the word is used on en.wikipedia. I will try to help as I can with translation on the understanding that I don't really speak portugese; I definitely can't write it and I would not trust my reading much past possibly being able to discern, in very broad strokes, the gist of an article. I am better at spotting translation issues. But I would be happy to help as I can. We now have two independent assessments that yes there is a weight problem (three if you count me, but I was not entirely fresh eyes, since I encountered Operation Car Wash On Panama Papers (and said there that I did not understand it). I think it is important to realize that this is party politics going back twenty years. But I will now go back to working on the English as I read through the article. I think maybe we don't need a blow-by-blow of the committee motions, and perhaps we can explain the consequences to Brazil if this *were* a coup. But those are discussable. I'll stick for now to less controversial changes that probably are language issues, in case people DO want to discuss. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Insisted in thesis

I don't understand that phrase, which is in the 'Omission' section. Here is the sentence:

• According to the report, the President insisted in thesis that the allegations would be a kind of coup....

Does it mean that she wrote a document (a thesis)? Is it saying that she insisted on a conspiracy theory (translated as thesis?) that it was a coup? What is meant here? Akld guy (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: no, this is part of the Request for Impeachment, page 5:

"durante todo o processo eleitoral, a denunciada [Rousseff] negou que a situação da Petrobras, seja sob o ponto de vista moral, seja sob o ponto de vista econômico, era muito grave. Com efeito, mesmo com todas as notícias veiculadas, a denunciada insistiu na estapafúrdia tese de que as denúncias seriam uma espécie de golpe, mera tentativa de fragilizar a Petrobras"

Translating:

"during the entire electoral process, the denounced [Rousseff] denied that the Petrobras situation, whether from the moral point of view or from the economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news published, the denounced insisted on stupid thesis that the accusations would be a kind of coup, a mere attempt to weaken Petrobras"

PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, from that, I'm going to take it that it means a theory. Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Too much detail

The section "Committee meetings" has two sub-headings: "Work plan and preliminary requests" and "Witness hearings". These two sub-headings contain, in my opinion, far too much detail that is of no interest to readers of English in the western world. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into typing them, with translation also involved, and while each tiny step of the impeachment process is of interest to Brazilian and other South American readers, it's not so for us in the west. These two walls of text should be reduced in size to perhaps a couple of paragraphs each, summarizing the main facts. If nobody is willing to do this, I'll do it myself after a day or two. Akld guy (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Akld guy. Thank you for your support, improving the text.

I have some comments:

1) I think that, in face of the claims of NPOV in article, if you remove the statements of the defence witnesses, it would be worst in this aspect (as cited in the text, "a total of 44 witnesses were heard, six convened by prosecution and 38 by defence"). Per lawsuit's praxis, are heard first the prosecution and after the defence witnesses.

Imho, witnesses statements are very important to be removed, like:

Prosecution witnesses

• Julio Marcelo de Oliveira - Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) prosecutor
• Antonio Carlos Costa D'avila Carvalho, Tiago Alves de Gouveia Lins Dutra and Leonardo Rodrigues Albernaz - TCU auditors

TCU report was the 'starting' document for the Request for Impeachment.

Defence witnesses

• former National Secretary of Planning and Strategic Investment, Gilson Bittencourt
• former Secretary of Agricultural Policy of the Ministry of Agriculture, André Nassar
• former Minister of Planning, Budget and Management, Nelson Barbosa
• former Minister of Education, José Henrique Paim

and other secretaries and ministers, that stated relevant opinions for defence instruction.

2) In Janaína's image caption, you included "prosecutor". What shall be included in Cardozo's image caption ?

3) In this edit, why you removed text and reference ? I considered it relevant to be cited. Attorney Cardozo and defence Senators left the section in protest against Lira.
Thank you. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because it was a trivial detail. OK they had a little dispute with Lira. It's of no interest to western readers. That is the point I'm trying to make here. Readers in the West do not want to read all the little trivial details. Please don't be offended. It's just that every little detail that seems important to Brazilians is not to us. We just want to read a summary of what happened. I included "prosecutor" to Janaína's photo caption and will add something to Cardozo's. Akld guy (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Ok, no objections. As for the statements of witnesses, whatever you decide to improve article, will be fine. Cheers. PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy, only a doubt, after your changes in the text: "...also heard were the assistant..." in lieu of "...were also heard the assistant..." is grammatically correct ? PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: That sentence says: "João Correia Serra, prosecution lawyer in lieu, praised Anastasia's report and..." I did not change the wording at in lieu, it was already there. I interpret it to mean that Serra took the place of the prosecutor Janaina Paschoal who appeared at earlier hearings, but I don't know that for sure since I can't read the Portuguese reference. Therefore I decided to leave it. It makes sense to readers of English, but if I knew the circumstances I might be able to word it better. For example, if I knew for sure that Serra appeared in place of Paschoal, I would say so explicitly, like this: "João Correia Serra, prosecution lawyer who appeared in lieu of Janaina Paschoal, praised Anastasia's report and..." Akld guy (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: isn't this phrase that I referred. Is the phrase, which you wrote "...also heard were the assistant..." in this edit, that I don't understood. (is really this ?) Sorry my badly explanation. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: That's a different sentence. It reads: "Also heard were the assistant to the prosecution, Selene Péres Nunes and the assistant to the defense, Ricardo Lodi Ribeiro." I didn't write that, but merely changed assistant by the prosecution and assistant by the defence to assistant to because that's what I thought it meant. Now, if those two people, Nunes and Ribeiro, were assistants, I will change it to:

• "Also heard were counsel assisting the prosecution, Selene Péres Nunes and the counsel assisting the defense, Ricardo Lodi Ribeiro." That is better English. Paulo, please confirm whether those two people were assistants as I just described. Akld guy (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: yes, they were (respectively) prosecution's and defense's expert assistants. Just below in text, in section "Rousseff interrogatory and final arguments", the first reference is this source, which confirms it. ("This Tuesday (5), the senators heard the defense's and prosecution's expert assistants, who analyzed the expert testimony made by Senate technicians..." Agência Brasil have a list of sources in English (not all, however), that can help in many cases. See this page and roll down the list ("Veja mais" button) until you reach the news date that you seek. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Also heard"<--means "testified"? Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

several things confuse me here. First, en lieu is unclear and possibly a term of art. I agree that italicizing it and asking about it is the correct action. It also occurs to me that it may be used here in an older meaning, in the place of not meaning substitution but in that place. A couple of semantic jumps and it could mean who has jurisdiction. All of that -- who had jurisdiction to try a president -- may have been unclear, thus the enormous detail about work plans. I agree, we don't need to know about when the work plan was approved, for example, though. The enormous detail does seriously impede readability. If someone feels strongly that certain details are needed, perhaps they could be moved to notes or even the talk section where they would at least be available. This is, I suspect, or at oen point was, a translation from Portugese, where, yes, there would have been intense interest in every detail. Also, I don't know anything about the Brazilian court system but I am guessing it is not a common law legal system. I realize that France is not Brazil but I have gotten into the nuts and bolts of the French system and it has special terms for the examining magistrate who has jurisdiction and the representatives of the prosecution office who have jurisdiction (called substitutes unless they are "the" prosecutor, except that the prosecutor is more like the barrister for the government case developed by the examining magistrate). So yes the term requires an explanation and it is probably better to use the portugese term rather than trying to parse the meaning of a french term imported into portugese if that is what it is, or whether this French term imported into English in fact conveys the correct meaning for these events, because the french roots mean place and so the term could conceivably mean "who has jurisdiction" Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I used the expression in lieu, that means "in place of", as only a "expression refinement". Change it, please, as you want. About the excessive detail, I'm not sure what to say. Each paragraph is sourced and many sources are relevant to be removed. However, on the section "Committee meetings", the most of about 50 sources are in Portuguese (I don't found it in English). I really don't know how to solve this. If you submit each part separately, that you think should be removed, we can analyze case by case. PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

oK. Thank you for clearing up the linguistic point. So it is used here in the usual english meaning. good. I will take another look at this later -- I promised to look at another page yesterday and fell asleep so I thnik I should do that first. Can you let me know if there is something to the speculation that there was not an exact procedure in the law and therefore one needed to be determined, and and this is why we have the detail about how the decision-making was reached? I think one way to reduce intricate detail which people nonetheless feel is important is to move it to a note. (?) Since we do have this going on then yes we should discuss. My current question is why do we need the date when they decided what the work plan is? Elinruby (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

could somebody please explain this sentence

"When the Workers' Party announced its support for the wedge term loss on the Board of Ethics, he accepted the request for impeachment as an instrument of blackmail." Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

what is a wedge term? A wedge term loss on the Boards of Ethics? What is a Board of Ethics and what is its scope? what is an instrument of blackmail? the request for impeachment is an instrument of blackmail? What? This isn't the first time I have asked about this blackmail; It seems like it would be important if true. Elinruby (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: oh, it's laughable... This text is not mine. Some editor translated the name "Cunha" to the simple name "wedge", that means also "cunha" (in Portuguese, 'cunha' is a wedge - device to lock pieces). "wedge term loss" means "Cunha term loss", i.e. the loss of Cunha's mandate.

I will try to explain the phrase, translating part of this reference in text and explaining the text in article. "Cunha said that Rousseff lied to society when she pronounced in a national network, that her government does not participate in "bargains" with Congress."

As in article: "The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha, was investigated in Operation Car Wash for allegedly receiving bribes and keeping secret Swiss bank accounts. The ethics council pt filed a lawsuit against him, putting Cunha in risk of losing his mandate. (note: the Council of Ethics is responsible for judging and applying penalties to deputies, in cases of non-compliance with norms regarding parliamentary decorum). Rumors emerged about attempts to reach an agreement between the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) [Cunha's party] and the Workers' Party (PT) [Rousseff's party] to archive this lawsuit [an agreement for Cunha not accept the impeachment request], which Cunha strongly denied. When the Workers' Party announced on the Council of Ethics, its support for the wedge Cunha term mandate loss, he accepted the request for impeachment [supposedly] as an instrument of blackmail retaliation." (links and brackets are mine changes).

According the source. "Cunha stated that the opening of the impeachment process is his constitutional duty, as Chamber's president and the decision was based only on facts related to the disregarding of the Budget Laws. He reiterated that he had no personal reason or retaliation against Rousseff."

I hope I have elucidated. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Was that changed in the article? Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 01:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not changed anything, personally. I do not know whether @PauloMSimoes: has done so. I have not looked recently. Yes, would someone please clear that name problem up. Could you please also check to make sure there are no mistranslated rude puns based on his name. I haven't noticed one but I might not notice, and I know that one is possible. That would be bad...Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am still processing the part about the blackmail. So that should read retaliation? that Cunha's loss of his position would be tit-for-tat for accepting a request for Rousseff's impeachment? Because that is not what it says right now. Also, weren't their parties the ruling political alliance? Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no longer any problem related to the confusion with the words "wedge" and "Cunha". I have already fixed all errors related. Further details on the "divergences" between Cunha and Rousseff, can be read in sources in the article, such as this one and this one. Additionally, read this one. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC) OK I will Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• so #1 says that Cunha receives the request for Rousseff's impeachment from those three lawyers. I understand that he felt this was his job, but why was this request different than the requests he had previously received? Doesn't the article say there had been 30+ previous request?

@Elinruby: I'll cite some examples of other requests cited in the source in article:

1. 12 March 2015 - Complaint for Crimes of Responsibility against the President of the Republic, Dilma Vana Rousseff, facing facts related to the incompetent management of the President of the Republic, which has provided the destruction of the Brazilian State. Author: Jair Messias Bolsonaro - Deputy Federal.
2. 18 March 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff, for understanding a configured crime of responsibility, in facts investigated by the Federal Police in Operation Car Wash, involving Petrobras. Author: Marcelo Pereira Lino.
3. 22 April 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Vana Rousseff, for act of administrative improbity when, as chairman of the Petrobras Board, appointed to the Board of Executive Officers, who dilapidated the company's equity. Author: Rafael Francisco Carvalho.
4. 12 August 2015 - Complaint against the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff, for irregularities in the execution of the Law of Budgetary Guidelines, in operations carried out with federal public resources, in violation of the Constitution, Annual Budget Law and Fiscal Responsibility Law. Author: Luís Carlos Crema.
5. 11 September 2015 - Complaint (request for impeachment) facing of the President of the Republic Dilma Rousseff, for actions / omissions related to the management of Petrobras, for abuse of political and economic power in the electoral campaign, fiscal maneuvers ("fiscal pedalling"). Author: Eder Xavier.

Cunha chose that one, for being more detailed. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• so #2 says that Cunha says Rousseff lied when she denied negotiating a deal with Cunha's party (dropping an Ethics Committee investigation into charges Cunha lied at a hearing connected to Operation Car Wash and his finances in return for not accepting the request for impeachment against Rousseff. Is that right? She denied that there was a deal between them and he said she was lying when she denied it.
• and #3 says that after Rousseff has impeached Cunha was removed from office for conduct unbecoming a Brazilian deputy for lying about his finances.

I think I understand the above but apparently that's still wrong, or I don't sound like I understand it, anyway...Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

oh and then after Cunha was removed from office one of the same lawyers filed a request for impeachment against Temer, Right? Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: no, the lawyer Mariel Marley Marra filed the request for impeachment against Temer. PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

btw brazilian constitution in english Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What is "the Union"?

The section Illegal practices of accounting disinformation and so-called "fiscal pedalling" starts with a sentence that refers to "the Union". Is this the Tribunal de Contas da União, also known as TCU? I'd like to make that clearer. Akld guy (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: "Union" means Federal government of Brazil. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. Akld guy (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I would never have guessed that Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

so given that TCU could be translated as national fiscal court? Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Contas=Accounting? Elinruby (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: ipsis litteris, TCU (Tribunal de Contas da União) means "Union Court of Accounts". "União" is the abbreviated form of the political designation "Federal government of Brazil", according to the Brazilian Constitution: Brazil is "an indissoluble union of states and municipalities and the federal district". PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am coming to understand that @PauloMSimoes:. Like Confederation in Canada?. U = Union, Contas=Accounts and Tribunal, well, is a tribunal.(?) When I ask apparently stupid questions I am trying to make sure a translation is correct. (well, at least some of the time. I am also capable of asking stupid questions because I misunderstand). The part I am trying to verify is that this is the top-level court (because a contravention of the Constitution was alleged), and Union implies federal? and that Contas means "Accounts", or would Treasury be closer? Another legal terminology question: I have seen "crime of responsibility" -- may imply public corruption, and then I have also seen criminal responsibility. Is this a concept in Brazilian law? Either of them for that matter? Elinruby (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think it Brazil should be included in Examples of federal or confederal union, but I'm not really sure. "Tribunal" or "Corte" ("Court") are the same in Brazil. You are correct to ask and so I am also learning more about. TCU isn't "top-level" (or supreme) court. It's a court that judges the legality of public accounts within federal scope. The supreme court in Brazil is the Supreme Federal Court ( "Supremo Tribunal Federal" - STF). The first reference in Impeachment article gives a description of what are "crimes of responsibility" cited in the Constitution: Art. 85: Are crimes of responsibility the acts of the President of the Republic which attempt on the Federal Constitution and, especially, against the probity in administration (item V) and the budget law (item VI) of the Brazilian Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Law, article 36. PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered that Canada has a parliamentary system though, not a president. Just correcting myself Elinruby (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

translation question

does "process" in this article=the next step of the legal proceeding? Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

another translation question

"According to the report, the president insisted on a theory that" -- is there a reason we aren't just saying "The president insisted" if we are saying "the president keeps saying this"? Also, what is the report in this sentence? Elinruby (talk)

also, wait, this coup was intended to weaken *Petrobras*? Or Brasil? Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I will try to translate pages 4 and 5 of Request for Impeachment.

In effect, the competence mask was first scratched on the episode involving the purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras. From every angle analyzed, is impossible to fail to recognize that the business, even at the time, was extremely damaging to Brazil. It is reported that the losses were over R$ 700 million. On that time, Rousseff was president of the board of directors in the company and gave as an excuse a mistake about a contractual clause. But, as it is popularly said, Pasadena was only the "tip of the iceberg", because Operation Car Wash discovered the real waste in the company. In all business done by Petrobras, the works and achievements proclaimed as great achievements of the Rousseff Government were nothing more than a means to bleed the promising statal, which is currently completely de-capitalized and discredited internationally. To the unhappiness of the country, the losses with Pasadena were small, facing of the collapse unfolded. Every day, there is a growing conviction that some companies were chosen to be promoted internationally, and from then on, participating in unrealistic bids, draining the state-owned company, returning a large part of the amounts by means bribes, or "apparently" legal gifts. In October 2014, on his second testimony in a "award-winning" collaboration, Alberto Youssef [the major target of Operation Car Wash] asserted that, among other authorities, the President of the Republic was aware of what happened at Petrobras. On 25 August 2015, Youssef reaffirmed that Lula and Dilma knew of the kickback scheme at Petrobras. In a ruling issued by Minister Dias Toffoli (Supreme Court), published in Habeas Corpus No. 127.483 / PR, the Supreme Federal Court upheld the validity of the "award-winning" collaboration performed with Youssef. Due to the findings of Operation Car Wash, were arrested the former Minister José Dirceu, the former treasurer of the Worker's Party, João Vaccari Neto and the former leader of Petrobras Nestor Cerveró, people whom Rousseff insisted on revering, until denying the damage was impossible. Despite ongoing investigations and strong indications that many irregularities had been committed, the accused continued to addressing through Brazil, reinforcing confidence in the leaders of the state company, such as then president of Petrobras, Graça Foster [who resigned in February 2015, after a meeting with Rousseff, without being formally accused of participation in the corruption scheme, however]. Moreover, throughout the electoral process, the denounced denied that the situation of Petrobras, whether from the moral point of view or from an economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news reports, the accused insisted on the stupid theory that the denunciations would be a "kind of coup", merely an attempt to weaken Petrobras, always highlighting its expertise in the area of ​​economy and energy, that is, Rousseff assured the "company health"!
PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The apparent (reputation of?) competence was first marred when Petrobras bought a refinery in Pasadena, Texas. No matter how it is evaluated this deal was not good for Brazil, which lost R$700 million on the transaction. Rousseff, who was president of the company board of directors at the time, said that there was an error concerning a contractual clause. But the purchase of the over-priced decrepit Pasadena refinery was then followed by Operation Car Wash, which uncovered many instances of corruption and waste, and what the request for impeachment documents called a "de-capitalized" Petrobras. The prosecution (suspect this is the wrong word) outlined a scheme in which friendly contractors submitted inflated bids and once they were approved, then skimmed the profits from these sweetheart deals and shared them with the politicians who had approved the bids. In October 2014 Alberto Youssef, a figure deeply implicated in Operation Car Wash, asserted that Rousseff, who by then was president of Brazil, was well aware of what went on at Petrobras. On 25 August 2015, Youssef reaffirmed that Lula and Dilma had known of the bribery scheme at Petrobras. In a ruling issued by Minister Dias Toffoli (Supreme Court), published in Habeas Corpus No. 127.483 / PR, the Supreme Federal Court upheld the validity of the "award-winning" collaboration performed with Youssef. Due to the findings of Operation Car Wash, were arrested the former minister José Dirceu, the former treasurer of the Worker's Party, João Vaccari Neto and the former leader of Petrobras, Nestor Cerveró, people whom Rousseff defended until denying the damage became impossible. Ongoing investigations gave strong indications that many irregularities had been committed, but Rousseff continued to speak throughout Brazil, reinforcing confidence in the leaders of the state-owned company, such as then-president Graça Foster. Foster resigned in February 2015 after a meeting with Rousseff, without being formally accused of participation in the corruption scheme, however. Throughout the electoral process. Rousseff denied that the situation at Petrobras, whether from the moral point of view or from an economic point of view, was very serious. In fact, even with all the news reports, she insisted that the denunciations were a "kind of coup", merely an attempt to weaken Petrobras, always highlighting its expertise in the area of ​​economy and energy

So I see why a lot of the tone sounded prosecutorial. So... just maybe you could call her the "the accused" but "the president' would be better, or even "defendant" but that word may not apply to this type of proceeding. The 'denounced' is definitely too editorial in my opinion. For now I replaced all of these words with "Rousseff". I put tried to distill an account of events from your translation. Can you look at it when you get a chance?

@Elinruby: "accused" is the word used in the Request for Impeachment. Refers to Rousseff's condition in this document (Request)~. PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: I gotcha. I was saying that it wasn't surprising that the article has an prosecutorial tone since it seems that big chunks of the article are from the request for prosecution. Did you get get chance to look at the rewrite of the translation? Unless there are mistakes in what I have there I was thinking of re-writing the article section that deal with these events based on the above re-written translation. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Also there are some questions below:

1. "award-winning"? this word pops up in a couple of places and I don't know what it means in those contexts. I suspect a translation issue.

@Elinruby: "award-winning collaboration", as cited in text, is a Plea bargain, in which an investigated person obtains advantages in his process, if collaborate in the investigations, denouncing others involved. However, these statements needs to be ratified by the Supreme Court. PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) OK. To me, well I usually see in contexts like "award-winning playwright" or "Academy Award-winning". Is there a difference between that and a plea bargain? Does it always imply cooperation? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby, understood. In fact, plea bargain is a type of agreement diverse of the Brazilian agreement. Well, I have detailed above what is this agreement in Brazil. A better translation of the Brazilian agreement would be "rewardable delation", you got it now ? PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

1. note to self "the business" could mean the company that owned the Pasadena refinery, or the deal to buy the refinery or just Petrobras itself just sucking resources.

"the business" is the "purchase of the Pasadena Refinery by Petrobras". PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) So *that business deal* not either organization entity, right? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: right, a better translation for that text is ...impossible to fail to recognize that the business purchase, even at the time, was extremely damaging to Brazil. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

good, that resolves *that* question Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. ...president board of directors and "gave as an excuse a mistake" -- this needs to be worded otherwise, I mean "excuse"? What was the mistake exactly? Paid too much and got saddled with some debt? Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As in article (better explained): "Rousseff was president of the board of directors of Petrobras and gave as a defence that a mistake had been made concerning a contractual clause. She stated that "her decision was based on a technically and legally flawed summary" of the purchase document drawn up by Nestor Cerveró, who was then the financial director on Petrobras Distribuidora, fuel distribution and trading subsidiary of Petrobras". PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) But what was the mistake exactly? The price? They got stuck with a lot of debt? They didn't inspect the facility? Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I've explained this before. All I know is on the sources. Please, read: Scandal involving refinery hits Brazil’s Petrobras; Brazil prosecutors say bribes paid in Petrobras Texas refinery deal. Further details in this appeal "Astra Oil versus Petrobras". You can understand better than I do. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Whose reputation are we talking about in this sentence, which appears above in the translation: "Many wondered whether this supposed failure would not undermine the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, but no one had the audacity to distrust the probity of the president." (?) Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: in other words, the text in Request for Impeachment is: Many [people] inquired if this alleged mistake would not demeans the reputation of competence and expertise in energy business, but no one had the audacity to distrust the probity of the President. The "reputation" refers to Rousseff, who before had been Secretary of Mines and Energy in state of Rio Grande do Sul (1993/94 and 1999/2003) and Brazil Minister of Mines and Energy (2003/05). PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

this one is answered too Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

further question (Operation Car Wash)

granted that Cunha was not an employee of Petrobras, wasn't he accused of receiving (as opposed to paying) graft ? Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this source could clarify. When federal deputy and after president of Chamber of Deputies, Cunha was accused of "being a lobbyist in the Petrobras scandal"[...]"bribery and money laundering for receiving $5 million in kickbacks over Petrobras drillship contracts".PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC) drillship contracts? Is that the same thing as an oil lease? Offshore or not? I just found a source that says there are no regulations on lobbying in Brazil, although it's pretty old. Is this still true? True until recently? Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: The lobbyist is Fernando Soares (also known as "Fernando Baiano" - arrested in 2014). He confirmed in a statement, bribes paid to Cunha, to ensure contracts for drillship production for by shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries. more details PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: thank you; I had not encountered Soares before. Will read up. Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

drillship Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

news story

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-10/petrobras-says-it-s-the-victim-as-investor-bribery-suits-mount

CPMF

I've just completed an edit of the 'Political context' section and something puzzles me. This appears:

• "In turn, Rousseff denied any attempted deal to save Cunha in order to stop her impeachment, and denied agreements to interfere with the Ethics Board in exchange for the approval of a CPMF (pt) (Provisional Contribution on the Movement or Transmission of Values and Credits and Financial Nature Rights), which was another great need of the government."

It's not stated what the CPMF is. I strongly suspect that it was a bill that the government was trying to get passed. @PauloMSimoes: please clarify what the CPMF was. Akld guy (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: CPMF is a "Provisional Contribution on the Movement or Transmission of Values and Credits and Financial Nature Rights", a tax defunct in 2007, that Rousseff and her economic staff were trying to re-introduce, with purpose of help the shattered economy. However, it's should be approved in Chamber and following to Senate. Was a very unpopular tax, which had great improbability of approval in Chamber (where Cunha was president). Cunha accused Rousseff of a "bargain" [CPMF approval] X [Worker's Party (and allied parties) deputies vote to quit the process against Cunha]. More details on these sources: Lower House Speaker: Rousseff lied when denied political bargaining; Jaques Wagner refutes allegations and says Cunha lied; Minister: presidency not to meddle in party's decision on lower house speaker. PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: Thank you. I think I've made it clearer what the CPMF was and that the government was trying to re-introduce it. Akld guy (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

adding in quotes from Rousseff

I have found a number of articles in English about this process and will be adding in quotes from Rousseff's speech and from international press coverage. I would ask that all of the people who have been happy to leave this article one-sided discuss here anything they wish to take issue with. We can escalate any questions that we need to, but now that the translation has been worked on a bit she really does need to have her say added in. Elinruby (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

However, he did just to meet your interest, as sought avoid being accused of a crime committed for not meet the fiscal targets set out in law.

if you want to include this sentence please improve the english and provide some source other than the petition for impeachment Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

questioned text

"For this whole second phase of the process, the Committee was supported by the president of the Supreme Federal Court, Ricardo Lewandowski."

unclear what this means Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

question is does "support" mean commented favorably or did the legal heavy lifting or acted as a consultant. Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the lead

I have undone this proposed addition to the lead. Since the editor refused to discuss the changes I will start this section for him. The first sentence is an opinion from an American reporter that barely gets mentioned in the article it comes from. None of the two pieces of opinion added to the lead can be found anywhere in the article body. The editor claimed in my talk page that he was attempting to fix WP:NPOV issues with the article, but one does not fix WP:NPOV by introducing a loose WP:UNDUE sentence to the lead. If there is due weight for the inclusion of the opinions of these editors surely there's a place for them in the body of the article. The second sentence is from an editorial from the NYT and I can see it being included in the article body, but again, it seems that the proposer was simply concerned in changing the lead at will, instead of trying to make it reflect the main aspects of the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

the main aspects of the article are near-libelous. The article cannot remain in its present state and I am tired of trying to fairly portray these events. How dare you tell me to use the talk page! Where are are you in the reams of material above? That have my name all over them? Including notification that I was going to try to introduce some balance, several days ago. It's an attack page being watched by editors with a political agenda and I am giving up and flagging it as such. The paragraph you keep removing is RS and you need to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. In no world is it ok to lovingly enumerate all the accusations against anyone without giving ANY attention to what she or world opinion has to say. By the way, that was your third revert and I will be bringing that where it needs to go as well. Proposing a different edit would have been a much better way to go, BEFORE edit warring. Elinruby (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on npov is not consensus on this specific change. You are not above other editors or policy nor do you own the page because you have made a lot of edits to it. Please comment on content, not on contributors. I haven't opposed any but one of your numerals edits to "add balance" to the article, because I did not found any of the other edits to be problematic. You are proposing a change to a long standing version of the lead without consensus - and without discussing, I had to create this section - please read WP:BURDEN/WP:NOCON as I already indicated in edit summaries and in my talk page. You are edit warring, as explained above. If you can add your proposed addition to the article body - which, by the way, does contain what Rousseff has to say, contrary to what you claim - then there can be a discussion about how it should be represented on the lead. I am more than willing to propose compromises in case we cannot reach a consensus, but that cannot be with an unilateral posture such as the one you seem to be engaging in. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus on the page has been that we don't need to quote Rousseff. Because she's wrong. This doesn't matter -- consensus is wrong in that case. She needs to get her say and the analysis outside Brazil is very material. That NPR quote you are objecting to was broadcast nationwide in the US. You don't think it was vetted? The fact that someone added an incoherently translated pull quote doesn't mean fair weight. The fact is that the article violated BLP policy and needs to go if you guys won't let it be edited into something a lot more like compliance. Also, seriously? This article is imho too complex for you to be trying to review it on your phone. Take a valium and read the talk page and entries from *last night* and from a couple of days ago where I notified anyone watching the page *that I was going to do this.* I have been working on this slowly with a couple of editors for months just to get it to an English version of the prosecution case, but really I should have nominated it the first time I saw it. It's not my first choice as a lot f work has gone into compiling these accusations but really really really if we want to keep that work we need to point out the places where the versions of reality sharply differ. Meanwhile who are you? Totally uninvlved uup to this point and a brand new editor cherry-picking Wikipedia policy. Here's my offer. If you don't like those quotes, find some others. But they need to reflect the fact that this woman was impeached for something that was (ok allegedly according to her) common practice, by people who are *now convicted and in jail* due to the scandal they are trying to blame her for. If some evidence surfaces that she was involved then fine, hang her high. But after careful examination I still don't see it. Elinruby (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not cherrypicking policy, WP:NOCON is very clear. I am not questioning your attempt to add balance to the article, as already explained. I am questioning this specific edit of yours - on my computer, not that it matters, I was replying to you in this talk page on my phone. I don't see how a comment from a single American editor that is barely mentioned in the article it comes from and that isn't even in the article body is worthy to be in the lead of an article about the impeachment process of the head of state of another sovereign nation. It would be like adding a less than one-line opinion from a Brazilian editor to the lead of an article of an eventual impeachment process of Donald Trump. It's undue. The NYT editorial I can see on the lead, what I have opposed is the ad-hoc addition to it. I'm not sure who you are referring to as "you guys", I am the only one who has commented on this change so far. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Read the talk page in that case, you have no excuse then. Propose your own summary quote with reference then. The quote in question comes at the beginning of the segment and is what the reporter said when asked it there was actually a case. It's thus a pretty good summary, imho, and the fact that is is a short piece of a longer article can be said of any quote, omg. But I'll look at yours if you want to actually do some work instead of just throwing bombs. Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Who cares what she thinks of the charges? It's not relevant at all for the lead. The NYT editorial I can agree to being added to the text and we can discuss what should be added to the lead, but the phrase you added is misleading. First because "many" is weasel - who? - second because Dilma didn't "allow prosecutors to investigate" anything, she has zero authority over that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I added the NYT editorial to the International Reactions section, with what I believe to be a better phrasing. I think there can be a place for it in the lead in a paragraph about international reactions, though the section probably needs more expansion before being mentioned in the lead. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to looking at the lede. It does by the way matter what she thought of the impeachment -- she is unquestionably within the scope of the article. But if we have cooperative disagreement I have no problem with working through the issues in the article body THEN dealing with what should be in lede. I think the NPR assessment is material at least for purposes of the international reaction section. We can talk abou the lede later. Probably we should also add the comment I saw elsewhere (Financial Times? Wall Street Journal?) that the surplus is a metric used by investors to assess Brazilian investment. While I am thinking of it perhaps some mention somewhere of why the balanced budget law was passed. I forget if there is a historical background section? I am working on something else right now though and will concentrate on english in section about the trial itself for another day or so anyway in case you guys are still working, edit conflicts are annoying Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, when you say "what she thought of the impeachment", are you referring to Rousseff or to the NPR reporter? Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"she" here was intended to mean Rousseff and the comment was in reference to "who cares what she thinks of the charges?" If we need to discuss that let's do it on (not Easter). Really out of here now, bye ;)

comment by non-participant

 Comment: I agree with Saturnalia0. The addition is not appropriate. Holy Goo (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Text out of scope

This text is out of scope in lead. The subject is "Rousseff impeachment". Better placed it in "Acting president" section. Marcelo Odebrecht statements were in March 2017 as a "rewardable delation", six months after impeachment and were accusations to be investigated (not a formal indictment). PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe...can discuss. I put it there because it's the first hint that she might maybe be implicated. Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In other words I was trying to balance the second paragraph I added in. Also its new and an update on Temer Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

PS what's a delation? It's my understanding that this was cooperation with the investigation as part of a plea bargain, is that right? Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Right "cooperation with the investigation as part of a plea bargain". PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll come back to this shortly, well probably tomorrow at this point Elinruby (talk)

I found delation, got it. Sounds like I had the right idea? Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: let's start here, since I am checking on this. I thought you'd followed the crowd and reverted then discussed. So, I don't want to put you off since it's still in there. Thank you for your patience and courtesy. If you think it is out of scope -- and right now it's not balancing what I was trying to balance, so... It still doesn't look to me me like there's any proof she's involved, but if her running mate was indeed soliciting illegal campaign donations, that's a serious accusation. On the other hand, yes, it's still an accusation and she's already, in my opinion, unfairly portrayed here. And yet. It's at least material that her accusers are all embroiled in this scandal she is accused of, and she is not. So my question is what do you think and where do you think it should go? In fact, because I will not be working on this tonight, go ahead and actually make the changes if you like. I'll check it out when I come back. The balance doesn't necessarily need to be this particular material when we get the lede to some sort of sanity. Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: IMO, text in lead "Temer has since been accused by Marcelo Odebrecht of accepting illegal campaign donations..." should moved to section "Acting president" and also to article Impeachment proposal against Michel Temer. In lead, replacing that text, could be cited the dispute filed against Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer's 2014 re-election, per Ruling on Rousseff and Temer's 2014 campaign funding possible by June, Brazilian elections agency cancels hearing on Rousseff-Temer campaign and Exclusive: Court must weigh Brazil's plight in Temer ruling - incoming judge. This is relevant to the article since it is a process already in the Supreme Tribunal. The ruling on this lawsuit can effectively to remove Temer from office. PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: sounds good to me. And yes, I noticed that about Temer, which is interesting. Do you want to take care of it it? Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: as it's known, I have some difficulty with English, so I have avoided to insert extensive texts in article, and make it worse. But I'll try it, with sources. PauloMSimoes (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

that's ok. I can edit the english. I have to go out of town but it turns out not until the end of next week so I'll have a little more time for this than I thought. Make the changes you think should be there and let us know when you are done. Then I'll check the english and ask about anything I don't understand and edit anything I think is legalese. Then you can review the edits and let me know what you think. Sound like a plan? Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile I did I a quick check of sources: Reuters is usually accepted as RS until shown otherwise and I am under the impression that ebc is a Brazilian equivalent. I don't know efe but it also appears to be a pretty solid news agency. If anyone wants to dispute this or offer to help Paulo now is the time. I'll check on this tomorrow sometime and unless someone bilingual has spoken up I plan to edit his work for readability if he is finished. Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Threats and insults moved here

The text should be removed from the article for being totally off-topic. And Elin, please don't vandalize the article again, or engage in edit wars. Holy Goo (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Another three month old account with an opinion about how to edit wikipedia. Apparently we start with accusations now :) This is a constructive conversation or has been so far. Participate or not but if you continue to troll, expect to be mocked. Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize this article, you'll keep being reverted and perhaps, receive a block request. Everyone here is against you and your changes. Holy Goo (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OOO lololol a brand new account is threatening me with a block request. Gonna come at me with another three-month-old account? I'm scared lol :) Bring it. I'd love to see you explain why I need to be blocked because I am trying to improve an article you have never touched. I don't know why why so much energy is being expended on guarding this egregious piece of BLP violation but here's your chance to tell me. Or even just make a constructive comment. No? LOL buzz off little fly. If it is demonstrated to me that I am wrong then fine. Otherwise, I am not in Brazil, dude, and you cannot intimidate me. Or bribe me. I am not going away so if you want an article on this topic then you and your other cough defender of the status quo may as well start dealing with some specifics. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

João_Goulart - could Brazilians please take a look

this connected article has some slightly surprising statements that are flagged as needing a citation. If these statements are common knowledge in Brazil there is no rush but I would like to see them referenced.

I am copy-editing down near the bottom of this article. Can't tell if you guys are done or not. Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) done for now Elinruby (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

is this a good source?

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-11042016000500098&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No. It's not peer reviewed and it was only published in the Saúde em Debate periodic, which is indexed by SCIELO and LILACS[1]. They have qualis B4 and B5, respectively [2]. On scholar there are zero citations. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

k thanks; that sounds like exactly what I was trying to find out. Elinruby (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

translator questions

• "Mirian Belchior said that the supplemental budget decrees, by which Rousseff is indicted were lawful and was impossible increase the resources contingency as made in 2015.[128]" -- it was impossible to to increase the contingency fund as provided in the 2015 law? This is a guess, please comment.

She is saying two separate things: 1. As a testimony for the defense of Rousseff she is saying there was no crime. 2. She is commenting that a larger contingency would be impossible from a political standpoint. She says it would freeze important programs, specially the ones affecting the poor. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

1. 2 is the part I don't understand. Contingency to me is a plan. Contingency fund? Reserve fund? Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, contingency is a a bad translation. A legalese ("contigenciamento") was used, it means the blockage of resources. What Belchior is saying is that it was politically impossible to cut spending even more (as to adequate the budget to what budgetary law demands). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• "credit decree" doesn't quite parse in English. Budget allocation? Executive order to the treasury department? This is less a translation question per se than a note about a translation issue that requires more info about the exact process. I get that the result was that the government owed money to the bank and this is alleged to break a budget law, but I am fumbling for the right verb. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of a legalese, I think the literal translation is the best thing to use. More credit was issued by decree, as the name suggests. Not sure what would be the equivalent in the US nor if it's relevant to wikilink it to anything. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah executive order is a US thing :) Maybe we should use it as a foreign word like rapporteur, which english just deals with as an import. But help me understand it first please? It does require an explanation even if we use the portugese term (1st reference).So the bank has a contract to administer payments, right? So when she issues a decree what exactly is she saying - you there, the bank, pay out for October? Essentially? (Except that she didn't pay the bill for this essentially, I get that) It seems like this would be on autopilot. Is it something like raising the debt ceiling, where the US government is about to run out of money and has to authorize borrowing that exceeds a limit mandated by law? Except she's not supposed to borrow? Maybe I should just do a google translate on one of the decrees. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it something like ... where the US government is about to run out of money and has to authorize borrowing that exceeds a limit mandated by law? Except she's not supposed to borrow? precisely. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• "but the president's home only received the written request of Hélio Bicudo and the lawyers Miguel Reale Júnior and Janaina Paschoal." - unclear. Does this boil down to "this is the only complaint ever served?" Also do we really literally mean "home"?Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the author meant either. What is actually in the source is that out of the 37 requests, Eduardo Cunha (president of the Chamber of Deputies by the time) only accepted the aforementioned ones. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok so is it ok to jusr lose the part about the home? Also I am unclear what happens to an "archived" request -- essentially it is being ignored? Elinruby (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @Elinruby and Saturnalia0: Source 63 says

De 37 pedidos de impeachment de Dilma Rousseff apresentados à Câmara dos Deputados, Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), presidente da Casa, acolheu o redigido por Hélio Bicudo, fundador do PT, e pelos advogados Miguel Reale Júnior e Janaina Conceição Paschoal. No documento, eles pedem que a presidente perca imediatamente o mandato e o direito de ocupar funções públicas por oito anos.

that means:

Of 37 requests for Dilma Rousseff's impeachment presented on Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), the president of the House, admitted only that elaborated by Hélio Bicudo, founder of PT, and by lawyers Miguel Reale Júnior and Janaina Conceição Paschoal. In the document, they urge the president to immediately lose his mandate and the right to hold public office for eight years.

"House", not "home", means "Chamber of Deputies"
PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) @PauloMSimoes: aha aha president of the house became home of the president, heh. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC) @PauloMSimoes and Saturnalia0: OK, hehe. I am grinning at that one. I changed "the president's home only received" to "Cunha only accepted" -- that work for everyone? I think it's right but I am pinging you because it's quite a change in meaning and there may be some nuance you'd like to be in there. But I am striking th question since it's no longer a mystery. I *would* still like confirmation that an "archived" request is simply not acted upon, though Elinruby (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• the entire legal infringement section is almost impossible to understand. Does infringement here mean something like "charge" or "count of the indictment" btw?

Infractions is a better word. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it because tone but ok, let's make sure I understand at all -- so "infringement" is an instance of her breaking the law? Elinruby (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Clayton Luiz Montes said that "the government has followed the new understanding of the TCU by October 2015. Since that time, were not sent any credit decrees".[124] This, nevertheless, is conflicting with the statements of TCU auditors, that there was not previous understanding to modified the rules.[110]" - does this mean "that since October 2015 the government had followed the guidance of the TCU issued in October 2015, and after that time did not attempt to change the budget. However the TCU auditors had testified...."? The second sentence requires a reference.
• "the opposition would try to push the process in Congress for 2016 in order to mitigate the "electoral ecstasy" and "act of revenge" that were said to be the cause of the impeachment attempt.(Terra Networks) I don't understand why the opposition is "mitigating" -- I think there must be a language issue here because the sentence does not make sense as written

According to the political scientists from the story (I will address the tags later) the opposition would want to postpone the decision to avoid being perceived as vengeful (because of the loss in the election). Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see. Not sure what to do about it but ok now I get the point. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "decisive vote/voting repeatedly used for senate vote -- I understand the vote was the final trigger for her removal but in English this word is primarily used to describe a person or organization and the phrase sounds like the Senate got together in a decisive manner and acted, so it just kind of jars. It sounds like promo and this isn't the entended meaning in the first place. I have been changing this to Senate impeachment vote or just impeachment vote or vote if the context makes it clear what we are talking about. Please advise if there is something wrong with this. I am making the change where I see it and will eventually do a search and replace if nobody tells me this is a bad idea Elinruby (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's much better to use the term "Senate vote", thanks. There were numerous voting procedures (I will address the tags later), so it's common to refer to the last vote as the decisive one in Portuguese. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OAS complaint

This is an example of the things that concern me. We have a fairly lengthy quote dismissing the PT complaint but we don't know and aren't told the logic behind PT saying it was a coup. Also, this occurred a week before the impeachment if the text is correct, but it is in a section labelled "after the impeachment" Elinruby (talk)

It's simply an accusation of illegitimacy. Different groups present different arguments such as "the people who voted were also responsible for some crimes", among others we already reproduce in the article. They all call it a coup though, as sort of a buzzword to call it illegitimate. This story was the best I could find about the letter to OAS (PS: probably better to write the full name, as OAS is also the name of a construction company involved in the corruption scheme PT is involved in, and OAS in Portuguese is OEA). They're simply saying that "there was no crime" and "we are not in a democracy [anymore]". It's like other bolivarian leaders screaming "coup". Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I get that they are saying the vote was just a way to get her out of power. But it's her impeachment so what she said about it is material. And there is something to that just maybe, even though I think the choice of words was unfortunate. I mean, she needs to have a chat with the guy who got dropped of in the next country in his pajamas (Guatemala?) *That* was a coup. The hyperbole undermines her credibility but it *is* what she said. Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. The OAS complaint was not filed by Dilma, but by congressmen from her party. A petição é assinada por três deputados federais do PT e pelo senador Temário Mota (RR), do PDT [The petition is signed by three congressmen from PT and by senator Temário Mota (RR), from PDT]. It's relevant, it is already included in our article. What they had to say is that there was no crime committed, according to the aforelinked secondary source (best I could find, others just say they called it a coup, which we already mention). Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

yaya sloppy way of referring to it. I'm tired. The point is the article seems to be very concerned with proving the coup thing wrong and I understand that this is an important point in terms of international relations. I also gather that the constitutional process was followed. Some people think the process needs work. Some people think there were ulterior motives. These views should be represented. There are some thorny weight problems there but right now it's all about the contents of the petition and what happened with the petition. Somebody is a lawyer, I can tell. I say this with amusement and not as an accusation btw, it just screams legalese. OK so. If you aren't sure what I am talk about or to do about this I will attempt to address this when I come back and hopefully in a way that everyone thinks is fair. Elinruby (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure the letter contains those viewpoints, though. As I mentioned the most complete source I could find didn't mention any of that. The viewpoints you cited are already present in the article, though I haven't read it in full to see how fairly represented they are.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: @PauloMSimoes: we might be getting to the heart of some things here -- by "letter" do you mean the petition for impeachment? I noticed some comments further up this page about how this is about that document and I have been saying no, it is about the process. I was just looking at the other language versions, and this is a distinction not made in the French version, which seems to be a distilled translation of this article. Procès is a trial or a lawsuit, only. Processo seems to also mean process in Portugese? The Portuguese article has quite a lot of discussion it looks like -- recall that my Portugese is good enough for topic-screening but not nuance if this is a misunderstanding -- about whether the english impeachment is more appropriate. There are some nuances that may be being lost here about impeachment, but let me come back to those because I am uncertain whether this is a purely American phenomenon. I don't recall a high-profile impeachment in Britain or Canada. Anyway. In the US this will immediately recall the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who famously refused to step down after he was impeached -- but what I would like you to note is that this is a verb and "impeachment" the noun refers to that action. Which is a very long way of saying that if you Brazilians want an article solely for the *document* perhaps you can do a separate article about that. I will caution you however that it may run into problems with the due weight policy but I myself am not against it and it may may make some of the lawyers here happier. Making it shorter than this article may help you with the due weight policy. Just a suggestion if you choose to go that route. I note that the Portuguese article is also tagged as overly long.

If we are talking about the *process* however, and with all this back story about the economy and Operation Car Wash, I think we are, then here is the thing. This is a biography of a living person (ok a partial biography) and more importantly a politician who vows that she will run for office again, therefore the policy says that she must be treated with scrupulous fairness and all potentially defamatory statements must be carefully referenced to make it clear that the quoted publication or person is making the statement not Wikipedia itself. If I am correct in guessing that some of you page-watchers are lawyers, then this should be self-evident. I personally -- I am not Wikipedia, just another editor -- am opening to applying the somewhat less rigorous standard that applies to a news story, since there is no question that she was impeached after all. These votes for sure took place. But right now the page does not satisfy that standard either. Perhaps this clarifies some things, if not please ask me a question or make an objection and we will go from there. I am going to go look at everybody's answers now. Elinruby (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Processo seems to also mean process in Portugese? "Processo" in Portuguese can mean both "lawsuit" and the word "process", as in "chemical process". In "o processo de impeachment [the impeachment process]" it never means "lawsuit". It means the entire process leading to the final act of being impeached. The Portuguese word "impeachment" (an anglicism) means the exact same thing - that is, the whole shebang. To refer to the document one could say "o pedido de impeachment", literally "the impeachment request". To refer to the final act of being forced to step down from office one would say a person was removed [from office], in Portuguese "afastada" (literal translation: "pushed away").

by "letter" do you mean the petition for impeachment? No. A letter was written to the Organization of American States (OAS) complaining about the impeachment. You started a talk page section about it and we have been discussing it. The contents of this letter are not abundantly clear, as already discussed both the sources used in the article and the extra one mentioned in this section present it merely as a complaint of illegitimacy. Rousseff did not author this letter nor signed it. It was signed by congressmen from her party and allies, though she endorsed the letter. This is "the letter" being discussed here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the article not meeting WP:BLP you'll have to be more specific. As already discussed in this very same section arguments against the impeachment are already present in the article. Reactions with a negative view about it also. If you think some of that content does not currently have the due weight it deserves in the article please do whatever fixes you find necessary. Also feel free to add any content that meets WP:V/N/DUE/etc, you've done a lot of work in this article and by any means it was a major improvement, I'd give you one of those fancy user page stars if I cared for those or knew how to use them. Anyway I've read the article almost in its entirety and I can't see any major BLP issues you seem to be pointing out, so if you can pinpoint some we can discuss and work on them. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

oh yeah yeah, I forgot we were in that section; just coming back to this after being in Canada for a funeral. As for BLP, well, I don't want to argue with you but there is a lot here about the crimes she is accused (but still not convicted) of -- we need less of that and some more from her supporters. But I can work on this a bit longer and I may only get to the language stuff tonight. There is stuff I still don't understand but may be able to figure out from english sources -- It would be nice (although not strictly required) to have more of those anyway. Elinruby (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

re process, thanks, that helps Elinruby (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rousseff's interview

Here, a Rousseff's interview to TIME in 27 July 2016. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: thanks I am out of town on a borrowed IPad and will definitely look at this Tuesday when I am back, as well as the other replies above

how does a social uprising petition congress?

"The pro-impeachment social movement (such as the Free Brazil Movement and Come to the Street Movement (pt)) decided to join Bicudo's request.[66] Congressmen supportive of the impeachment organized a petition in its favor, having been signed by two million brazilians.[67]"

the above sentence can be understood but there is something strange about it. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Petrobras and fiscal pedalling section

Is there any reason we should not use the terms churn and/or surplus in the third paragraph? Seems to me like we define them. Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I suppose these terms aren't applicable to define "fiscal pedalling" as it described in text.

I'll temporarily leave Wikipedia for health reasons. I'll return in a few weeks. PauloMSimoes (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes: be well. We will miss you. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby and PauloMSimoes:

The term 'fiscal pedaling' as defined in that section is not accurate. It currently says:

Rousseff was also accused of fiscal pedaling—an accounting maneuver which gives the false impression that the government received more money than it spent.

Now, in effect, that is what ended up happening, because the government did spend more money than it had on hand without appearing to do so, but that is a consequence of pedaling and not the definition of it. The definition is not about whether they received more or less than they spent—that's a definition of deficit—rather, it's more like a "hidden loan", i.e., it's about receiving monies upfront from financial institutions and not calling them loans, thereby keeping them off the books and allowing your current account to appear healthily in the black and without showing any claims against it, as having an officially recorded loan would do. Now, of course the reason to do that is so you can spend more money than you really have at the moment (same as a loan, or an overdraft) but it's not the definition of it. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Right I think? My understanding is that Brazilian equivalent of Social Security got paid by the sovereign accounts of Brazil but it was not money which had been allocated by the legislative branch for the purpose. Think "raising the budget limit" in US politics. I believe Saturnalia0 told me once that that process was at least somewhat analogous. She kited a check, pretty much, so the banks performed under their contract by paying out of their own funds, which they aren't supposed to have to do. The money was supposed to get transferred. Or something. You tell me. Also there *was* a count in the impeachment petition that related to the purchase of the Pasedena refinery, which basically said this has to be corruption of some kind. It was dismissed though, because a sitting president cannot be charged with their actions prior to taking office. Plus I don't think that anyone has quite connected those dots, although the campaign donations may come close. Elinruby (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby and Mathglot: Hi ! I'm back. However, I'll not be able to participate as before, but I'll contribute as possible, looking for help, topic by topic. Regarding this topic specifically, I found an article with the definition of "fiscal pedaling", by a specialist, Professor of Tax Law at FGV Direito Rio and Ibmec: Fiscal Pedaling - Brazilian Artificial Accounts. PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

After impeachment section - we are currently misquoting the New York Times

the New York Times doesn't say her defense was debatable. It said that the allegation that this was a coup was debatable. Her defense was that she didn't do it and they were lying to get out of a corruption investigation, right? Not quite the same thing imho? Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Article still needs a complete rewrite

It's approaching legibility but still focuses overmuch on what for lack of a better word I will call the prosecution case against Rousseff. I realize that there are multiple court cases (ha, are we up to hundreds yet?) involved in Operation Car Wash and the one where Rousseff's name has surfaced has to do with whether testimony that Temer solicited a large campaign donation from Odenbrecht. Stop me if I am getting any of this wrong. So she herself is not (yet, as far as I know) accused of any kind of corruption, but Temer was her vice-president and they were sharing a ticket so yes, definitely this does raise the questions of seriously who was doing the books and isn't Dilma an economist. That was my assessment the last time I was in here and although she was not charged with any of that at her impeachment I do think it is material that the testimony exists, because SHE was saying that many of the votes to impeach were cast to stop the Operation Car Wash investigation from proceeding. And there have always been enough numbers involved to make that an actual, viable, political strategy. So I was going to work on adding that and so I looked at the news for Brazil and heh, it seems Temer is now saying that Rousseff's version of events is accurate. Almost all that coverage is in Portuguese, though once I knew to look I found some long-form analysis and a very few breaking news articles, including one from TeleSur.

Since I myself have in the past accused TeleSur of being a bit over-dramatic, this makes the article even more challenging to edit. And yet, this is a Brazilian broadcast outlet is it not? It's possible their sources are good. Work's been hampered by the fact that I have the most third-hand knowledge of Portuguese imaginable. @PauloMSimoes: has been very helpful and patient in answering questions, but it was just the other day that he said he needed to take a break for his health. It sounded like he meant a longer break than a few days. That would seem to leave me and @Saturnalia0: and possibly that one editor that said that NPR News was not a reliable source or that brand new account that said he was going to get a topic ban to keep me from editing the page... hehe. The glacial pace of change here seems like it will slow down considerably unless we recruit some help, guys. Paulo's English is pretty good but some of this is very technical legal stuff and some of it nobody knows the answer to anyway. It can't all be on Saturnalia0 -- in case you are wondering, sir, I wrote all that out for any new editors I may manage to recruit. I know you know all this because we've been talking. I am just trying to summarize the situation in one place. The reason I am ringing the alarm is that this has been an ongoing fiasco for quite a while, and the article never quite catches up to it, and we are now, not only misquoting the New York Times but have also for more than a year been presenting a version of events that the current president says was fabricated. We might suspect a double or triple cross but the person who brought charges is in fact convicted and jailed on corruption charges. Almost everyone else in the government is under investigation, there is a new leak investigation, there was just a general strike, and there is some sort of spat with Venezuela. Meanwhile the economy is in the intensive care unit at the hospital more and more people are accused of robbing the treasury. Stop me if I am getting any of this wrong.

Now. I have said that Rousseff's version needed to be included whether editors here believed her account of events or not and I still do say that. But I'd like to make it clear that I am not in any way partisan in this, except that I would really really like to get this article to be accurate. And that is true no matter what accurate turns out to be. But seriously. We need to start from what news sources we believe, and rewrite this.I can't be piddling around fixing the english in a section about the polls in 2014 when the account given at enormous and already one-sided length in the article, which has been there for more than a year, is something that a convicted criminal made up because he was angry that he was investigated. According to a man who -- let me make sure this hasn't changed while I typed all this -- is still the nation's chief executive. And says he knows this because the man told him so. He said this on television:

Brazil's Temer Confesses Rousseff's Impeachment Was Revenge TeleSur

No, apparently he is still at this moment president but he wants to amend the constitution. I really couldn't make this stuff up.Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

* I didn't get the ping for some reason, got here by seeing it on the watchlist. That's odd. You might want to ping PauloMSimoes again if you want his attention.

* Regarding Odebrecht and Operation Car Wash, for other editors reading this, there was some conversation between Elinruby and me here.

* TeleSur is the Venezuelan government news network, it's far, far away from being a reliable source, specially concerning South American politics. It would be like using Trump's Twitter account as a source for politics in America.

* I didn't say the NPR was not a reliable source, I said a one-line comment from an American journalist that barely got mentioned in the NPR article was undue for the lead of an article about the impeachment process of the head of another sovereign state. As I already mentioned in this talk page it would be fine (in the lead) in the context of a summary of the "International reactions" section, if her opinion is in fact representative of the contents of that section (that is, if it summarizes a major view among the international reactions).

* What misquote of the NYT are you talking about?

* The article presents Rousseff's defense and her accusations against the people who voted against her, in my opinion with due weight (I gather you disagree, so feel free to expand on that - we can also discuss this on a per-section basis, see below).

* the person who brought charges is in fact convicted and jailed on corruption charges If you're talking about the impeachment request, its authors (w:pt:Janaína Paschoal, w:pt:Miguel Reale Júnior and w:pt:Hélio Bicudo) face no charges nor are in jail

Eduardo Cunha, Michel Temer Elinruby (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe it would be immensely more productive if we discussed specific sections, or if you pinpointed issues you think should be worked on. For instance, "in the section concerning international reactions I believe that no due weight has been given about the reactions of other south american political leaders". Feel free to edit away the specific issues you believe are present in the article and we can discuss later if there is disagreement (as we've been doing for most of the time).

I believe your major concern has been a supposedly under representation of Rousseff's defense, so we can start on that. Let's start from the start. The first section - about Background - specially the "Political context" subsection seem to present Rousseff's POV with ample weight. Would you agree? Perhaps we can proceed in this per-section review? Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I will try to help after the PNT affair dies down, in around a month. Since I'd be coming into this from zero, I might need some time to catch up. OTOH, if you have some very specific areas or questions where my relatively simple Portuguese (fortified by fluent Spanish) could help, maybe give me a few short tasks, that are fairly self-contained and don't require a big ramp-up of the whole affair, I could start looking at those sooner. Ideal would be short, thorny, quotes that you can't make head nor tail of and don't require extensive background in the affair; I could try and help you with those. Or anything else that you think is context-free enough for me to look at without extensive background in the affair. In a month, I can try and get involved more extensively, if you still need the help. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia, Mathglot, and PauloMSimoes: I am sorry, I have been very preoccupied with a deadline in another wikipedia project. Quick answer though, for now... I will be back. I had not put the fact that Venezuela is currently arguing with Brazil together with the fact that TeleSur are Venezuelan (if I even knew that; I think I had them broadly classified as "South American") so this may be a good point. I'll consider it. On the other hand I don't think you can take the position that only Brazilian news coverage is notable, as she was after all the president of the country, making it an international story, and there are a lot of unknown affiliations for South American news sources from the point of view of an English speaker, as we see. NPR has the virtue of being a known quantity for an English speaker and this is the en.wikipedia, no matter how much I agree that a people should be able to describe their stories as they see them. As for the misquote of the NYT, I am talking about the one in the lede described in the section above. I am not sure that a section-by-section approach to the article addresses my concern. Essentially it boils down to *amount* -- the article when I came to it lovingly outlined the supposed misdeeds of Rousseff and the fact that there had been protests over the economy, in every single section. Prior editors have take the position that the article deals with the articles of impeachment alone. If people want to take this approach then we need another article, just as long, about the defense of Dilma Rousseff. I have mitigated this to some extent but the article still reads like (exaggerating only slightly to make my point):

She was bad she was bad she did this and she did that and her excuse was this but the prosecutor said she was wrong. Then the legislators voted to condemn her and she provided a 200-page motion but we aren't going to tell you what was in it and she claimed it was a coup but of course this was nonsense...

ad nauseum at every step of the process. I think the idea that the impeachment may well have happened because she refused to pull the ethics investigations may be correct, and while this idea is mentioned, it's buried way deep, in the middle of a section about a procedural vote, as I recall. Due weight requires both sides of these issues. Amusingly, in terms of treaties with the US, it is apparently only a coup if it's a left-wing government deposing an oligarch friendly to the US apparently so the concern about using the word is a little misplaced imho. Hopefully this clarifies. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0:: re-pinging because I got your user name wrong the first time and apparently you can't go back and fix a ping. Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just starting to get involved. I think a productive way for me to get involved, rather than to attempt to read and understand the whole article first, which would take a while, is to come at it piecemeal, and just look at the quality of the individual translated quotations, including the ones located inside references, of which there are quite a few. My first impression is, that this needs a great deal of work. When that is all done (could take a while) I should have a fair sense of what the article is about, and can start looking at the other issues. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby, thanks for the ping and welcome back! There's no hurry in editing. I still believe a per-section review would be more productive (a lot), because as I mentioned the "big picture" you have from the article is different than the one I have, so we should probably go over the "details" (sections) and see what we can do about it. Again I invite you to edit away and we can discuss the changes if there is disagreement. That being said I have to repeat myself regarding some points, since there seems to be miscommunication between us: I don't think only Brazilian outlets should be used nor that the NPR is a bad source. As I've said numerous times, what I think is that a one-line quote from an American journalist (not a prominent mention, not an interview with her, nor an article about her opinion, just a single line quote in an otherwise large article focusing on other points), be it on the NPR or wherever, is undue for the lead of this article, unless it is a good summary of the international reactions. You also replied with Eduardo Cunha, Michel Temer to a specific point, that the people who brought the charges against Rousseff were in jail. But Eduardo Cunha did not bring any charges against her, he merely had them proceed as president of the lower house. So did the president of the Senate at the time, and so did the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Temer, though benefited from the impeachment, was not directly involved in the process, nor is he in jail (though he should probably be). We already mention that it is Rousseff's opinion that the people involved in her impeachment are corrupt and therefore should have no say, and that she thinks they didn't care about her infractions but about politics, that she was innocent, that she thinks its a coup, etc. As I've mentioned we have different images of the article, and thus I believe it would be more productive to work in smaller steps. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the investigation of the Rousseff-Temer ticket is reaching its final vote in TSE, that will be a relevant update to the article. In a couple days there should be a result. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they just voted 10min ago. The ticket was absolved.[3] Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0, Mathglot, and PauloMSimoes: so... We do agree that that is the essence of Rousseff's take on this, right? That these people are corrupt and therefore they are trying to get rid of me? I do agree that this seems a bit facile for an economist that used to run the guns and money for a guerrilla group, but the fact is that she has still not been accused of corruption and half the people who voted to impeach her have been not only accused but convicted. As for Temer, that was expected since besides Benjamin most people were concerned about more upheaval, no? I did suggest to Mathglot that adding that as an update to the article might be a place to start. Also perhaps looking at the number of words devoted to "people who said Rousseff should be indicted" vs "people who defended Rousseff, including Rousseff". I think there is probably a huge disparity. I agree that sooner or later we will need to consider sentences in the current article and what to do about them. Pinging PauloMSimoes and Mathglot for their information, primarily. I actually cannot do a big marathon session just now but this article is back as a priority now once I can. Mathglot, I have been working with Paulo on this on the basis that his english is about en-3 but my portuguese is about pt-0 or 1 at best. When I find a sentence that does not parse I ask what it means and eventually we come to a wording. Not ideal but it is what we've got. My favorite so far is "Wedge proposal" for a deal Cunha proposed to Rousseff. Cunha=wedge...yeah, you're gonna love this piece. Before you ask, I have already tried to delete it in a fit of exasperation. On Cunha. what Saturnalia says is true, but he had an option to accept the petition or not accept the petition, in which case the impeachment would not have happened, correct? As for the vote on Temer, also, Saturnalia, you do realize that this absolves Rousseff as well since the fact that he ran on her ticket was tainting her? And was the only whiff of corruption on her so far? Elinruby (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

* I think we can agree on what Rousseff's defense is.

* One does not have to be corrupt to be impeached, one simply has to commit any of the crimes or infractions that make one liable to loss of office, as defined in Law N.1079. Although there are corruption accusations against Rousseff (see below), that is not what she was impeached for. She was impeached, as our article states, because she broke budgetary law (the infamous fiscal peddling stuff). That is, officially. She claims political reasons, as our article also states (according to you not enough I guess).

* As for the ticket trial, yes, it applies to Rousseff as well. But remember that TSE, the court that made the ruling, is not absolving Rousseff or Temer of the accusations brought against them - it is simply absolving the ticket of wrongdoing. TSE administers the elections, it's the STF who judges politicians (who have immunity, "Foro Privilegiado" in Portuguese). The testimonies from Odebrecht that TSE ruled out can still be used against them in other instances. There is currently an open inquiry in the STF against both[4].

I'm a bit busier than a month ago as well, I may sometimes be slow to respond. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

* Ok

* Well yes, and the widening corruption scandal is conflated in public opinion with the tanking economy, right? Rousseff was accused of as I understand it kiting a check on the treasury accounts to cover social programs. Apparently the legislature was supposed to authorize all budgetary measures, right? And just kinda didn't perhaps? Is there something in the legislation that says they are supposed to? Just wondering. Also the budget that did get implemented, how much did it have to do with World Bank ratings requirements, I wonder. And the thing about missing a clause in the sales contract for the Pasedena refinery happened just as China cut petroleum imports. This explains the hit to the economy but does raise the question of how a country can make a mistake like that, if that is what happened. So let's see...

* TSE is a special court for elected politicians, right? And the appeal path is straight to the Supreme Court? Also, the Brazilian judiciary is a modified Napoleonic system, right? Because we don't have articles documenting it, but I seem to recall seeing that, and that there is a juge d'instruction (what he would be called in France?)<---quick recap for anyone trying to follow Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

above is attempted TL;DR summary of discussion to date, please do correct if any part of it is wrong. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If it helps discussion at all we seem to have consensus that the formal charges against Rousseff at the impeachment involved a violation of budgetary law (number given in lede). I believe she said in her defense statement that she did something of the kind -- not sure how nuanced her answer was -- but that her actions were needed. Right? So. It occurs to me that we may have a translation issue here. I would say that circumventing a budget law is illegal and indeed criminal if Brazilian law saw that it is. But not corrupt. To me corruption is the proceeds of some country's treasury winding up in somebody's private pockets and some of that money falling into the pockets of politicians who help keep the money flowing. This extends to illegal campaign donations especially if they are egregious. So if we use as our measure of legality Brazilian law, and we should, Rousseff as I recall has admitted juggling the accounts but nobody has yet found anyplace where any of the money went astray. That is my understanding of the situation. I see your point about the ticket and the electoral court and the Odenbrecht (sp?) statements; so the ticket is absolved but neither Rousseff nor Temer personally? Hmm. What happens if the supreme court finds Temer guilty? The current speaker takes office as president? Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

TSE administers the elections. STF handles politicians with immunity. That's why the ticket was being tried and not the politicians running the ticked. The Fiscal Pedaling article that Mathglot invited us to contribute to is a very good summary of the budgetary stuff, read it carefully. Temer is not on trial at the STF, it's currently just an inquiry (Rousseff and other ex-presidents are also being inquired). The Pasadena stuff is kind of cold now, TCU was handling it. Marcelo Odebrecht and others from the Odebrecht Conglomerate already pointed their fingers at both Temer and Dilma over their campaign funds, and then Joesley Batista from JBS S.A. is now also pointing his finger at Temer. These testimonies are still in the judiciary limbo that every evidence against a politician gets before it sees a supreme court. Now I must say, this has nothing to do with the subject of this article, which is the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. This is not an article about Corruption Scandals of Dilma Rousseff nor Michel Temer's Government. I see you're just trying to understand the situation but be careful not to extrapolate. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit and engvar

There was a copyedit tag on this article, and it indeed had several misspellings. The copyedit tag was removed while I was copyediting it. At any rate; while I was copyediting it I noticed several times where the same word was spelled differently - sometimes it would be spelled with the U.S. spelling (defense) and other times with the British spelling (defence). I started trying to change them all to defense, then thought perhaps it would be better as defence, then just got confused and gave up. I notice that when I started copyediting there were 19 instances of defense and 17 of defence, so neither is particularly prominent.

Someone should standardize the article so it either uses British or American English instead of a mix of both. However, I'd like to seek input from other editors as to which should be used on this article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: I personally don't care and I may be responsible for a lot of the American spellings since that is where I live; I suppose we should go with whatever they teach in English class in Brazil, but I will go with whatever the consensus is on this - imho the article currently has much bigger problems. Elinruby (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby and ONUnicorn:The guidelines value consistency of use within articles, and if there are no strong national ties to one variety of English or another, then MOS:RETAIN suggests remaining with the variety of English when the article was created or that has "become established". I like your idea of the variety of English taught in the country as being an influencing factor, and I'd like to raise that at WT:MOS although since it's your idea, you've got first dibs on that, if you'd like to take it on. After all, in Europe, students in most countries learn British English, and in Mexico and I'm pretty sure most Central and South American countries they use American English, and why shouldn't residents of those countries reading articles on en-wiki see the variety of English that they learned and are most familiar with? Anyway, please let me know either way, because I'd like to see that added there, and I'll forget if we don't do it soon. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On a more practical point regarding this article: the term "Fiscal pedaling" can be found with one or two L's, depending which variety of English the source is in. 'Pedaling' is the normal spelling in AmE but 'pedalling' in BrE. This is due to a difference in the final consonant doubling rule. In AmE, this rule doesn't apply to polysyllabic verbs ending in unstressed final -r, -l and certain other consonants, thus: 'profiting', 'focusing', 'canceling', 'motoring', 'traveling', 'pedaling' etc.; but in BrE the ones ending in -l must be doubled: 'travelling', 'pedalling', etc. So the outcome of how to spell this term must await the outcome of the English variety discussion. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

My input is have at it, consistency is good, and I don't care which English we use. Let me know which one gets decided and I'll try to conform to it it any edits I make to the article. But Canadians use both, remember, so there may be cases when I don't realize that there's an alternate spelling. It's a matter of national philosophy ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

/* Copyedit and engvar */

Major errors of fact due to translation problems

I've only begun to look at this article, but there are major errors of fact due to elementary translation problems. I don't mean quibbles about style or how to word or phrase something, or putting the verb in the right place; I mean very black-and-white errors of fact: "this is true"/ "this is not true". A lot of this is fairly elementary stuff but will trip up people using machine translation or just a dictionary and trying to figure out what something says that way. Some of these mistranslations change the sense of what's going on in the narrative, and correcting them may imply rewriting certain portions of the article, once the true sense is revealed. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is why I was so incensed about the alleged BLP problems with those other articles. Anyway, I don't know if you saw above, but Saturnalia0 is the primary person speaking up right now and he has said to go ahead and edit and he will take issue with anything he does not agree with. As previously mentioned I will pop in and out over the next few days, maybe, but will mostly be traveling. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any major disagreements, we've had a good cooperation most of the time and we seem to be reaching mutual agreement over time. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

yes, emphasis on time. But yes, I think Brazilians are a bit protective of this article but we're all trying for accurate at the moment as far as I can tell. Elinruby (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot I'm a native speaker so feel free to ask if you need anything. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0 I'm currently trying to do a thorough copy-edit of this and am getting stuck up on the first sentence of fiscal pedaling, and I'm not sure where this line came from or if it's even directly translated from anything but if you can help me understand what is happening with "has held illegal credit operations from no transfer of funds" I would be really grateful. It's cited from the request for impeachment but I don't see anything in the translation given in the notes that says something like that. Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Mehmuffin I believe the translator meant that the government took loans without accounting for the transfer of funds, but that's a guess. I'll translate the quote from the note (the translation in the article is not very good):

Com efeito, como evidenciado em sede de Representação Criminal encaminhada à Procuradoria Geral da República, ao fazer empréstimos proibidos e não os contabilizar, a Presidente da República poderia até, em tese, ser inclusa nas iras do artigo 299 do Código Penal, que tipifica a falsidade ideológica. A situação resta ainda mais grave, quando se constata que todo esse expediente fora intensificado durante o ano eleitoral, com o fim deliberado de iludir o eleitorado. Daí ser possível falar em verdadeiro estelionato eleitoral.

(In fact, as evidenced by a Criminal Representation sent to the Office of the Attorney General, by illegally taking loans and not accounting for them, the [actions of the] President could, in theory, be included under Article 299 of the Penal Code, which typifies identity fraud. The situation is even more serious if one observes that this procedure was intensified during election year, with the deliberate purpose of deceiving the electorate. Hence it is possible to talk about electoral fraud.)

I suggest a copyedit from the Fiscal pedaling article, which was well written last time I checked. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks, fiscal pedaling helped a lot too. Mehmuffin (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0, Elinruby, and Mathglot: in the process of copy-editing, I started looking through the legal infringements subsection and found almost everything in it to be a restatement using similar references as previous sections; so I'm wondering if anyone else thinks it would make sense to delete it? Mehmuffin (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's repetitive. I went ahead and deleted it myself. Thanks for pointing it out. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)