Jump to content

Talk:Operation Car Wash/Archive 1

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mtucundu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Winter 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krmaya.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Title Translation

I don't think "Lava Jato" means "Car Wash" in portuguese, but rather any use of a pressure washer (or the washer itself). Maybe "Pressure Wash", "Power Wash" or even "Jet Wash" (Lava - Wash, Jato - Jet) would be better translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.88.6 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that 'lava jato' means 'pressure wash' (literally 'jet wash') but in Brazil 'lava jato' is the name for a car wash because they use a jet spray to clean the car. I know - I just picked up my car from the 'lava jato' where it was washed. Every car wash place in Brazil has a sign 'lava jato' and everyone knows that's a car wash. I believe your comment as well as the discussion below are due to a cultural misunderstanding and not referring to English language sources. Every English news source reporting on the story that I know of has called the scandal 'operation car wash' because that is the term that Brazilians use. There is also another term occasionally used - 'petrolão' - because the scandal involved the state controlled oil company Petrobras. American In Brazil (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Only for a better clarification, expression "lava jato" is wrong in Brazilian grammar (despite this, is the consecrated form to define the operation - and the process of wash cars). The correct spelling is "lava a jato" ("wash by jet"). Strictly, "lava jato" means "wash a jet" (airplane).--PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

PauloMSimoes, I think the title should have never been translated. I suggest we keep the original "Lava Jato", and in the introduction we clarify what it means. --Bageense(disc.) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I Agree, Bageense, as most of interwikis. With a footnote in lead as "The name of the operation - Lava Jato - is originate from the use by a network of gas stations and car washers (called lava jato in Brazil, due to use of jet of pressurized water to wash the cars) to transfer illicit resources of one of the criminal organizations initially investigated. Although the work has advanced to other directions, the initial name was established.", translation of "O nome do caso - Lava Jato - decorre do uso de uma rede de postos de combustíveis e lava a jato de automóveis para movimentar recursos ilícitos pertencentes a uma das organizações criminosas inicialmente investigadas. Embora os trabalhos tenham avançado para outros rumos, o nome inicial se consagrou.", in "Por que Lava Jato?" ("Why Lava Jato?" Look at the correct grammar used in the source ("lava a jato")--PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
PauloMSimoes, Do you think we should open a move proposal? --Bageense(disc.) 20:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Bageense I think that is better to wait more opinions here.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bageense and PauloMSimoes:, typically, en-wiki uses the Requested move process not Rfc for page moves. There were two RMs about this in 2016 (oddly, this discussion is placed above those earlier ones on this Talk page): see here and here. Arguments in those RMs were considered sufficient to support the current title.
The usage of an expression can change over time, and if you believe it has, then feel free to open a new RM discussion. Note that en-wiki's Article title policy governs the titles of all articles at English Wikipedia, and RM arguments should be based on it. What the title is called in Portuguese, or what is considered proper grammar in Portuguese, or the fact that every other language calls it Lava Jato, will not affect the outcome of an RM discussion here. If you wish to request a move, please do so (and at the bottom of the page, please; not here). Just be aware that you should follow en-wiki policy and guidelines, not pt-wiki ones. When starting the process, please follow the procedures given at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This move would likely be controversial, so please read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial and follow the recommendations at WP:RM#CM. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Tanks, Mathglot !
Bageense I can´t to open this RM. Can you do it, within the detailed procedures ?--PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
PauloMSimoes, Let me try --Bageense(disc.) 22:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
PauloMSimoes,  Done, it is at the bottom of the page. Leave your arguments there as well. --Bageense(disc.) 22:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Political Implications

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-car-wash-prosecutors-workers-party-lula/ this seems relevant to the article and should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.201.170 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I posted a topic about The Intercept revelations down below. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

@Shervinnaimi:, this article seriously needs more references, we can't just publish accusations here with no sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ief O (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)I consider this still relevant, because the lack of academic articles as source material. Instead there are mostly newspapers/websites that are being used in this article. I will try to add some more academic articles and also substitute/remove some sources.

This is an ongoing news story and therefore most of the sources will be news sources. American In Brazil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

@Cambalachero: you renamed Lava Jato to Petrolão. Google gives twice as many hits for the former than for the latter (15 million vs. 768 thousand). Therefore, I kindly request you to undo the renaming. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The corruption scandal was originally named 'lava jato' for the reason named in the article. It has since been called 'petrolão' in slang parlance. Both are correct. American In Brazil (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be Moved to Operation Car Wash. Note: requires admin assistance, which I will request at WP:RMT. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Operação Lava Jato → ? – Per WP:ENGLISH, the article title should be the name that is most common in the English language. From my research, "Operação Lava Jato" isn't commonly used in English language sources. There are two, common, recognizable names in English: "Operation Car Wash" [1] (also "Carwash" [2], sometimes using both spellings in the same article [3]) and "Petrobras scandal." [4][5]. I'm slightly leaning towards Operation Car Wash, as the translation of the Portuguese name, but would support any of the suggestions I made. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There are three supports, one oppose, and one for the alternative Lava Jato. The oppose is somewhat weak, as noted by RGloucester, as most of the sources cited also call it Car Wash. As Jenks said, this would be moved even with a no consensus result, but in fact I think there is just about a consensus to move back to the result of the previous RM anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Operation Lava Jato → Operation Car Wash – Per this Requested Move, another move of this page should be considered controversial and be discussed before moving it. – -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix and Dicklyon: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Looking at that previous RM discussion, it seems that the new title "Operation Lava Jato" would have been accepted if it had been considered, since it's more than twice as common in English sources as the one they made up there by literal translation. Let it go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I strongly dispute the above claim that "Operation Car Wash" was "made up" in the previous RM. This is a nonsense. "Operation Car Wash" is the common English name for this. One can see its appearance in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, and even a BBC article dating back to November 2014. This name has existed since the start of the investigation, and it is even more important to mention that none of these articles use the half-translated "Operation Lava Jato" at all. I struggle to understand why this controversial WP:BOLD move is being allowed to stand, given the result of the last RM. If you've got evidence to counter this usage, Mr Lyon, I'd suggest you present it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at search hit counts; but looking again, I see I must have made a mistake. I withdraw my opposition. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look. I've asked for the assistance of Jenks24 in cleaning this up. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it is a "right translation". It is the translation used by the vast majority of English reliable sources. All of your hits include "car wash" or "carwash" (there are two spellings possible) alongside "lava jato", and none use mixed form "Operation Lava Jato" as opposed to using the Portuguese for "operation". Your searches are not demonstrating anything in support of "lava jato". RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's go with simply Lava Jato (with no operation or operação), as per Google News search results in English (in decreasing order):
  • brazil "lava jato": 57,700 [12]
  • brazil "operação lava jato": 29,000 [13]
  • brazil "carwash" (or "car wash"): 21590 = 4,290 + 17,300 [14] [15]
  • brazil "operation carwash" (or "operation car wash"): 2,049 = 439 + 1,610 [16] [17]
  • brazil "operation lava jato": 374 [18]
fgnievinski (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually, very many sources do exactly use that half translation. Google searches seem to disagree as to what's more common. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"Many sources" is somewhat of an overstatement, don't you think? The search for the mixed form produces results from a selection of minor publications, whereas "car wash" or "carwash" appear in all of the top-rate publications. A search for "lava jato", as provided above, nearly always shows that most of the results are something like "Operation Car Wash (lava jato), and so the fact that "lava jato" appears in articles that put "car wash" in the primary position is not an indication that we should use "lava jato". Indeed, it tells us that we should not use it. More importantly, the above searches include results in Portuguese, which certainly cannot be accepted here. RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I was searching for the complete quoted phrase, getting 13700 and 38,600. That's many, though not close to half. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I see. These two searches seem more in line with what I expected. I don't know why we all get different results sometimes even if we type in the same thing. Regardless, I'd say that this makes "Car Wash" the clear winner. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Usually operations name aren't translated, Operation Weserübung for example. Frenditor (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Operation names are not translated if English language reliable sources do not translate them. In this case, they do. We base our usage on the preponderance of WP:RS. If RS refer to "Operation Weserübung", so do we. If RS refer to "Operation Car Wash", so do we. We don't invent our own usage per WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's just you pretending they don't exist. Plenty of occurrences were already showed. Frenditor (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not pretending "they don't exist". All of the searches have shown that "Car Wash" dominates, and should be used per WP:UCN. "Lava Jato" does appear, but usually in parentheses following "Car Wash", or in less reliable sources, not as the common name of the operation in English language. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed.fgnievinski (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Impact on politics

Section does not stress the impact of Lava Jato operation on the presidential campaign of 2014. While it was a possibly sensitive election, the resulting impeachment was definitely affected by the investigation into Petrobras and the government accounts.

There is no citation to the report on Edison Lobão being investigated.

There is also a typo in "Impact on Politics section" :"In late 2017, it was claime in an investigative interview". Change "claime" to "claimed" please.

Thanks,

Mtucundu (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)mtucundu

Improvements for article

Hello everyone! I will try to update this article a bit more. I will mostly focus on expanding the summary, because in my opinion this should be the main focus of the article and at this moment it is quite poor of information. This will certainly lead to me updating some other subjects. Besides and because of this I will try to add some more academic articles as sources.Ief O (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was looking through this article and noticed that the introduction seems very sloppy- there are some repetitions and some weird grammar and punctuation errors that seem out of place. I just wanted to notify people of this. SnowballEffect (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The summary is very sloppy. I dont think the article represents the conflict of opinions on the topic. I do not think this statement is very clear: "The scandal interrupted the rule of the PT coalition that had started in 2003, thanks to the independence of the judiciary and public prosecuters, and freedom of the press."
The source is also from Sergio Fausto who is the executive superintendent of Fundação Instituto Fernando Henrique Cardoso. An organisation founded by Henrique Cardoso and the article.. is unsurprisingly very complementary of Cardso and critical of Lula.
Sure such an opinion is valid in an article.. but is that statement widely accepted? I don't know but I am not sure a poorly paraphrased statement in a brief that has only got one academic citation tells you that.
If the source is considered to be critical a bit of contextualisation would work..
Such as "The scandal interrupted the rule of the PT coalition that governed from 2003. Political scientist, Sergio Fausto, saw the crisis and subsequent collapse of the PT coalition as a prevention of Brazil becoming a semi-democratic regime by the independent judiciary and public prosecuters as well as the freedom of the press."
The rest of that paragraph is also a complete mess that risks making operation carwash all about PT and a mish mash of various opinions without any recognition that the opinions come from widely different visions of what happened. This is particularly odd as it doesnt match the rest of the page very well that has a much wider scope.
The article should represent quite well that Operation Carwash, particularly when it comes to Lula and Dima, is a controversial, highly politicised moment. Giving space for those who saw it as essentially a partisan undemocratic take over and those that saw it as a much needed investigation that actually protected Brazils. As well as more level headed balanced opinions.
Yes Wikipedia shouldn't give credence to all views but it seems like it is actively ignoring the conflict which I feel paints a very unsatisfactory picture of the incident particularly given how utterly critical it is to contemporary politics. 93.157.74.197 (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

translator/researcher/edit notes

This scandal has not gotten all that much coverage in english, in part because of its scope and complexity, but also because of a fairly steep learning curve and language barrier. First of all, if anyone speaks good Brazilian Portuguese, I would welcome someone just verifying the accuracy of this and related articles. My Portuguese just barely allows me to decipher the English Google translate gives me, and I absolutely could misunderstand some piece of idiom somewhere. Next, it is important to understand the legal system, which is not based on common law, ie British/American systems. It is similar to but not the same as the Napoleonic system. In particular what is often translated as "prosecutor" is in fact more like the French juge d'instruction, an investigating magistrate. Sérgio Moro is a *judge*.

Two specifically Brazilian laws affect all the litigation, plea bargaining and maneuvering:

  • A law passed several years ago says that you cannot run for office if you have a criminal record. I have seen this referred to as the Clean Hands law or the Clean File law. This law does not, as of February 2018, prevent Lula da Silva from running for president because he still has two more venues where he can appeal his conviction. So he is allowed to run, but if he loses his appeals he may not be able to serve even if he wins the election. It is also possible, in the special judicial proceedings for office-holders, to be barred from participating in politics for a period, for example eight years.
  • At some point in the Rousseff administration (I think) a law was passed or modified to allow an investigating magistrate to offer defendants substantial reductions in their sentence in return for cooperating with prosecutors and/or testifying against other defendants. Many of the politicians charged in this investigation have recorded other defendants, and wiretap transcripts and surveillance video have also been released.

Some of the vocabulary is -- I am not sure if the right word is "specialized". Frequently translated in a confusing way? I am listing some of these, which I have gradually deciphered, to save other people some time. Pease free to comment or correct

  • "answers for/to" = faces charges of
  • "award-winning report/performance/file/submission" is testimony given in return for a sentence reduction
  • "mandate" = the term of office, or sometimes perhaps the eligibility to hold office. Has nothing to do with public opinion or political support
  • tip - sometimes refers to a bribe
  • crime of responsibility - a crime which is only possible while in office, such as influence peddling

So. The special judicial proceedings for politicians are spelled out in the 1988 Constition currently in effect. Essentially, a petition must be made at the Chamber of Deputies. The president of the Chamber of Deputies accepts the petition (or not), and the House forms a committee which eventually recommends (or not) that the charge be forwarded to the Senate. The Senate accepts (or not) the matter and if it does constitutes itself into a judicial body with the head of the Supreme Court presiding. This is the impeachment process -- at least for a president, and if the Senate votes to impeach the the president is removed from office. I think this needs to be blessed by the Supreme Court. For other office-holders such as Senators the vote can also result in removal from office, and/or suspension of political rights. Politicians who are removed from office are no longer immune to charges in the criminal court sytem. Thus, the politician who was videotaped with a briefcase full of bribe money for Temer was removed from office and now faces charges in the criminal system. Temer cannot be charged while he is still in office, and the Senate voted *not* to refer that charge to the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over a sitting president. Since the charge was quashed before it got to a court with jurisdiction, the investigators cannot proceed against him until he leaves office.

In an impeachment proceeding the charges need not be criminal. Rousseff was charged with ordering the social security checks sent out (essentially) even though the budget was tied up in the Chamber of Deputies. While this is not a crime, it does violate the certain provisions of the Constitution and something that keeps being called the Budget Law. Overstepped her constitutional role (?) In any event, impeachment is a political process not a criminal one and one of the things that made this such drama was that she was removed from office for (some say) allowing Operation Car Wash investigators to proceed. Most of those who voted to impeach her were implicated in one of the investigations.

So. I am trying to build out the documentation of events, although coverage has been spotty and quite often I find something about someone being released from pre-trial detention but no specific documentation in that reference on why. I am sure all this got saturation coverage in Brazil and a lot of the media is operating on the assumption that we know more (as english speakers) that we do, or that I do anyway. Hope that helps.

Things that need doing: -* read this and associated articles to proofread the portrayal of the legal process. -* many of the politicians have very sketchy articles (NOTARESUME) or articles only in Portuguese -* articles on players/events need to be interlinked. Many BLPs do not mention, or glide over, criminal charges etc, which are definitely notable -* document changes in economic/environmental policy due to Temer replacing Rousseff -* document the many political parties to at least some extent; also verify that the runoff election procedures are explained somewhere. -* The state-owned oil company was involved in all sorts of corruption and this appears to extend to almost any government procurement process such as highway construction contracts

Also, it seems to me that there are decolonization/land reform/resource extraction aspects of this that may be tied to World Bank and foreign creditors. Someone should look up a couple of solid academic histories of recent Brazilian history. On a side note, one reason (I think) that Temer supporters were so vehement about Rousseff's removal from office *not* constituting a coup is that Hillary Clinton said at one point that the US could not provide foreign aid to Guatemala if it called Zelaya's removal a coup. This traces back to some Monroe Doctrine-era treaties in Central America. However, Brazil is a fairly large economy and definitely not reliant on foreign aid. Also, it turns out that the equivalent Brazilian treaty with the US was signed when it was a military dictatorship and the US was worried about Communists. It specifically says Communists. So while Rousseff has repeatedly said that her impeachment was a coup a) the constitutional process was meticulously followed. Possibly her removal was wrong or a symptom of corruption or whatever, but the legal process was in fact observed. b) without discussing whether that process was properly engaged or should have taken place, ok, it did remove her from office, and that removal has overturned a number of labor, land and environmental reforms implemented in her adminstration and that of her predecessor Lula da Silva. She and Lula, while not communists, are certainly further left than the Temer administration that took power after her impeachment.

-There also appear to be some questionable economic development projects with Venezuela and Cuba (PDVSA, BNDES) - see port of Mariel for example. -Many of the politician involved in this scandal were involved in the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers leaks as well. Cross-referencing between the articles is certainlu needed, and the Brazil section of the PP artlces probably needs tobe updated, since I haven't touched either in about a year.' - as someone mentioned above, a lot of the sources are news updates and while they are better than not mentioning or referencing events at all, it would be very good indeed if someone can build out the conceptual framework with some academic/historic texts.

  • The opinions expressed above are of course not something that I'd wite into the article, but I believe them to be correct, which means that the associated articles aren't all that accurate or complete, if that's the case, so *much* needs to be addressed. Naturally if things turn out to be otherwise as more coverage and explainers emerge, the important thing is that the articles be accurate, whatever that may turn out to mean. Thanks to anyone who applies brainpower to any part of this. Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. As an American living for six years in Brazil with a Brazilian wife and daughter, and also fluent in Brazilian Portuguese, I appreciate your perspectives on the scandal, the largest in Latin American history. I have made some comments above on the corect title of this article, which you can read by scrolling up. I would point out, however, that as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS and not interject our own personal opinions into the article WP:OR. Your opinions on this 'Talk' page about how to improve the article are most welcome. It is perhaps ironic that I am writing this while my wife went to the polling station to cast her vote in the presidential election runoff, which has been greatly influenced by the scandal. (I am not a Brazilian citizen and therefore cannot vote.) American In Brazil (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am coming back to this some time later and.....really? It's a bit insulting to be lectured on reliable sources when I went to such pain to spell out what I knew, what I was confused about, and what was speculation. To be completely clear, since apparently I wasn't, I welcome any help with this article, and have gone to great lengths to balance coverage of these events. The opinions are based on many hours of research and limited to the last two paragraphs of this post. They also seem to have been totally on point based on subsequent events. So yeah. Did you help with any of the areas where I identified room for improvement? If so, great. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DMY dating style & source language

Not sure, but I apologize if it was I who used MDY dating style awhile back, which may have facilitated the break with DMY. Not wanting to be the proverbial "Ugly American," I was careful to use DMY when formatting someone else's source today. I did also delete a foreign language source because it is an English language page, so that seems appropriate. Lindenfall (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a specific reason this article isn't using a standard infobox template? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A lead and a summary?

I do not recall seeing a summary section in an article in other Wikipedia articles. It is my understanding that the Lead serves as a "...an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I propose the Summary be merged into the Lead. Dig deeper talk 22:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree AmplifyWiki (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@AmplifyWiki: Thanks.
Hearing no additional feedback, I'll be bold and make the change. Dig deeper talk 00:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Intercept

Yesterday The Intercept released 4 articles about corruption that happens inside the Operation Carl Wash. Someone could read and put in the article? My English only allows English - Portuguese translation.

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@American In Brazil:, what do you think? Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

From now!: Leia os diálogos de Sergio Moro e Deltan Dallagnol que embasaram a reportagem do Intercept. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
English: WATCH: Glenn Greenwald Explains the Political Earthquake in Brazil Caused by Our Ongoing Exposés Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I think The Intercept articles are highly relevant and should be summarized. American In Brazil (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition, The Intercept is partnering with several other respected media in Brazil, including Veja (center-right, and formerly a strong Bolsonaro supporter), Folha, and others, and now media in Argentina as well. This partnership, imho, both spreads the responsibility for informing the public based on the readings by other editorial staff besides just The Intercept, but also lends credibility to The Intercept as well, as they are sharing the primary documents, with other sites drawing their own conclusions, sometimes worded more strongly than The Intercept did. Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Bias

The Car Wash Operation has been ongoing since years before Lula's indictment. Its first targets weren't even politicians. A total of hundreds of people have been indicted, convicted and arrest for an enormous varied of crimes. Some of the most notorious politicians arrested are members of right wing parties, such as former president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha. Even former president of the Republic Michel Temer, one of Lula's main enemies, has been jailed for a while.

Although the Intercept scandal is worthy of mention, taking it to mean that the whole operation has been an illegal attempt to persecute Lula and drive the Workers Party from power is a ridiculously narrow minded and partisan interpreation. One cant reasonably reduce the Operation's importance to a mere witch hunt against one man. The Operation Car Wash has been revolutionary to Brazil. Every one politician has been given reason to fear breaking the law. The Operation has proven for the first time in Brazilian history that powerful politicians and businesmen are not above the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above. Although there may have been improper contacts between Judge Moro and the prosecution, the scandal itself was not about Lula or any other single politician. Dozens of politicians and businessmen were caught up in it, tried and convicted. In monetary terms it was the largest political scandal publicly exposed of any country in history. As good Wikipedians, we all have a duty to report it fairly, accurately and without bias. American In Brazil (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Additions of unnecessary foreign language sources

@Avernarius, @Rafe87: Foreign language sources should only be added to English Wikipedia when no English WP:RS is available, per WP:NONENG. I've recently removed a spate of them. Information can be added again, using English sources which, having checked, are available. There is a reason that Wikipedia is published in various languages — this edition happens to be in English. Continuing to re-add such content is WP:EDITWARRING, and against policy. Lindenfall (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Folha de S.Paulo, for instance, has an English-language edition: Folha de S.Paulo English edition online. Lindenfall (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Lindenfall: If you know an English version language of that piece, then use it. I've googled and haven't been able to find it. This is a Brazilian history entry, it's normal that there are Portuguese sources in it. I'm reversing your edits. You should search for an English source yourself instead of destroying other people's edits without even making sure that your demands can be met.Rafe87 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
And by the way, the fact that Folha has an English language operation doesn't mean that their every article in Portuguese has an English version. In fact, most likely only a tiny minority of their original texts are translated. An English translation of their entire website would be too time consuming and too expensive for what is likely very small return.Rafe87 (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The most important aspect, coming out of the above discussion is, that @Lindenfall tends not to follow basic WP rules, especially: improve instaed to delete! Obviously having knowledge of an english version of the source, he deletes. By the way, nowadays everyone has got the means to use – at least in essence understandable – an foreign language source. AVS (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, you are misreading the policy on English sources. Nowhere does it say that "Foreign language sources should only be added to English Wikipedia when no English WP:RS is available." What it does say, is this: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance" which is a very different thing. This in no way equates to, "delete all the Portuguese references".

The key thing to remember behind all of this, is Wikipedia's core principle of Verifiability; it must be possible to verify the assertions we make in articles, by reference to a citation to a reliable source. If a source of equal quality is available in English, it should be used in preference. If the quality of the Portuguese source is better, then the English one is not preferred. There is nothing in the policy that is "either-or", and they may both be used. In a Brazilian story like Lava Jato, you're going to have a certain number of stories in both languages, and the ones in Portuguese are going to be more detailed. I've been following the story in both languages for some time, and I can tell you for a fact, that the English versions are more simplified, and also spend a 1/4 of the story, just explaining what Lava Jato is, for English-speaking readers who never heard of it, bringing them up to speed. Brazilian stories never do that; they assume you've been following the story for the last several years, and you don't need any introduction to any of the main characters, so they get into the meat of the story immediately, with a lot more detail. That's just normal.

In order to avoid harming verifiability of the article content, please refrain from removing reliable, independent, secondary sources in *any* language, unless there is already an English source present of equivalent quality that covers that ground, or unless you are able to replace the foreign language sources with an English one of the same quality. If you are comparing an English with a Portuguese story (or stories) and you're not sure if the English one is of the same quality or covers the same ground, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to have a look and give you my opinion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Something else you can do to improve verifiability in case of foreign-language sources, is to request that the |trans-title= param be added to the {{cite}} templates for any Portuguese sources that need it, and/or that someone add a translation of a portion of the source which verifies the content. I've done this for two of the sources, namely Folha and Carta Capital, previously removed in this edit and subsequently restored by another editor. If you need any more, please drop a message here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that the events are relevant to Portuguese sources and apologize if I misread "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance" which, after all, states that "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". Apparently, the stated preference is set aside for no apparent reason, if the same facts are verifiable via an English source. (Nor should readers be required to additional tools to check sources.) The very first source in the additions that I looked up was available from the very same source, in English. So, it looked to me that others couldn't be bothered to include English language sources on English Wikipedia, hence my reversals of brand new content. (Had the content been dated, I'd have undertaken adding English sources instead, at a later date, when I had time, but that looked to be in the adding editor's interest on this one.) I do fail to see why no English language sources were included and why that's acceptable when, for instance, the exact same Folha de S.Paulo sources were available in English on its website, being "preferred", which I had pointed out, specifically, prior to the above mention, as: "19:37, 4 September 2019‎ Lindenfall... 32‎ Undid revision 912995782 by Avernarius... Re-add by replacing cited source with English language source, per WP:NONENG, ie: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2019/04/supreme-court-orders-release-of-aldemir-bendine-ex-president-of-petrobras-imprisoned-during-lava-jato.shtml" Lindenfall (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Rafe87 I did not "destroy" your edits; they remained accessible to you, and I also left notes here and pinged you, entirely as a courtesy. Nonetheless, I do understand your angst over my reversals. Try just looking up the same sources, and click on the English version on that source's Portuguese version; that's how I found the one I had provided already (above). Fact-checking trumps "most likely" assumptions in any encyclopedia. Lindenfall (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
AVS [whose edits, unlike this signature, appeared as "Avernarius", as does their user page]: I provided the exact source in English (as reprinted above). This is an unfounded accusation and a WP:PERSONALATTACK. "Lindenfall tends not to follow basic WP rules, especially: improve instaed to delete! Obviously having knowledge of an english version of the source, he deletes. By the way, nowadays everyone has got the means to use – at least in essence understandable – an foreign language source. AVS (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)" Lindenfall (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Than you for your constructive tips, Mathglot. I think that this article, which is riddled with foreign language sources, would be better served with equal English sources that English readers can readily verify, which appeared to be available, and a "See Also" link to the Portuguese language page, for those who wish to use translation tools, or who speak Portuguese. Lindenfall (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to meet them “more than half-way”, but I don’t think “See also” links to articles in Portuguese are necessary on en-wiki—assuming you really meant “See also”, which is for linking other Wikipedia articles, and weren’t thinking of External links, which of course is quite different. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Avernarius, Rafe87, and Lindenfall: Just wanted to say that I believe I have a solution that will make everybody happy regarding the sources/language issue, but I’m mobile now and it’s hard to thumb-type. Just want to preface it by underlining that in my opinion, what we all have in common trumps these relatively minor disagreements; namely: I can easily see that everyone is here to improve the article, and we are all volunteers. We just have some slight disagreements about the best way to do that. But our goal is the same. So, let’s hold onto that thought for a minute, and maybe dial down the snipping at each other; I consider us all on the same team, here. I’ll be back later with a proposal that I hope will meet with your approval. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rafe87, Lindenfall, and Mathglot: I think, that all four of us are willing to contribute at our best. As there was a lot of vandalism here (see history), I was reacting too harsh. I will be glad, to meet You all on other articles . And: Sorry!!!! AVS (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Avernarius, Rafe87, and Mathglot: My apologize, as well. While, ultimately, my opinion is that any English article is better served by English language sources; I suppose this would have gone a lot better had I started here with a discussion instead of by reversing. Apparently, I acted too harshly, or, at least, too hastily. I, too, was probably reacting to the history of this page, having worked on it a fair amount, with such as this bit of history giving me some false sense of being correct in the reversals:
"20 October 2018‎ Lindenfall... Undid revision 864594386 by 190.173.200.197 (talk) An English language source is still required for English WP, when available, and several are.", and
"19 November 2018‎ Cloudz679... article now exists on English Wikipedia".
Looking forward to formulation of the Mathglot Solution. Lindenfall (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm once again short of time, but don't want to leave you in suspense, so I'll try and explain what I mean, at least in outline and come back later with details and examples. What I have in mind is to pair English and Portuguese articles in a single reference in a kind of hybrid of bundled citations and interlanguage link template, in those cases where paired sources for the same article exist in two languages.
The reasoning behind this as follows. On the one hand, there's no doubt per policy that on en-wiki, English sources are to be preferred, when available in equal quality. In theory, that could mean that once an equivalent (or better) English source was found, we could eliminate the Portuguese one as superfluous. On the other hand, we have Brazilian or other editors with Portuguese or Brazilian knowledge, who are graciously giving their time and are willing to help out here at en-wiki, which is great, and we should do everything we can to encourage that. As someone who contributes occasionally in other languages, I can tell you that it is much harder than doing so in your own language.
Given a good English source, there's nothing in Verifiability policy that requires us to keep a Portuguese equivalent of the same thing. However, the policy doesn't forbid it, either. So my compromise offer is as follows: given that we want to encourage our Brazilian friends to stay and help improve the article, let's make it as easy as possible for them: when we have both an English version of an article, and a Portuguese version of the same article (i.e., either translational equivalents, or nearly so) then let's reference the English source first, and then use cite bundling to incorporate an abbreviated version of the foreign language source, possibly just a link and a (pt) symbol, the way {{ill}} does, possibly longer.
To the reader reading the article, there will just be one number in brackets, say, like this,[137] so the main body portion of the article is no longer than before. But if the reader follows the footnote link, when you go to the reference section at the bottom, that one reference will have two links: one to the English source (primary; fully fleshed out by {{citation}} or whatever system is used), and a second link to the foreign source. This means that for those articles available in two languages, a single footnote will offer a choice of languages in which to read the article. This will make it easier for those editors whose native language is Portuguese or something else and who want to help out here, to choose the foreign source when reading the article. (It also gives all editors the opportunity to compare the two, and decide if the two versions are really equivalent or not.) If this seems opaque or not well described, I apologize, and I'll come back with some examples later.
For this to work, it requires some compromise, but nobody loses anything; at the worst, the footnote section gets longer, but let's face it, most people never go there anyway; the body of the article doesn't get any longer. Lindenfall, are you okay with leaving a paired link to a Portuguese article in the footnotes, even in those cases where an equivalent or better English one is available? Avernarius and Rafe87, are you okay with leaving English references in the article and not deleting them, even if the foreign-language one is better? As a second portion of this, can you please include |language=Portuguese |trans-title=   to all of your citations to Brazilian articles in Portuguese? You can leave "trans-title" blank, or if you can add the English equivalent of the article title, so much the better. But at least add the blank parameter, to encourage someone else to fill it in.
If everybody is good with this, it will allow us to stop quibbling and get back to just improving the article. I'll try and create some concrete examples later, but there are several ways to do it, including bundled citations and named references, or List-defined references. More later. Thanks all, Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems like an excellent solution for many articles with subjects of foreign origin. Thanks for figuring it out, Mathglot. Lindenfall (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Lindenfall, that is my hope, yes. I'll make an initial attempt at some examples here, so we have something concrete to look at and discuss, and it isn't so hand-wavy. Just one heads-up: as a preface to making the concrete example(s) possible, I'll need to make a change to section Leaked Telegram conversations in the article, to move some of the link clutter there into list-defined references. This won't show up in the rendered page at all (assuming I do it right); that is to say, before and after examinations of the article page will appear to show that nothing has changed. But under the hood, in the wikicode, there will be a big change, where all that giant mess of reference clutter will move into the #References section, all nice, and neat, and separate, and named. So, you may notice a series of changes in the article history coming up, but that is not the example I'm talking about; that's merely the groundwork required before I can begin. When I do have a concrete example for you to look at, I'll come back here and mention it. Mathglot (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I am late to this discussion, but...as someone who spends a great deal of time on articles about events in non-English speaking countries, I have to say that no, there is no requirement that sources be either online or in English. Sources must be verifiable but need not be easily verifiable if the information is contained only in foreign-language texts, as was the case when I first came to this article. I am about to take a detailed interest in the article again, so it is important that this be clear. For my own ease of editing I do prefer English sources, btw. Meanwhile, it is important to realize that there is a great deal of partisan emotion around these events, and that there may be someemotional edit warring. There is no question that Operation Car Wash exposed a great deal of corruption, and that all of the facts may not yet be known. I am going to go look at the article itself now. Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

notice to interested editors: In the next day or two I intend to do a serious update/copyedit/verification/wikilinking/referencing. I only skimmed what seems to be the consensus here on references; please let me know if I am doing anything against consensus. But. I have a different reference question/
Let me get really specific about what I think we are doing here. I have not done very much with this but wiki-gnoming since before the Intercept documents emerged, but I came in here via Panama Papers and Dilma Rousseff. Highly emotional topics with a LOT of foreign sources, incomprehensible writing, and obvious machine translation done by people who care about the article and want it to be accurate but often don't speak much English. Meanwhile, as I have noted elsewhere, english-language sources and Brazilian politics tend to be news bulletins, and Portuguese sources to assume the reader has been following Brazilian politics in extreme detail and doesn't need to be told which parties were in which coalitions when. So I had a lot of very testy conversations with well-meaning editors who thought I was questioning ... something... when I asked things like "what is a wedge proposal?". Seriously, somebody had rejected it and it had to do with legislative process in the impeachment, so it was important, but. The other editor finally understood, after repeatedly being assured that the sentence in English made no sense in English, finally realized that Cunha is Portuguese for wedge and sometimes a rude word, but in any event "wedge proposal" in context meant "Cunha's legislative text". Just saying. I personally prefer English language or French-language sources. Anyone who is interested enough in the topic to break out Google Translate will have an additional reliable source, and non-English speakers can follow better. Make sense to everybody? For me, 1st choice of source for news is something like Reuters, Agence France-Presse, AP, New York Times, Washington Post for news. The Atlantic, New Yorker, Time, that kind of magazine for explainers. Next, short news items such as are found on broadcast news web sites. In general, big dailies are usually considered reliable sources, yes? So Portuguese and South American sources that seem to meet that are definitely preferred sources. A lot of the coverage seams to be TV news briefs. Hopefully everybody has no objection to these sources.
I do have two questions, while I maybe have other editors here:
  • 1) what is Box 2? Nobody answered me. I am unsure whether this is some skimming or payoff scheme, or an election with an embedded referendum. Nor can I tell from this article. Somebody please explain; this is not something that googles well.
  • 2) Someone told me at one point (on another article) that Telesur is not reliable because it is Venezuelan and therefore its politics were suspect. Does anyone have an opinion on whether Telesur is a reliable source for the purposes of this page or the associates pages?
Thanks for any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure yet if this goes here or Petrobras' article

I do not see a mention of Car Wash https://www.reuters.com/article/us-petrobras-corruption-tbg-exclusive/exclusive-petrobras-unit-head-removed-amid-bribery-allegations-idUSKCN1VQ2XV Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV problem

I removed the following text from the section on Lula and the PT. I am not up to date enough to rewrite it in a less biased form, and it definitely needs a citation also, as well as spell check. The information can be re-added if these problems are addressed: "Ilegally obtained documents leaked to The Intercept in mid-2019 supposed that Judge Moro had supposedly conspired with prosecutors to advance their case, although it all is being showed to be a big fraud involving people being investigated as well or with connection with the opposition (PT) the worker's party. (See Leaked Conversations, below.)" Elinruby (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Elinruby, You did well to remove it. And nice to see you on Brazil again. I have some pending edits I need to get back to, as you saw in the previous section, when I get some other things off my plate. Thanks for adding those {{ill}}s and other wlinks as well, and other stuff. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Just nibbling around the edges of this and related articles, mostly fixing typos and idiom and adding wls right now, as I re-read. This is complicated stuff and it's been a while. All of it needs to be updated for people appealing their sentences and such, it looks like, but as always English-language sources are a problem, and the Portuguese ones tend not to give background. Knocking out some low-hanging fruit.Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Box two

Someone remind me what this is? I know it has something to do with payments but it's unexplained in the text Elinruby (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby:, I think it's a type of anticorruption measure issued by prosecutors of LavaJato, and/or proposed new law, involving undeclared campaign donations that often cover up serious crimes like money laundering. Need to find a good reference for it. "pt:Caixa dois" or "Caixa 2" in pt. In general, a slush fund. See the article, "Ten anticorruption measures", section "Amnesty for box 2". pt:Dez medidas contra a corrupção#Anistia ao caixa dois. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Checking more, but imho, "Box" is not the right translation of this, even though I see it in some sources. It should be something like "teller", "cash register", "safe", "cashier" and so on. I.e., it's a secret stash where the "other money" is. Something like, "cash box 2". Going to see if there are some English sources that use any of those, but "Box 2" is really not right. What sometimes happens, is one English news medium makes a mistranslation, and everybody else believes and copies them, and then we're stuck because of RS rules; but if there's any support for somethin like "money box" or "safe #2" or anything similar, we should use that.
The pt:caixa dois article mentions that that term is Brazilian Portuguese, and that the equivalent expression in Portugal is pt:saco azul, a term of uncertain origin. Was thinking of creating an English stub article for "caixa dois", but picking an article title for it is a stumbling block. Since it has such ties to Brazil, it might be better to just leave it in the original Portuguese even as the title of the English article. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Resolved

. Created article Caixa 2, and modified this article to use this term once, thereafter slush fund. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

late thanks for that Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Operation Car Wash → Operation Lava Jato – As discussed here: Talk:Operation_Car_Wash#Title_Translation, the Portuguese "Lava Jato" doesn't seem to have a precise translation in any other language. Not to mention that the name of the operation itself is already grammatically wrong (it should be "lava a jato"). My desire is to keep the original name and I don't see why I shouldn't at least try to change it. --Bageense(disc.) 22:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Car_Wash/Archive_1&oldid=1253021280"