Talk:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article title and desdobramentos

In the section above, Bageense asked about how to translate desdobramentos for the purpose of finding a good title for this article in English. First, just to make my priorities clear: I'm much more interested at this early stage in getting the draft expanded and made ready to be moved to WP:MAINSPACE. What the best title might be, is of lesser importance to me right now, but will gain in importance for me later.

That said, since you asked, here are my initial thoughts about it. Yes, I'm aware of how the verb desdobrar is literally unfold, like unfolding a folded piece of paper, or often a more metaphoric usage (just as in English: "let's see how season 3 of Game of Thrones unfolds"). Where Portuguese uses the substantivized version desdobramento, equivalent to the English gerund (i.e., noun) unfolding (plural: unfoldings), this is awkward and rare, or at least very uncommon. A literal English title such as "Unfoldings of Operation Car Wash" would never survive a Move request, in my opinion.

Desdobramento is sometimes ramifications in English, but that isn't right here, because ramifications is more about consequences, and that is not the sense of desdobramento here. In my opinion, desdobramento is more about all the many little pieces or sub-parts that spun off of the original Car Wash investigation; words like splintering or spin-off come to mind, but neither feels quite right. Maybe subdevelopments (but that brings to mind housing construction). Synonym lists at thesauruses may have some ideas; see for example ramification, unfolding, spin-off, and other terms. Of the terms offered in those pages, I think I like offshoots best, but spread, expansion, and evolution are not bad.

Maybe someone will come up with the mot juste that we will all be happy with. Until that time, I won't lose too much sleep over the exact right word here, and plan to turn now to expanding the draft; although I'm always happy to respond to suggestions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Timeline? Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Timeline might be an idea, I haven't even checked our LJ/CW articles here, but something like "Operation Car Wash scandal" would seem to be used for some other English-lang articles with a similar theme I looked at. The BBC and some others seem to treat everything as part of one big investigation/op, while the police create many different operations with different names. Bleh. Of Math's ideas: evolution? Offshoots (although the level of separation is harder to ascertain sometimes)? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like timeline, for the following reason: at Wikipedia, a timeline article is an actual thing, with a defined structure that involves listing events in chrono order, bulletwise, tablular, or whatever. While the broad sweep of this article, at least the launching of individual operations might follow a chrono order, many of them overlap, or quiesce for a time and then pop up again later; it doesn't really lend itself well to a timeline, at least, not in this format. Also, timelines tend to be brief, one- or two-sentence descriptions of an event, with links off-page to other articles that explain the actual event. You can browse timelines at Category:Wikipedia_timelines; here are a couple: Timeline of Amazon history, and Timeline of Brazilian history. You can see how this article doesn't really fit that staccato event structure, so a "timeline" article doesn't work here, imho. Which isn't to say that an article like Timeline of Operation Car Wash events wouldn't be a really interesting and useful addition to the encyclopedia, but it would have a different focus, and be written in a strict, day-by-day, or week-by-week progression, jumping back and forth from one operation to another, as events unfold in chronological order. But I think the thematic approach of this article with its one or two solid paragraphs per operation, is the way to go. Which leaves the best word for the title still to be chosen. I think I'm leaning towards offshoots at this point, but it's not perfect; just better than the other ones so far, imho. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, at this point, a timeline would be a quite convoluted pain to organise! I was trying to think of a parallel to an English-language world event, and the closest I came to was Operation Fairbank, which obviously didn't progress far. I'm not opposed to offshoots, but it does seem to separate a bit too much. When all of this has died down, something like "Investigations related to Operation Car Wash" or "Car Wash Scandal Investigations". - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

offshhots? spinoffs? Just brainstorming here Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

How about this? Just riffing on Chris’s introduction of the term Investigations: what if we call it Operation Car Wash Investigations, and alter the scope so it’s no longer “offshoots” and we don’t have to define what’s “original OCW” and what’s an “offshoot”, we just include it all? That would mean a new H3 section at the top for 2014, and the investigations that happened that year, but that just seems to make the article more coherent as a topic, and finesses the title question so that the problem with desdobramentos just goes away. Just because pt-wiki does it one way, we don’t have to slavishly follow their lead. I think this would be better as a topic, and as a title. What about it? Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This morning I thought of 'branches', or maybe "expansion of CW", but investigations is better :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, ChrisWar666. This is only a Draft, so it's easy enough to switch back, but if there's no objection from User:Elinruby, I'll go ahead and move this to Operation Car Wash investigations. We can always come back and revisit this discussion again later, if a better title comes to mind. Mathglot (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. The one I was at earlier had an offshoot of an offshoot (which does not appear to be on our list?). So it might be better if we get away from this branching concept, to something more like a category. This is why I think it's a good idea, anyway. If the word is hard to translate, this particular word is not worth stopping to explain it. "Investigations" is a category and doesn't imply causality, sounds fine to me. Elinruby (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And then there's even "Phases", as suggested below in this discussion; but that word seems to have a particular use at that article which may not make sense here. I'll go with Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations for now, and we can always alter it again if needed. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Split off the 2014 section into a new "phases" article. See subsection #Phases vs. offshoots below for more on this. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, Hello. I haven't read the discussion above, butI'd like to clarify that phases and "desdobramentos" are different things. The phases are the official phases of the Lava Jato operation. The desdobramentos are different operations, which were a consequence, a result of one or more of the Lava Jato phases.

So "Operation Car Wash investigations" seems innapropriate, because such investigations are not exactly part of Lava Jato. An alternative is to have one big article for everything, including the phases and the desdobramentos, then this title might be appropriate. --Bageense^(disc.) 13:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bageense, thanks for your comments. I agree with you, and had already pretty much come to the same conclusions, both about the title of this article, as well as the separate nature of the phases and the offshoots. That's why I already created a separate "Phases" article, and moved phases 1–7 (2014) there. I also thought about the possibility of having everything in one article, but I think the article would be too large and get into WP:SIZESPLIT territory, but we can revisit that again later. In particular, as for the title of this article, I think we should change it to either "spin-offs" or "offshoots" ("outgrowths" is another possibility), and will likely do so, unless there are objections from Elinruby or ChrisWar666. As mentioned earlier, this is still a Draft, and can easily be changed again if needed, but I think this change will settle the matter. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Outgrowth is a good word. I did some work on the "Outside Brazil" section; it isn't clear to me where that stuff goes, but please leave it where it is until I finish translating it. Some of it needs to be cross-referenced, at a minimum, to Panama Papers, and given the reference to Xepa may also belong in "phases". I don't have an opinion on where it ultimately goes, but would like on stable section to figure that stuff out. And no, I don't have an in use flag on it; edits are welcome, I just don't want the text scattered just yet. I expect to have some time to work on this tomorrow. I am free right now but very tired and need to sleep. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Just read Bageense's comment, which is very helpful. Agreed, if that is the case, then two articles is the way to go. Elinruby (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I like outgrowths too, it fits nicely to the branches idea.

Re: split: as long as we can keep everything nice and separate, yet show the link between the main investigation and the outgrowths/offshoots/bleh. I'm not sure how separately WP:RS are treating LJ and the others (not even the media here can decide estadão says 'see desdobramentos' then lists main phases :|. (I heard on the radio we're up to 79(? - actually 69) my Portuguese isn't too good with some numbers, especially when they use ordinals). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

some comparative data on spinoffs, offshoots, and outgrowths

Wherever possible, we should rely on what the sources are saying. Since desdobramentos and fases are used continuously, we should get those right at least, and that means trying to get some data on what reliable sources in English use for these terms. From my first attempt at getting solid data on this, it looks to me like offshoot is a pretty clear #1, followed by spinoff, and then outgrowth. Here's what I found (the numbers represent total google search hits for a quoted search-term query, with no attempt to discount false positives):

• 768 Search: offshoot: (few false positives) Examples:

  an offshoot of the Car Wash corruption probe, has spawned many offshoot investigations, Operation Patron, an offshoot of Car Wash pursuing notorious, In an offshoot from Operation Car Wash, former President Luiz Inácio Lula, campaigns have been another offshoot of Operation Car Wash, arrested on suspicion of taking bribes in offshoot of Operation Car Wash, in an operation that is an offshoot of the Car Wash corruption probe, The Lula case is an offshoot of Operation Lavajato (Car Wash). False+: On Sunday, the Brazilian offshoot of the online news site.

• 487 Search: spinoff (fair number of false positives) Examples:

  is a spinoff of Operation Car Wash in Rio de Janeiro; a spinoff of Operation “Cui Bono?”; false+: Narcos' Jose Padilha Teams With Netflix To Cover Operation Car Wash; 'Big Little Lies' Author Liane Moriarty Has Spinoff in Mind; an organization founded in 1961 as a spinoff of the Brazilian Socialist Party.; Alvopetro, a spinoff of Colombia-focused Petrominerales Ltd. that was sold to...; an organization founded in 1961 as a spinoff of the Brazilian Socialist Party. Doctor Who Spinoff Cast Revealed

• 173 Search: outgrowth (fair number of false positives) Examples:

  Thursday’s operation, dubbed 'Brazil Cost,' an outgrowth of the two-year “Operation Car Wash” probe centered around kickbacks via state-run oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA.; False+: and (b) that the outgrowth of China's Latin America policy has been...; The debacle is an outgrowth of more than a decade of scandals befalling...;

This is not necessarily the only search that could be done, and you have to examine the results carefully to eliminate false positives (I spot-checked, but didn't check comprehensively). Also, this little project does not show whether there is a fourth term out there, that is more popular than any of these three. With that understanding, my current feeling is that we have some data that tends to show that offshoot is the best term for desdobramento, in the context of Operation Car Wash. (Note: I didn't include research here for Fases, partly because that's the other article, and partly because it's a slam dunk: in English, it's phases, by a mile.) Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that another word, desmembramento (or in participial form, desmembrado) is sometimes seen also for these operations. This is a cognate of English "dismembered", which clearly doesn't work here. But "spin-off" is a good translation for this, as it is used when one operation is "desmembrado" ("cut off", so: "spun off") from another. Given the numbers above, and this usage, I suggest we use "offshoots" for desdobramento and "spin-off" for desmembramento (and "spun off" for desmembrado). Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Translation help needed

Introduction

Please add your translation question in an H3 section (=== Question summary ===) below. Provide context in-line, or a give a link to the original text. When you have an uncertain translation inline that you need help with, please use Template:clarify to mark the text you're having trouble with. As an example, you could code:

• blah blah blah {{clarify|text=your attempted translation |reason=Original:text from PT article here |post-text=(see [[Draft talk:Developments_in_Operation_Car_Wash#Translation help needed|talk]])}} more stuff here.

which renders thus:

• blah blah blah your attempted translation more stuff here.

In the link in the |post-text= param, use the subsection you created under "Translation help needed", to link directly to your question.

Before asking a question below, here are a couple of techniques that might provide the answer:

• ask google for the definition
• use the Interwiki lookup technique

Ask google for the definition

Ask google directly for a definition of a term, in both languages:

• O que e a Policia Federal? – (What is the "Policia Federal"?) Try it: O que e a Policia Federal?
• What is the Policia Federal do Brasil? – Try it: What is the Policia Federal do Brasil?

Interwiki lookup technique

Before asking a question below, see if Wikipedia interwiki links don't already answer your question for you. Example: if you're wondering what PF in Portuguese means and how to say it in English, go to Portuguese Wikipedia and look for it. On the dab page it takes you to, find the "Policia Federal" link and click it; in the left sidebar of the Portuguese article, scroll down to the language links and click English. When you get to the English page, the page title "Federal Police of Brazil" is the answer to your question.

oferecer fuga a X

Resolved.       "to offer X an opportunity to escape"

Does this mean, "offering to help X escape" ? Example: Delcídio chegou até a oferecer fuga a Cerveró my attempt: "Delcídio went so far as to offer Cerveró an opportunity to escape" context: pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato#Prisão de Delcídio do Amaral Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Correct. "Oferecer fuga" is a bit unusual, in my opinion, but I checked and it does mean that. Delcídio offered an escape to Paraguay, more precisely. It can only mean that he offered an opportunity for Cerveró to escape. --Bageense(disc.) 15:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks! This is really helpful. Just having this section here, where editors like myself and Elinruby can get our questions answered in a structured format, is really great. This could be expanded to other articles; maybe I should write an essay about it. There's no magic here, but just having the structure of the {{clarify}} templates, plus the linkage to this section, is already providing immediate benefit to the article. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

colaboração premiada

No consensus; "rewarded informing" and many other candidates. See also, delação premiada.  Discussion ongoing...

Draft:OCW-G term Example: a Polícia Federal prendeu o senador Delcídio do Amaral, por tentar dificultar a colaboração premiada de Nestor Cerveró my attempt: legal immunity context: (same section as the one above) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Draft:OCW-G term Incorrect. "Colaboração premiada" is a more like a method. It is used by the Federal Police to dig deeper into the inverstigations and discover more crimes and find new criminals. It is a bit hard to explain but let me try using that context: Cerveró was arrested, he was in Police's custody. Fact. But Cerveró might be a dead end street, say. So instead of simply arresting him and getting the money back, his lawyers and the police make an agreement. Cerveró will then mention more people involved in corruption in exchange for less jail time or no jail time. Delcídio doesn't want that to happen for obvious reasons, so he offers Cerveró an opportunity to flee to Paraguay. So how should that be translated? Well, we'll have to be creative. --Bageense(disc.) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Literally it means "rewarded collaboration", and that is precisely what that is. But readers won't understand what exactly that is --Bageense(disc.) 15:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @Bageense: Thanks for the feedback! Yes, I'm aware of the literal translation; it's precisely because that doesn't call anything to mind for English speakers as far as a specific police or legal tactic, that I figured we needed some other phrasing. Or perhaps an {{Efn}} note. It sounds closer to plea bargaining, except I rejected that, as it wasn't clear to me that Cerveró would go to jail or stay longer in jail if he didn't collaborate (so, the "reward" is either no jail, or less jail time). But if you think that he would have, and that the investigators were offering a clear quid pro quo (to offer a phrase much used in recent days), then plea bargain might be exactly the right phrase. What do you think? If "plea bargain" is not right either, then we probably need an explantory note. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC) This is also also referred to as "award-winning" testimony. I wrote something about this in the translation notes on the Operation Car Wash talk page. I do not recall the details at the moment but this tactic was authorized in a specific piece of legislation. Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC) No, I really don't think so; that's not it at all. I saw your comment at OCW: "award-winning report/performance/file/submission" is testimony given in return for a sentence reduction but that's a word-for-word translation, which completely gives the wrong impression. I don't know if it's an exact equivalent to plea bargain, but that's what it sounds like. Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC) If it's wrong someone please explain it to me, then, because it comes up a lot in these articles. Bankers get hefty sentences then become cooperating witnesses. "Award-winning testimony" is what comes out of machine translation. My objection to the phrase as a native english speaker is that "award-winning" usually comes up in the context of an actor giving an "award-winning" performance, meaning that they won an Oscar or an Emmy or whatever for that performance. I have *never* seen "award" used in either English or French to mean a sentence reduction. And strictly speaking, I think these are depositions not testimony. But again, my Portuguese is at a reading-only level, and not all that good even at that level, so if I am wrong, that is fine, please instruct me. Elinruby (talk) On re-reading, perhaps that is what you are saying. If so I agree that we should be using something other than "award-winning testimony" to describe this. "Plea bargain" is close if I understand this correctly but this is conditioned on cooperation with prosecutors, I gather, whereas "plea bargain" is a guilty plea, often to a lesser charge, but definitely for a lesser sentence, which *may* be conditioned on cooperation, but could also be in return for not insisting on a court trial Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Elinruby:I guess it could be plea bargaining, yes (and is referenced in the plea bargaining article). While it is more to do with when they Turn state's evidence, the 'colaboração' in this case is the evidence/deposition (edit conflicting, off to read) provided. The plea bargaining article suggests that defendants plead guilty to lesser crimes to reduce/escape their sentence. Various examples, e.g. Brazil and Japan, seem to refer more to turning state's evidence; there seems to be some overlap in the ideas. Maybe plea bargaining with the addition of turning state's evidence? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Elinruby and ChrisWar666: Neither legal concepts, nor words in a language in general, line up exactly in different countries and languages. Elinruby, I know you use the example of juge d'instruction as a legal concept that does not translate easily, because the legal concept doesn't really exist in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. So, not all of these terms will have perfect, one-for-one translations. Sometimes, an English expression can be found that might be very close and can be used; other times, there isn't a good translation, and it might be better to stick with the original term in Portuguese, with either a brief inline explanation, or maybe better, a longer one in an explanatory note, like, say, in the case of quid pro quo, which doesn't really have an exact English equivalent, although several expressions are fairly close. In a case like this, adding an explanatory note following the original term, italicized, and in the foreign language, may be the best way to go. Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I think that might be best in this case, as we don't have an exact parallel (even though the interwiki link goes to plea bargaining, that's questionable). I mean, we can call them snitches, or state's evidences, but those (to me at least) usually have charges dropped, instead of reduced. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Well, coming back to juge d'instruction, I believe that this is essentially what Moro was. The Portuguese legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. I don't remember how that happened, but I looked it up once when I was struggling to understand all the court systems in the Dilma Rousseff thing. It is now pretty different from the French system, based on my imperfect understanding, but even more different from the British/American common law system. It is a civil law system, which btw is not the same thing as civil vs criminal law in the common law system. I translated many of those articles.Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC) @Elinruby: Coming back to the original question of I'm inventing a term here: rewarded informing. It's awkward, and doesn't ring a bell for an English reader, so I wouldn't use it in an article (except in a note explaining the literal meaning of an expression), but it captures the essence, so it can serve as a good shorthand for us to remember what it is. Plea bargaining is part of it for sure, in that the law specifies very specific reductions in sentence; but it's not the only part. Also, the term is the process, not the guy(s) involved. The other half of it, beyond the plea bargain, results from a formalized exchange, a contract almost or maybe even it is one, in that in return for either turning in his accomplices (that's one possible "informing" part), or by helping out the investigation in other ways: by whistleblowing, or by other means (that's another), he gets the specific reductions in his own sentence prescribed by the law (the "reward" or plea bargain part). One last thing: the term colaboração premiada is the common term; that's not the legal one. They law calls it, pt:Delação premiada, which is the name of the pt-wiki article about it. Delator is a whistleblower, or informer; Delação is the noun from it, so (gerund) "whistleblowing", or "informing". So, "rewarded informing" (or, "whistleblowing"). That's pretty close to plea bargain, except that plea bargaining can be in exchange for other things (typically, a weak prosecution case that might not succeed on a stronger charge; no collaboration or informing is necessary in a case like that), so there is not an exact match between colaboração premiada (or Delação premiada) and Plea bargain, which is only half of it. So, I think this is another case where we should stick with the original, Portuguese term, a italicized, and with an {{Efn}} explanatory note immediately following the first occurrence in a section. (If it occurs again, but in other sections, we can use WP:NAMEDREFS to recall the same Note again, upon first occurrence there.) Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC) @Mathglot: Encouraged/coerced whistle-blowing perhaps? Whistle-blowing conjures an image of someone who wants to help, someone who sees a crime or problem and wants to stop it. This group of people (probably) couldn't care less about helping, they're just trying to save their own hides. I'm not adverse to rewarded informing, but reward is usually... good. Encouraged informing? Also, I think colaboração or delação are interchangeable, the (news) radio station I'm listening to right now just mentioned a pt:Delação premiada, and there are rap songs using delator in a rhyme. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) @ChrisWar666: Negotiated informing? Also, because the original is two words, we seem to be tacitly trying to come up with two word equivalents. But there’s no need to constrain ourselves that way, if three works better. Plea-bargained informing? Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Fine by me, my worry was that plea bargain was just for pleading guilty, the addition of 'informing' (if we don't want to use snitching... :D) fixes that :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC) just noting that the BBC refers to the big Odebrecht agreement (77 executives in multiple countries) as a "leniency deal" here Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Notes

prisão preventiva

"Preventive detention", sort of; but not quite.  Discussion ongoing...

Draft:OCW-G term This seems as though it should mean being arrested or held preventively, but as I have mentioned elsewhere my portuguese is beyond iffy. Google is calling it pre-trial detention, but I am guessing it is something more like the French garde à vue, ie not actually charged with anything. Input welcome, using "preventive detention" for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Context? Link? Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Elinruby, Prisão preventima means to simply be arrested because you might interfere negatively in the investigations, so they keep you arrested before trial. While you're arrested under that "modality" you can contribute to the investigations via a "colaboração premiada" --Bageense(disc.) 15:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Ok, garde a vue is mostly used with terrorism suspects, but the idea might be similar. "Preventive detention" might be the wrong word though if goal is to prevent a cover-up not prevent more crimes. So maybe Google is right about this. "Pre-trial detention" is definitely more neutral, and apparently more accurate. Side note, these "temporary" arrest warrants would be for this type of detention I guess?Elinruby (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC) removing preventive detention and going with pre-trial detention for now Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, it's confusing even for those of us who know Portuguese :P. Reading this article we learn that: prisão preventiva is to safeguard society, or if they disregard any cautions they have received and needs to be ordered by a judge; prisão temporária is only during the police investigation, and has a limit of 5 (and another 5) days. PT needs to be requested by the police/prosecution, so it's basically for questioning and investigation at the start of a crime. PP is, as you suggest, to stop further crimes and interference in the investigation, as decided by a judge. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC) so "prisão temporária" is what happens when you are detained by the investigating judge? It sounds like "preventive" may not be all that wrong as a translation of "prisão preventiva" then. For clarity, in the United States "pre-trial detention" is for someone who has been arrested but not yet tried, who is incarcerated either because they were denied bail or because they could not raise the bail amount. I am explaining this because I can't tell from your user page where you live and/or which legal systems you may be familiar with. Thank you for any brain power you apply to this, btw, I appreciate the help Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I guess I don't need to ping you? ;) Anyway, from what I understand: temporária is from the police, for questioning, as in the UK 'in police custody' (detained for questioning?). It is not on remand, as it doesn't seem to last until trial (again, reading more now). Preventiva is from the judge, so that would be 'held on remand'/'remanded in custody' (our article suggests 'pre-trial detention' as a possibility, with a note that Europeans tend to use 'preventative detention', which is basically the BR-PT here.) Sorry, I thought I'd left that info around somewhere, I guess I'll have to update my Userpage :). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Meep, sorry, I should have looked closer first. Here says that the temporária does need to be signed off by a judge, while still suggesting that it is asked for by the police. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Ping is useful but I have been in and out today and am seeing your comments when I come to the talk page with questions. Probably a good idea to ping if you haven't seen me for a few days. Meanwhile, trying to digest your comments, doing nothing about them for now. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC) so "prisão temporária" requires a judge? Is it an investigating judge such as Moro? Remember, Brazil's legal system is similar to the French and has what the French call a "juge d'instruction" -- so it sounds like he can have someone detained for up to five days for questioning? Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I have no idea about law, so I'll have to have a look at this. Updating: I would draw a parallel to Powers_of_the_police_in_England_and_Wales#Detention_after_arrest where a magistrate's court has to authorise a longer detention span. As this is for early-stage criminal investigation, I'd say it wouldn't need an investigating judge per sé (although he has used this power before). I'll try looking for an en:wiki article on the Brazilian legal system - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Updated 00:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC) The #Interwiki lookup technique described above does a good job in this case of translating the term prisão preventiva: go to prisão preventiva on the Portuguese wiki in the left sidebar, find the list of interwiki language links look for English in the list, and click the link this takes you to the en-wiki article, "Preventive detention". This is the answer. Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Sort of, a link to "Remanded in custody" or "pre-trial detention" (Europeans use "preventative detention") would be more specific. Our article on Preventive detention suggests it's more usual for after serving sentences, not before (although our articles, again, are mixing and matching). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC) @ChrisWar666:, Hm, you're right. What do you think ought to happen here? Either our article on Preventive detention needs a new Preventive detention#Brazil section that specifically says that contrary to many other jurisdictions, "preventive detention" in Brazil is pre-trial; or else, the language link for pt-wiki at d:Q10354054 needs to be removed. The bottom line is, is pt:prisão preventiva a false cognate for preventive detention, and actually means something else? Or, is it kinda/sorta the same, and the scope of our en-wiki article isn't broad enough yet to contain it and needs expansion? How do you see this? I've adjusted the Glossary term a bit based on your comment, but depending how this turns out, it may need to be updated further. Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) (Moved Glossary link to section head). I wouldn't say it's exactly a false cognate, it's just that preventive detention in English is broader, and the more specific term pt:prisão preventiva (and the Peruvian one, as per our Preventive detention, perhaps more) should get shunted over to our more specific, pre-trial term Remand, although "there is no universally agreed definition of preventive detention" which makes it that much harder. I would also suggest using arrest for some of these situations, as the moment of prisão would be arrest in English (don't even look at the interwiki over there. you'll cry. I'm not sure what the French use the arrest cognate for, but the PT article seems to talk about debt collection of goods!) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

depositions about coercive conduct [pt]

A type of summons. No consensus; condução coercitiva is not easily translated in 2 words.

This is the current text in the lede my proposed edit: coercive conduct depositions. Yes, this still needs work, but these are depositions taken under sanctioned pressure from the prosecutors, not *about* coercive conduct, no? Elinruby (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Elinruby:, I noticed this topic popping up in various Lava Jato-related articles, and I'm creating a stub article about it for en-wiki, and at that point, we can just link to it. The term Condução coercitiva is one of those terms that does not translate well, at least, not in a two-word expression in English that is going to mean anything to an English-speaking audience. If it comes up just once, I'd leave it in the original, in italics, with either a brief, inline explanation, or an {{Efn}} note. You can also go ahead and redlink it as a wikilink, as I should have the article ready in a day or two at most. People can click through to the article for a longer explanation, if they want it.Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Agreed with Math. Do we have any cases where a subpoena/court's summons is issued and the police enforce it? That's roughly the idea (at least, to this layman). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC) good idea. It is going to come up over and over. All of the people around Odebrecht and Cunha for a start Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Elinruby and ChrisWar666:, Okay, I think I understand what it is, now (with one tiny piece still missing); just not sure if there's a good expression for it in English. The condução coercitiva is the legal paper (issued by a judge, I think; I'll have to go back and look) to authorize the police to bring someone (innocent) in to help resolve some police or judicial process, and only after previous summonses have been issued to the person requesting their appearance, and have been ignored. It's like a "super-summons"; or more like, "police-enforced summons". I had thought of "compulsory appearance", but that's not strong enough, because, say, going to jury duty is "compulsory", but people skip out on it, anyway. A term like "police-enforced subpoena" gives a sense of it, but those are my words. Condução coercitivais what happens, after they've asked you nicely, via a summons (Intimação) to show up for some legal procedure they need you for (testify, expert witness, victim, etc.), and you don't show up. At that point, if the state wants to insist on your appearance, then the condução coercitiva comes into play as the next step, and your appearance is compelled by the state with the legal justification of the CPP and the force of the police behind it; i.e, they grab your ass if you don't come quietly. It's not an "arrest", because that word is reserved for someone who committed a crime, or who is suspected of committing one; and this isn't the case here. (If they arrest you for skipping jury duty, that wouldn't be condução coercitiva, it would simply be an arrest for breaking a law requiring your attendance; a theoretical condução coercitiva-like action following your skipping jury duty, would be to send the sheriff to your house, compel you to go with them, while they take you to jury duty and make you attend by force, if necessary, without charging you with any infraction, or arresting you. I.e., it's a way for them to compel you to assist the forces of justice; not arrest you for skipping out on a legal obligation.) So, the condução coercitiva is kind of your "final notice"; only I think it goes beyond that, since they don't necessarily wait for you to respond to it, I don't think— that's the last missing bit for me, as I'm not quite sure if the condução coercitiva gives you one last chance to come in peacefully, or if it's accompanied at the same time by the sheriff with paper in hand, knocking on your door, and ready to take you in by force if you refuse again; I think it's the latter. I'm also not 100% sure if when the sheriff shows up to get you, if that is also considered condução coercitiva, but I think not; that is merely the enforcement action of the condução coercitiva, just like the enforcement of any legal writ or summons, so that the condução coercitiva is the CPP-authorized writ, that allows the police to come get you. I would use the term in the original, in italics, with an explanation in a note, plus a link to the forthcoming en-wiki stub article. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, I see that ChrisWar666 already said this, and I didn't even notice it; I was focused on Elinruby's question. Well, good; that means we have the same reading of it, I think. And I don't know either, if we have anything like that in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I am not sure either. (Sorry about the edit conflicts, I was replying to various posts before heading out to do some adulting for the day.) Note to the unwary, this also shows up as "coercive driving" in machine translation. And yes, we must not rely on machine translation, but some of the pt/es sources that have an English version use it. I sort of understand where this comes from: conduire is to drive in French, so there is some common etymology with conduct somewhere way back probably. Anyway, need to go, will try to help reference/expand your draft later, thank you for all the help you provide. My actual question was "about" though -- as you and I have seen, it's the things it doesn't know about grammar that make the MT so wrong sometimes. Remember that thing with WW2 in Brittany where someone's MT had taken 'it was not until year x that the fighting started' and turned it into 'there was no fighting in year x"?Elinruby (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Right, had a look at an article (written at the time Lula was.. err... "driven" to Moro, I believe) and technically: yes, you need a summons/intimação first; the judge can get the police to bring the person in, I guess the choice you have at this point is to go peacefully or get 'cuffed; the judge can also choose to send an "oficial de justiça" (bailiff - pre-2014 UK meaning) to escort you (with or without police support). It has been classified as a temporary restriction on the right of free movement (i.e. cautionary legal measure). condução coercitiva would refer to the process (i.e. Judge M requests the condução coercitiva of L) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Yes; except for: precautionary, not cautionary. It's not a warning; rather, they're taking precautions; namely, that you will definitely be there for whatever judicial process they need you for, and not skip out when they need you. This replaced a previous type of temporary detention (prisão por averiguação) that was ruled unconstitutional in 1989 after the new Constitution came into force. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Ok, getting back to the main point, my apologies for not catching it earlier, @Elinruby: the about is a problem with prepositions. Deposition (statement?) given under .... (police-enforced summons/subpoena? Although it can be a bailiff, it's usually police). I'd also try and shy away from using too much legal language, at least in a summary like this. Subpoena seems quite USA-centric to my non-legal sensibilities. (@Mathglot: Yes, last section above should be precautionary. I've been here so long I'm turning native! :P)- ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) @ChrisWar666:, I know what that's like; when I was living in France, you should have heard all the Americans who had been there for some time, talking about how much "caution" they had to pay to move in to their new apartment (caution = "security deposit"). Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Please have a look at how I've handled this with a named explanatory note ({{efn}}). You can see the little superscript, lower case 'a' in the WP:LEAD which gets you to Note 'a' in the References section. For other occurrences of the same term, you can code ''condução coercitiva''{{Efn|name="cc"}} and it will link the same note. These bring up the text you can see at Note a; please modify as necessary. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC) I'm thinking of expressions like "compulsory deposition" (if it has to be short), or "compulsory appearance for [or, 'to provide'] investigative assistance", if a few more words are okay in context. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

indicação

Ex: "...por indicação política do.." No consensus;  Discussion ongoing...

example :"se tornou presidente da Transpetro, por indicação política do PMDB para garantir apoio ao governo, por 11 anos" this is in Operation Catalinárias -- I think it means "appointed", and I guess the PMDB appointed him in a Lula government because it was a coalition government? I know Rousseff's administration had a PMDB vice president, didn't it? Just noting here that I am making a guess here, MT giving "indicated", which I am pretty sure is wrong. Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I don't think they directly appointed anybody, as the president would have to 'choose' and sign off on the appointments. I believe it's more like a suggestion from the MDB, which the government then accepted (government distributing positions), to get votes and support in congress. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Elinruby, It means to indicated someone. To suggest someone or something. "He indicated me a good book". The meaning is the same, although I'm not sure whether such a political indication by a political party has a formal element in it. But that's not important, I guess --Bageense(disc.) 00:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Nominated? named? I guess what I am confused about is what the PMDB has to do with it. Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC) indicated in English means hmmm to "imply" or to "show", as in "the records indicate". An older meaning is something like "pointed at", as in "the princess indicated Sir so and so to be her champion in the joust" Anyway, the full story here is probably something deep about the balance of power in a coalition, for now I will go with "nominated" unless someone objects Elinruby (talk) I suppose nomination could be ok. The PMDB got the job in return for supporting the PT. Think jobs for votes scandals ;) It does have to do with being a coalition, but it's (perhaps wrongly) got a reputation as 'buying' support - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC) @Elinruby: I can't find your example sentence, or even short fragments of it like "por 11 anos", anywhere on the "Desdobramentos" page. It's not at pt:Operação Catilinárias, either. Where did you get that sentence from? I'd like to view the context to be able to help better. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) I don't think context is so important here, this has been talked about in Br politics a fair bit recently, and was a contributing factor to Bolsonaro's win. Basically there is/was a quid pro quo/positions for votes system going on (Portuguese: Toma lá, dá cá or similar) where parties pledged (=sold) their support to bigger parties, in return for promised cabinet positions, director/management positions in state companies and 'jobs' that politicians can create (advisers, helpers, etc.). These parties don't actually have power to put people in those positions, only the president/governor/mayor does. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC) (P.s. the sentence is in Sérgio Machado (político) over in pt.wiki)

presidente da Câmara

Resolved.       Definitely 'president' (not 'mayor'); just Google MT having a bad hair day.

Google wants to translate this as "mayor" for some reason but I am fairly certain Cunha was president of the Chamber of Deputies. I looked at his bio, and saw nothing there about being mayor of anything, deleted his title pending confirmation. Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC) This is in the Operação Catilinárias section Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Google's gone crazy. President_of_the_Chamber_of_Deputies_(Brazil) :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC) No, Google is doing what Google does. It is normal. That's why WP:MACHINETRANSLATION says, Machine translation almost always produces very low-quality results. Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. Please don't be surprised when Google gets it wrong, and please do not rely on Google translation. It's fine to use it, as I do, to save typing a lot of words that come out right, but you can't just assume that it is translated correctly. The #Interwiki lookup technique described above provides the right answer, which is the one you suspected: President of the Chamber of Deputies (Brazil). You can use the WP:PIPETRICK to code [[President of the Chamber of Deputies (Brazil)|]], and it will render as President of the Chamber of Deputies, which works in this context. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I'm not particularly surprised, just wondering how google went from president to mayor, as mayor is prefeito. I didn't suspect, but interwiki lookup needs to be suspected. It's not as bad as a machine translation, of course, but it's sometimes very messy, as you pointed out above, as there are no 'direct' translations at times. (I was trying to find something about bricklaying, masonry, alvenaria and... I forget what the other term was. It's confusing!) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Mathglot and I met on the Pages needing translation list so we know about bad machine translation. Although I must say that Cunha as wedge is one of my favorites. I consider it a useful tool no more, to be used warily. I do have to use it for Portuguese, but no I do not blindly accept it and this is the basis for many of my questions. I am if anything overly cautious in this context; I usually do French->English. Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC) My favorite one was "mushroom wagons", but I don't remember where that one was from, anymore. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC) same editor, same batch of articles. He was taking "pièce" as "pieces", which it indeed can sometimes mean, and the only thing that had pieces in the article was this little rail system. But it also means "rooms" and the dimensions given in the article made it clear that this was the meaning. He hadn't noticed because he was mass-producing MT Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Agree with Chris, that you need to be aware when using interwiki lookup as well. The benefit of that, however, is that when there isn't a good equivalent, interwiki lookup usually goes cold; i.e, there is no equivalent article. The advantage of interwiki lookup, is that it (usually) has multiple human editors behind it, at least, if it's not some dusty corner of the encyclopedia that nobody looks at. Which isn't to say that Wikidata can't get the associations wrong; I know I've fixed a bunch of them myself, or unlinked articles that didn't belong together. However, at this point, it's still pretty good. In any case, I rely more on Linguee.pt (and Linguee.fr for French) as it's not a translation engine, but a database of already-translated articles; there's no claim of which one is "right"; you can go look what human translators have done before, and see if you agree with any of them. I like that approach. If you can find an interwiki that agrees with an expression that is the choice of a preponderance of translators at Linguee, I think you have a winner. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Cunha is wedge? Hahaha that is something I did not know! Thanks for providing some entertainment to get my mind off an impending edit war (I did the B and D, someone did the R... but not talking :|) Yeah, interwiki is definitely good, linguee and (I forget the other one I use) are better. The problem might not even be with machine translation, but with PT-BR editors not having a significant grasp of English to correctly translate things. That's where we come in (but some 'apparently' fine translations that aren't such will get through) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Yes, and apparently it is also a rude word for lady parts. Or so someone said over at Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. But yes, this is not an isolated problem. Ran into it in one of the translations I did last night. If someone's name is a word that means something in the language being translated, MT will try to translate it. Something to watch out for. Found out about this because I had to get very insistent about what the hell is a wedge proposal befor I could get one of the Portuguese people to look at the sentence. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC) "Yes, and apparently it is also a rude word for lady parts.". Never heard of the word Cunha being used that way --Bageense(disc.) 00:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Shrug, I don't know. I got the impression that this was an elderly gentleman someplace rural, perhaps it's a dated term. Someone did tell me that though for whatever it may be worth. DOesn't really matter because in these articles Cunha should remain Cunha and not be translated as wedge, that's the bottom line. I am a little sad to hear it is not in wide use though, as it would have explained so much about the guy, hehe. Elinruby (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) I can only assume they were saying Cunha was an insult. I checked dicionário informal and it had no mention (although the description of 'fitting in to places'... hmmm) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Elinruby, I haven't read the discussion above, but "mayor" is completely wrong. --Bageense(disc.) 00:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC) thank you for confirming. It was weird enough as a translation that I went to see if maybe that was what he was before he was in the Câmara. Kinda surreal. Maybe sometimes the backend gnomes get a headache Elinruby (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Not weird. Repeat after me: "Google translation, ba-aa-a-a-a-a-d. Bad, bad, bad." Not a surprise. Not weird. Not surreal. Normal. Google translates something incorrectly = normal. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Collapsing to save vertical space on resolved question; feel free to un-collapse if desired. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

a de e seu filho

Resolved.       Problem in original (extra e)

This completely confuses me. This is from #Operação O Quinto do Ouro: A operação teve como principal suporte, além da delação do ex-presidente do TCE fluminense, a de e seu filho, homologadas recentemente pelo ministro do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), Felix Fischer, que autorizou os mandados de prisão e condução coercitiva. (In addition, it looks like a possible copy-paste from this article at O Globo, which has the identical text.) What the heck is "a de e seu filho" doing here, and how does one translate it? Any thoughts, @Bageense, ChrisWar666, and MYS77:? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Mathglot, a (delação) de seu filho. The word delação is simply ommited to avoid repetition. But the conjuncion "e" shouldn't be there. That is wrong. --Bageense(disc.) 12:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Bageense, Oh my gosh, thanks; that one had me completely confused! It all makes sense, now. Mathglot (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been resolved; collapsing to save vertical space; feel free to un-collapse and add to the discussion. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

a capilaridade da rede de negócios

Resolved.       Various possibilities were discussed, and one was chosen.

In context: A operação revelou a capilaridade da rede de negócios de Dario Messer, o “doleiro dos doleiros”, cujo sistema paralelo de compensações conciliava interesses de clientes de doleiros distintos... —source: #Operação Marakata Suggestions: extensive, with tentacles everywhere, comprehensive coverage, highly detailed network, better network coverage, ... The metaphor about the capilaridade da rede is striking, and immediately called to mind one of those human circulatory system diagrams you see in a biology textbook of the human body, with arteries and veins coming out of the heart (Messer) and branching out, getting smaller and smaller and smaller until the capillaries reach every cell in the body. So, it's a system with "tentacles everywhere", or "complete coverage", or "an extensive and detailed network" or something like that. I was actually able to find a website discussing the term itself: "The Word of the Business World", which pretty much confirmed the striking image. The website describes it this way: No mundo dos negócios, quando você tem diversas unidades e seu hotel (uma rede), você tem maior capilaridade, ou seja, maior cobertura de mercado. However, that still leaves the question about how to render this in English. I'll probably just go with "highly detailed", or "extensive and detailed" or something like that at the outset, but looking for suggestions for something better. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC) I went with comprehensive and detailed business network in this case. Collapsing as resolved. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

um desmembramento das operações

An odd one; weird in the original.

Normally, this should pretty clearly be "dismembering" or "break-up". But it seems like it might be the opposite here: In context: Operação Descontaminação é um desmembramento das operações Radiotividade, Pripyat e Irmandade, no âmbito da Operação Lava Jato, deflagrada no dia 21 de março de 2019, pela Polícia Federal do Brasil, que investiga... —source: pt:Operação_Descontaminação. You start off with three things, and you end up with one thing: so, maybe here it's a "mash-up" or a "recomposition" or even just "[re-]combination". The way I read it, if there's any "break-up" or "dismembering" here, it's only to take the three operations apart, and put them back together again. Or, was desmembramento simply the wrong word in the Portuguese original, and it should perhaps have been desdobramento instead--in which case, spin-off or offshoot would make more sense here? Any thoughts, ChrisWar666 or Bageense? Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Mathglot, Desmembramento is in fact the correct word. I checked the pt source and there is no mystery there. It's just a "desdobramebto" of more than one operation. --Bageense(disc.) 00:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC) @Bageense:, thanks. Well, we'll have to find something that makes sense in English other than "break-up" or "dismembering"; because breaking up three things and ending up with one, is logically nonsensical in English. Maybe "follow-up investigation to the three operations A, B, and C", or something like that. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Even in Portuguese it doesn't make much sense. --Bageense(disc.) 01:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC) I was going to add this up top, with the main article name discussion: This whole story of 'desdobramento' started off when the (STF?) court redistributed the LJ investigations (if not related exclusively to Petrobras) to different judges/courts/what-have-you. Here, desmembramento would be a synonym of desdobramento, in the sense that information out of the scope of the original investigation(s) was placed (broken/split off/outgrew) into a new investigation. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

pessoas com foro privilegiado

Resolved.     Covered in the Glossary.

Is this just, "privileged persons"? What is foro even doing in there? Context: A operação focou a parte do esquema que repassava dinheiro só para o PMDB porque a parte do PT, não envolvendo pessoas com foro privilegiado, tramita na Justiça Federal do Paraná. Source:' pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato#Operação Leviatã My attempt: The operation focused on the part of the scheme where money was distributed only to the PMDB because the PT's part, since it doesn't involve privileged persons, is being processed in the Federal Court of Paraná. And, what are "privileged persons" anyway? VIPs? The wealthy class? Certain politicians? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC) User:PauloMSimoes, can you offer any assistance with this? I understand all the words in Portuguese individually, just not what they mean together. Is this just "rich people"? The question is, What are pessoas com foro privilegiado? You can see the original usage here. Not asking you to translate into English; rather, I'd like an explanation of what that expression means, in that particular context. Feel free to respond in Portuguese. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Mathglot, pt-wiki have the article Foro especial por prerrogativa de função or "Special forum by function prerogative" - this is the technical definition - (same as "foro privilegiado") As examples, the President of Brazil, Senators, Federal Deputies, State Deputies, ministers of State; Governors (all when in office) have "foro privilegiado", according to Brazilian Constitution, that means, when committed High crimes and misdemeanors are tried in a superior court, according the type of competence (Supreme Federal Court; Superior Court of Justice; Superior Electoral Court; Superior Military Court; Regional Courts; Electoral Courts; and the courts of justice of the States) as in the topic Foro especial por prerrogativa de função#Brasil/Constituição de 1988.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks, PauloMSimoes, that's a big help! Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Mathglot I have slightly modified the template parameters in article, as detailed in summary. I hope your approval.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Hi, Paulo, and thanks for your comments. The English expression special court by function prerogative doesn't really work very well in explaining it to an English speaker, which is why we kept it in Portuguese, with an explanation in the note. It seems mysterious and cryptic, or just gobbledygook. Another way to see this, is to perform this quoted search: "special court by function prerogative". Notice that there are zero results for this expression. On the entire internet, this phrase has never occurred (until Google finds your edit; then there will one occurrence). So, unfortunately, that doesn't work. At least the two-word expression "foro privilegiado" is valid and used: the search ("foro privilegiado" has thousands of results). Maybe someone else will have an idea how to express this in English in just a few words, but using an English expression which makes no sense to me as a native speaker, and is also unknown on the internet, doesn't help the reader. Unless someone comes up with a better alternative in English, it's probably best to leave it in Portuguese with an explanatory note. Thanks again for your comments above, which were key to coming up with the explanation of foro privilegiado. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Thattaway: Parliamentary immunity (leaving resolved off, but this is 'foro privilegiado' :) I'm just not sure if it applies to non-legislators, and am off to work now, so can't check, sorreh) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC) @ChrisWar666: I’m not reading this as immunity at all; what makes you say that? It appears to be a kind of “professional courtesy” for bigwigs under prosecution to skip the lower courts that we plebes have to go through, so they get the high-powered tribunals and judges right away, to spare them the embarrassment of dealing with the yokels in the lower courts. The Constitution spells out which bigwig positions are included. It’s not immunity from the charges. Are you seeing something I’m not? Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC) This is resolved, and is a constitutionally protected status for certain high officeholders to skip the trial courts and go straight to the court of second instance. See Glossary.

um matagal

"um matagal na beira de uma estrada" is being translated as "scrub", which puzzled me, and made me wonder about car washes. But no, the translations in Linguee are all about undergrowth, so it's scrub as in scrub forest. Except that the word by itself sounds a bit wrong to my ear. This occurs in the last paragraph of Operation Saqueador. Is this essentially saying that one of the addresses is a vacant lot? Thank you to whoever applies brainpower to this issue Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Just exactly that; it's the "vacant lot" thing. They are pointing out that *all* of the addresses are fake addresses; note how empresas is inside scare quotes—i.e., there are no real companies involved, it's all make-believe. And so are the addresses, which are all fake, and turn out to be, not the locations of the fancy headquarters of some big enterprise, but instead "a dentist's office, a plasterer, and a bush by the side of the road". Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, as you know I really don't like machine translation, although there's nothing wrong with using it to save some typing, as long as you don't accept what it's putting out there. If you're going to use one, you might as well use DeepL and not Google, as it gives you a better starting point, and sometimes will offer options. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not fond of it either, but I need it for Portuguese => English. I use it, as in the above, with great caution. The really bad results we have seen have been from people doing one language they don't really speak into another that they don't really speak. I don't have the grammar to translate in my head from Portuguese, but I like to use it even from French, which I speak extremely well, because a) as you mention, it saves typing, and b) it does really well on uncommon specific words like "caravel". It's old words with many meanings that MT messes up, like translating "tour" as "turn" instead of tower. But anyway. I don't know the software you mentioned, but I will look into it. Elinruby (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Yes, agree about the uncommon words, and words that don't have two meanings. When words have several meanings, like condução or prisão then Google MT starts to really go to hell, and even Wiktionary is inadequate (wikt:condução, wikt:prisão). One nice thing about DeepL, well, two nice things: if you translate a shorter bit, like, say, ""um matagal na beira de uma estrada", it might offer you a couple of options to choose from; that's nice. If it's longer, like a paragraph, and has lots of brackets in it for wikilinks, it will leave those alone, which is really nice, so you don't have to go back and piece everything back together again, to see what the original, actual wikilink was. Also, the translations do seem better, to me.

Still, nobody, human or robot, can translate expressions like condução coercitiva or dólar-cabo unless they've looked it up and understood what it really is; and sometimes a short translation is impossible. By the way, I've been trying to add all the terms that would help us, to the Glossary; most especially, the ones where the usual online and printed dictionaries are not so helpful, like condução coercitiva, ólar-cabo, and others. Don't forget that it's there, and feel free to add new entries to it, even if you don't have a translation yet. Stick an {{empty section}} or {{clarification needed}} in there, if you want to add an entry, but don't have a satisfactory translation or explanation yet. My goal is, that every expression we run across in any of the Portuguese OCW-related articles that doesn't have a satisfactory resolution with a dictionary or good online source like Linguee, will have an entry there to explain it, so we don't have to waste hours every time, looking up the same stuff. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Alimentar

The most frequent meaning of Alimentar by far, is "alimentary", or food-related. But there is another sense. Consider this passage:

Após obter o ganho de causa contra o Poder Público, o titular do direito resguardado com a ação judicial passa a ser detentor de um título, denominado de Precatório. Precatório, portanto, nada mais é que o reconhecimento judicial de uma dívida que o ente público tem com o autor da ação, seja ele pessoa física ou jurídica. Os precatórios podem ser de natureza alimentar – quando decorrem de ações judiciais como as referentes a salários, pensões, aposentadorias e indenizações por morte ou invalidez – ou de natureza não alimentar – quando decorrem de ações de outras espécies, como as referentes a desapropriações e tributos.

This passage is clearly not about food. Linguee gives one possible meaning (in other contexts) of "power", as in: O motor alimenta a máquina. ("The motor powers the machine."), or this sense, which seems to be used in some legal contexts, to mean "maintenance": Por último, as partes podem designar a lei aplicável a uma obrigação alimentar, quer para efeitos de um procedimento específico... ("Finally, parties may choose the law applicable to a maintenance claim either for the purpose of a particular proceeding..." But "maintenance" doesn't seem to fit in the passage above, either. So, if it's not about "food" and it's not about "maintenance", then what sense of alimentar is being used here? Adding @Bageense, ChrisWar666, PauloMSimoes, and American In Brazil:. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, 02:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at a translation, with the missing part highlighted:

After winning a case against the government (Poder Público), the holder of the right protected by the lawsuit becomes the holder of a title, called the writ of payment (Precatório). A writ of payment, therefore, is nothing more than the judicial recognition of a debt that the public entity has with the plaintiff, be it an individual or a legal entity. The writs may be of a ????? nature - when they arise from lawsuits such as those referring to wages, pensions, retirements and indemnities for death or disability - or of a non-?????? nature - when they arise from lawsuits of other kinds, such as those referring to expropriations and taxes.

Michaelis has this entry for alimentar; perhaps it's one of those senses? Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: That's a tough one! I had to look it up for some minutes. It turns out, it really has something to do with food. Read this. Ou seja, Precatórios alimentares são aqueles em que a pessoa teve sua fonte de renda prejudicada pelo Governo. That means when a person's income was damaged (I can't find the best word) by the government. I have no idea how to translate that. Law-related vocab is often quite complicated. --Bageense^(disc.) 00:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense:, wow, amazing! That's the *last* thing I expected! Good find, on that website, although that link didn't work for me, although this one did, and appears to be the same one you found, as far as I can tell. Once again, great catch, and thank you! And I agree: law-related vocab is difficult in every language, even one's own language. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed the following message from Paulo, which was added originally to the following section; so just copying it here for proper context. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Bageense: Apologise my English. The expression "precatório de natureza alimentar" in this case, is a legal terminology that obligate priority in precatory payment after sentenced: "Quando as ações judiciais contra o Poder Público dizem respeito a pensões, aposentadorias, salários, indenizações por falecimento ou invalidez, o que temos é o chamado “Precatório Alimentar. A palavra “alimentar” vem do termo “alimento”, ou seja, se refere a qualquer verba relacionada com o sustento do ser humano." See Precatório Alimentar: Entenda de uma vez por todas. This attribute define the priority for precatory payment. Translation: "When the lawsuits against the public administration concern alimony, retirement, salary, indemnities for death or disability, what we have is the so-called 'Precatório Alimentar'. The word "alimentar" comes from the term "food", that is, it refers to any money related to the subsistence of the human being." Thus, imho, the better translation of "natureza alimentar" is "subsistence character". And the traslation of "precatory" don't would better "precatory letter"? PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this at first, because it wasn't in the "Alimentar" section at first, so I copied it here (box, above). So, now we have two native speakers with slightly different opinions on what it means, although this description of "precatory payments" does make sense. If I understand you correctly, Paulo, then the word we would use in English is indeed "subsistence", (or "basic needs", in a less formal context). I'll have to look at this in more detail, because Bageense has a different view. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: "Natureza alimentar" is a legal expression and can't translated to "food nature". We agreed this, ok? So, I suggest two options. 1- Mantain the Portuguese expression "Precatório de Natureza Alimentar" with a footnote "'Precatório de Natureza Alimentar' defines the priority for the payment of a precatory when the lawsuits against the public administration concern alimony, retirement, salary, indemnities for death or disability. The word 'alimentar' comes from the term 'food', that is, it refers to any money related to the subsistence of the human being." 2- Translation of "natureza alimentar" to "subsistence character" or "subsistence nature", that are autoexplicative, I think.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, I've thought some more. The term Precatory is not a good choice in English, because precatory is a false friend; it has to do with wills and testaments in English. Payment is wrong, because it is not a payment, it is a promise of payment (an I.O.U.) which might take two to ten years to complete. In fact, there is no one- or two-word term in English to render precatório in English, because the concept does not exist (for one thing, common law countries like the U.S. have sovereign immunity and you cannot sue a government entity for damages).

Regarding Alimentar in this context, it isn't food, it has to do with writs of payment for damage to an individuals income stream, including the items (in Portuguese) that Paulo listed (see yellow box, above). See the glossary links, to see what you think. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Paulo, yes; after your earlier comment (boxed), I found additional support for it and came to pretty much the same conclusion, that Precatório alimentar cannot be described in a brief expression in English. One slight disagreement: although for a lot of people it might be "subsistence" if they have a low salary, it's really more about any judgment that infringes on an individual's income stream. For a high-powered lawyer or surgeon, it might take a huge bite (maybe hundreds of thousands of US dollars) out of their salary, but that cannot be said to be "subsistence"; but it is a bite out of their income stream, and anything that affects that, if the rich lawyer or surgeon wins a judgment against the government in that area, would be a Precatório alimentar as I understand it, even if it is not a judgment that affects their basic needs or subsistence, but merely their gigantic salary. I totally agree with you about just leaving the term in the original Portuguese in English articles, italicized, with an explanatory footnote, as no simple expression in English can do it justice. I wrote this up in the glossary at WP:Brazil-G#Precatório alimentar; see what you think. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine the glossary ! What about linkink glossary term, opposite to the footnote? I suggest a additional text to WP:Brazil-G#Precatório alimentar, sourced by Precatório Alimentar: Entenda de uma vez por todas: "The main benefit of a precatório alimentar is that it will be paid in priority over those of a precatório comum. The Constitution also provides the possibility that the precatory alimentar be anticipated for the elderly over 60 years old, or people with serious illnesses or with certain types of disabilities. Such anticipation never applies to precatories of a common nature, even if the beneficiary fulfills the requirements."... Without my English mistakes, course.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Chapas de campanha

I think this means "campaign placards" (or "campaign posters"); or is it something else? In context:

O inquérito apura o pagamento, pela empreiteira, de dívidas relacionadas a uma das chapas da campanha de 2012 à Prefeitura de São Paulo, referentes a serviços gráficos no valor de R$ 2,6 milhões de reais.

For full context, see pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato#Operação Cifra Oculta. Adding @Bageense and PauloMSimoes:. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot, "chapas da campanha de 2012 à Prefeitura de São Paulo" means each of 12 candidatures (Mayor and Vice-mayor) listed in 2012 São Paulo mayoral election#Candidates. It's the 6th translation in this list. In this case, you can translate "chapas de campanha" to "political alliance"--PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Hello! Sorry for not being able to help much, I've been busy with real life and pt.wiki-related stuff. PauloMSimoes has already answered your question, but I'm not sure whether political alliance is the best translation. A "chapa" is simply the candidate and vice-candidate. Could you say that Trump and Pence form a political alliance? If so, then political alliance might be the most accurate translation.(Trump and Pence are a "chapa"... if you vote in one, you're also voting in the other.) But remember that a "chapa" can be composed of two candidates of the same political party, such as Jair Bolsonaro and Mourão, both belonging to the PSL, or Trump and Pence, for that matter. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I still can't get the prepositions right. Do you vote "in" a candidate? --Bageense^(disc.) 16:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You vote "for" a candidate, but "in" an election. Examples: "I voted in the off-year election in 2019." I voted for Mr. Jones for chairperson of the Community College District." Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense and PauloMSimoes: Ah, yes, I see what it is, now; we call this a slate ("electoral slate", "slate of candidates", "Democratic slate", "Republican slate", et cetera.) See definition #4 here, or see Slate (elections), Full slate on English Wikipedia. It's quite similar in France, whose electoral procedures I am more familiar with; they can have even more than two, a whole long list of candidates, and when you cast your ballot, you vote for everyone on that list, or nobody on the list. Just like Paulo said, with the president and vice-president, for example; if vote for one, you vote for the other. And as Bageense says, not "alliance", but "slate" of candidates. (Which could be two people, or more, depending on the country, the electoral system, and so on.) With regard to the indented example in Portuguese above, I'm thinking of translating it like this:

The inquest examined the payment of debts by the contractor related to one of the slates of candidates in the campaign for the 2012 São Paulo municipal elections, regarding graphic services in the amount of R$ 2.6 million.

Based on what you both have said, I think this translation should work now, but I wanted to double-check with you. Thanks for all your feedback on this, and other questions; it is extremely helpful keeping the article on track and accurate (And feel free to call on me anytime, for the same type of help in the other direction.) And thanks for the Michaelis dictionary link; I was not familiar with that one. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, if you have time to comment on the question in the #Alimentar section just above, I would appreciate it! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Bageense: Apologise my English.

Portion of this comment by Paulo about "Alimentar" was copied to the section above.

The expression "precatório de natureza alimentar" in this case, is a legal terminology that obligate priority in precatory payment after sentenced: "Quando as ações judiciais contra o Poder Público dizem respeito a pensões, aposentadorias, salários, indenizações por falecimento ou invalidez, o que temos é o chamado “Precatório Alimentar. A palavra “alimentar” vem do termo “alimento”, ou seja, se refere a qualquer verba relacionada com o sustento do ser humano." See Precatório Alimentar: Entenda de uma vez por todas. This attribute define the priority for precatory payment. Translation: "When the lawsuits against the public administration concern alimony, retirement, salary, indemnities for death or disability, what we have is the so-called 'Precatório Alimentar'. The word "alimentar" comes from the term "food", that is, it refers to any money related to the subsistence of the human being." Thus, imho, the better translation of "natureza alimentar" is "subsistence character". And the traslation of "precatory" don't would better "precatory letter"?

Collapsed portion of comment about another topic, and copied it to section above. Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Bageense, "chapa" can be of candidates of different parties (see chapa Dilma-Temer and several candidatures listed in 2012 São Paulo mayoral election#Candidates), Imho, who "has received payment of debts by the contractor related" was the colligation (party/coalition) in article 2012 São Paulo mayoral election#Candidates, not the candidates. Thus, I think yet that is better to translate "chapa" to "political coalition"--PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes:, Regarding chapa: Thanks. As far as whether "chapa" is "slate" or "coalition", let me ask you this: if we are talking about a list, where you vote for everybody on the list (President and Vice-President, for example) together, or nobody on the list (you cannot vote *only* for the President, but not the Vice-President; or vice versa), what would you call that in Portuguese? In English, that is a "slate", regardless if the candidates are in the same party, or different parties. In English, a "(political) slate" means a list of two or more candidates where you choose all or none of them. Given that, do you think "slate" could be the right word here for "chapa"? (By the way, "slate" literally is ardósia, which is what old chalkboards (lousa) used to be made of; so I suppose centuries ago they would write the names of all the candidates on a chalkboard made of slate, and the term "slate of candidates" probably comes from that.) Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot The discuss here is "O inquérito apura o pagamento, pela empreiteira, de dívidas relacionadas a uma das chapas da campanha de 2012..." or "The inquiry investigates the payment, by the contractor, of debts related to one of the [chapas da campanha] of 2012...". The subject isn't voting, but payment of electoral campaign expenses. This money imho, goes to de coalition, not to the candidates.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes:, yes, I understood that it's part of the expenses, and that the money doesn't go to the candidates themselves. I'm sure you're right that the money goes to the political party that runs the campaign, in this case, the party that put forth one of the slates of candidates. So, something like this: "The inquiry investigates the payment, by the contractor, of debts related to one of the campaign slates of 2012." It's not that the money goes to the candidates, but that that's what the expenses were about: one of the slates—maybe to pay volunteer workers, or rent, or phones, or printing posters, running surveys, and so on. Do you agree? Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot [edit conflict] The difference between Paulo and me is that he is analysing that specific scenario, while I'm analysing the idea in general. But Mathglot, the answer to your question is yes, you have to vote for both the pres and vice pres. But a coallition also exists, and thats what Paulo is getting wrong, im my opinion. It is a coalizão or coligação. That happens when different political parties unite to gain strenght. That also happens... but thats a different thing. Chapa means slate, and thats what the text is saying. When candidates campaign, that costs a (lot of) money. I dont think it matters where the money actually went to. Im on mobile and its hard to write and analyse everything here. --Bageense^(disc.) 03:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense:, Thanks again, and don't worry about replying while mobile! I think I understand the meaning, now; and also the slightly different focus between you and Paulo; it's a matter of which part of the statement one is focusing on. This whole discussion is a great example of why translation is so difficult a topic, and why monolinguals who think that you can just plug everything into Google translate (or DeepL, which is perhaps better) and get the right answer, are so mistaken. Machine translation has a long, long, way to go, before it approaches the level of human translators. Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)