Jump to content

Talk:Zélia Cardoso de Mello

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

Plano Collor, by Zelia

[edit]
Um dia depois de assumir a Presidência, Collor anunciou uma série de medidas que visavam reorganizar a economia nacional. Elaborado :pela equipe da ministra Zélia Cardoso de Mello, o Plano Brasil Novo, mais conhecido como Plano Collor, determinou:
a extinção do cruzado novo e a volta do cruzeiro como moeda nacional;
o bloqueio, por dezoito meses, dos depósitos em contas correntes e cadernetas de poupança que ultrapassassem os 50 000 cruzados novos;
o congelamento de preços e salários;
o fim de subsídios e incentivos fiscais;
o lançamento do Programa Nacional de Desestatização;
a extinção de vários órgãos do governo, entre eles: Instituto do Açúcar e do Álcool, Instituto Brasileiro do Café, Superintendência do :Desenvolvimento do Centro-Oeste, Departamento Nacional de Obras contra a Seca (DNOCS).
Imóveis, veículos e aviões do governo foram colocados à venda.
Os objetivos do plano eram: enxugar a máquina administrativa do Estado, acabar com a inflação e modernizar a economia. Sem dúvida, as medidas causaram grande impacto e afetaram a vida da população em geral, dos trabalhadores aos empresários. Porém, os resulta...
Ludovicapipa yes? 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Okay, here's what's wrong with your version (besides the minor errors)

Can be deleted. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion : It looks like you both agreed not to use honorifics such as “Dr.” before Zélia’s name due to WP:NCP, so I see no controversy over this point. Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree.Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the elected" As opposed to what? I know he was the first democratically elected president in a long time, but this raises a question which is not answered in this article (and indeed does not affect the article's subject).--Dali-Llama 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What question does it raise? Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That other presidents weren't elected. It's usually a "given" that a president is elected. The exceptions are when you're a dictator and you call yourself "president for life" or something like that.--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion : I agree there is no need to say “elected” president in this context. It’s unnecessary detail since the article is not discussing the legitimacy of Collor’s government. Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could say teh democratically elected, then? Ludovicapipa yes? 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply rephrasing--the problem is that it's an unexpected piece of information which raises questions.--Dali-Llama 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHat abt the democratically elected? Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just answered that! Same problem!--Dali-Llama 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Brazil was a dictatorship since 1888? That's my point--there have other democratically elected presidents before, and after. So that word is redundant and brings up an issue which is not discussed in the article.--Dali-Llama 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had an unprecedent" and "revolution". This is contrary to WP:PEACOCK even if sourced. Instead of telling a story show the difference--what she did, specific measures, not what the conclusion is. Again, let's stick to facts.--Dali-Llama 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of telling a story? You told a story on "1964 article". Show the difference from what? Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion : I think the use of “unprecedented” is fine, because the source used as reference mentions, in its conclusion, that the privatization initiative was “Em termos de cobertura é o mais abrangente já realizado.” However, I dislike the term “revolution”.
The source uses the word "revolution": [1]Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a suggestion:
“Under Zélia’s tenure, Brazil went through an unprecedented period of major changes in its economy and public administrative structure. Zélia's plan implemented the largest privatization program in the country’s history, and the opening of its markets to free trade for the first time.”
I agree. Ludovicapipa yes?
I’m a bit uneasy about the following claims: “technological and industrial modernization”, “end of hyperinflation” and “public deficit reduction” based on the source that is indicated in the article.
Well, it was during Collor´s that comptuers manufactures started to work in Brasil; it was with him that companies started to compete and buy new machines to face this competition. 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC). You will sources for end of hyperinflation (Zelia and others), debt reduction (Bresser).
It´s fully cited on Collor de Mello talk page. But I can provide even NEW ONES (citations):
1.[2]

"Ele destacou as realizações administrativas do então presidente Collor, tais como a abertura da economia, a modernização da indústria, instalação da indústria de computadores de última geração, implantação da telefonia celular, projetos educacionais como os CIACs, além da aprovação e sanção de leis como o Código de Defesa do Consumidor, Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente, a lei de incentivo à cultura, mais conhecida como Lei Rouanet, entre outras."

2. "A MODERNIZAÇÃO NO GOVERNO COLLOR"

[3]

3. The same above link for "défict público";
It says: “Em geral, os resultados indicam um crescimento da lucratividade das empresas privatizadas”. “Os resultados claramente indicam uma melhora na eficiência operacional das empresas privatizadas.” “Aparentemente, a privatização teve um impacto negativo sobre investimento em ativos imobilizados.” “O coeficiente associado à variável PRIVATIZAÇÃO na regressão de receita líquida é positivo e estatisticamente significante” “Com relação ao pagamento de dividendos (payout), nenhuma evidência conclusiva foi obtida.”
I will continue tomorrow, very busy now!!
But tks so far. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
How can these conclusions be interpreted? I guess I would a need a major in Economy to do this. They apparently suggest privatized entities experienced improvements. I guess it would be ok to say “Some studies indicate privatized firms experienced improvements in efficiency and became more lucrative” instead of the general claim of "technological and industrial modernization".
WEll, all tehse seem to eulogize privatizaton process: "lucratividade", "eficiência operacional", "impacto negativo";
I don’t think this source talks about “hyperinflation” and “public deficit”. It does say there is a “reduction of long term debts” ("redução do endividamento de longo prazo"), but I believe it’s talking about debts of privatized firms, not public deficit. Please correct me here if I made a mistake. So we need other sources for “hyperinflation” and “public deficit”.
Ciattion: "Mas, se o plano não eliminou a inflação, ao menos preparou terreno para o Real e evitou algo pior: a hiperinflação."

[4] Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I would write: “Under Zélia’s tenure, Brazil went through an unprecedented period of major changes in its economy and public administrative structure. Zélia’s plan implemented the largest privatization program in the country’s history, and the opening of its markets to free trade for the first time. Some studies indicate privatized firms experienced improvements in efficiency and became more lucrative”. Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your suggestion Sparks, with the exception of Some studies indicate privatized firms experienced improvements in efficiency and became more lucrative. This sentence, if you place directly after the previous ones, implies that they became successful because of privatization. I'd say management makes a company successful or not--since a company can be privatized and still fail (Look at all the smallerTelebrás babies that were gobbled up by telemar, Telefonica and Brasil Telecom).--Dali-Llama 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see Dalilama POV: "I'd say management makes a company successful or not". YOUR opinion is not at stake, unless you can provide a citation to show thta managment an dnot privatization increased their´s (Acesita, Embraer, Telebras, etc) incomes. Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like to hear Sparks on this one.--Dali-Llama 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this final paragrapgh of yrs. I agree. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opening its market for a free trade for the first time in the country's history, technological and industrial modernization, end of the hyper-inflation ". Well, we already established she didn't end hyperinflation in Fernando Collor de Mello, so we can nix that. The source provided also doesn't say her free trade reforms were the first one, so we can nix that as well. And finally, "technological and industrial modernization" is very vague--specific examples (And no, privatization itself is not "modernization") that was--that should be relatively easy.--Dali-Llama 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who stablished and where? I didn´t. She ended hyperinflation, several sources were cited. And "Unprecendet" means?? Tec. rev. can have dozens of features. An editor specifies IF it wants to. If it´s sourced, should remain. If the source is vague, it´s a problem with the source. Will you aks Bresser, Faucher, yr academic PDFs that they don´t offer details? Besides, tthere are several passages on the "1964" artcile that could be deleted. You can use "citation needed" but you can´t delete, if it´s sourced. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, give me a source that says she ended hyperinflation that is factual and not opinion. Did you even bother to check this link?[5]? Did you notice how inflation went up dramatically DURING Collor's administration after an initial reduction? You wrote "Unprecendet", not me. If the source is vague, you don't add the source. If you have an issue with the 1964 article bring it there, not here--don't turn it into a red herring. Of course I can delete it if it's sourced if it's a bad source!--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion : see above. Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "neoliberal following" paragraph: Again, this lacks a proper source which specifically links one to the other. This should probably be left in the Plano Collor article, not the Zélia article: she left the ministry during Collor's term, so which policies were followed by which presidents, and in fact, who created those policies, Zélia or Marcílio?--Dali-Llama 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, details are not up to me. If it´s sourced, it´s correct. Zelia is the author of Plan Collor. It´s not up to me to write a book abt each subject --once it´s sourced it should remain there. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read WP:RS and WP:V. That's now how sources work. The source you mentioned doesn't talk about what you're crediting it with.--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion : I don’t see a problem in the first sentence of this paragraph as long as it’s well sourced. However, when I checked the source indicated in the article (Anoop Singh’s interview), I noticed it only talks about Lula continuing FHC’s plan. I doesn’t talk about FHC continuing Collor’s plan. Therefore, this statement needs more sources or another source altogether. Here is what it says: “O diretor do Departamento do Hemisfério Ocidental do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) , Anoop Singh, disse nesta segunda-feira em Nova York que a política macro-econômica do governo Lula representa uma continuidade em relação ao governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso”. I saw no mention to FHC following Collor in the rest of the article. Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original problem with it as well.--Dali-Llama 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 1: "Aqueles que desejavam um retrocesso para a agenda máxima (Collor-FHC) da privatização, da financeirização, da apartação social e da subserviência aos ditames imperiais do capital, não encontraram um povo bestializado e servil." [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. FHC aprofundou Collor: "O primeiro mandato de Fernando Henrique Cardoso notabilizou-se pela realização de reformas estruturais do Estado e do capitalismo brasileiro. FHC aprofundou o que iniciara Fernando Collor de Mello, deflagrador da aber-

tura comercial e das privatiza..." (Carefuul another SCIELO source!!)

[9]
Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the first source doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. The second source is hardly NPOV, so he could be added, but stated as opinion and clearly described as such. The third source is a book review! The book can be a WP:RS, not its review. And the fourth one barely mentions any link between the two. Ludovica: try to understand, I'm okay with the concept of including a link between these presidents, but instead of adding a "blanket" link between everyone here, you need to be specific about who followed who and how. And you most certainly can't use one of these sources to include Itamar or Lula-- You can't do your A+B=C thing using the BBC source.
  • The ITV quote: This is specific to the Telebrás article, not to Zélia--you're talking about the benefits of a privatization that while attempted during Collor's presidency, only occurred 8 years after he took office. Again, I'm not disputing the facts--I'm disputing its relevancy to this particular article.--Dali-Llama 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on all paragraphs above you aks for detaisl and history (detaisl before Zelia, with Zelia and after Zelia with Marcilio). Besides, it´s HIGHKY important to show how Telebras expanded customers and generated tax income. If you aks for details, which once is sourced Iam not obliged to provide beyond that, youu must accept details abt Telebras. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's important: for the Telebrás article. Relevancy is all about which details belong in which articles and which ones don't.--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion :I don’t see much harm in mentioning Zélia’s privatization program helped generate large tax income sums. However, I strongly oppose Instituto Teotônio Vilela as a source, because it is affiliated to PSDB. That would violate NPOV rules. “O Instituto Teotônio Vilela (ITV) é o órgão de estudos e formação política ligado ao PSDB (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira).” Sparks1979 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with that objection Sparks, which I had picked up earlier but I knew if I brought it up Ludovica would immediately accuse me of being biased against PSDB and another example of how I'm a "communist", as she has so politely accused me of being. But if you think it's a problem, I'll concur.--Dali-Llama 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it´s important to mention teh END RESULT of her initiatives --it´s history. ITV, this Institute is very serious and INDEPENDT from politics, since it´s an Institue, geared towards researches, it´s a reliable source.Ludovicapipa yes? 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That's like saying the Heritage Foundation is neutral or that the CATO institute is not libertarian--they're not "institutes" as you know them, they're what we call think tanks. I actually know the ITV very well, and while I appreciate (and even agree at times) with what they write, they can't be considered a neutral source.--Dali-Llama 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can think that. But ss long as Sparks and I agree, that's the consensus.--Dali-Llama 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, once all paragraphs have their citations, you can´t delete. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no. They don't. You have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, demonstrated here once again. You have yet to cite where in policy you think your use of sources is appropriate, when I'm clearly stating the problems with them. "It's cited, you can't delete" is ignoring the entire rule about WP:RS--an unreliable or vague source is no source at all.--Dali-Llama 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New text

[edit]
3rd Opinion Conclusions:
1. Under Zélia’s tenure, Brazil went through an unprecedented period of major changes in its economy and public administrative structure. Zélia’s plan implemented the largest privatization program in the country’s history, and the opening of its markets to free trade for the first time. Some studies indicate privatized firms experienced improvements in efficiency and became more lucrative
  • 1a)Dout: words "mod. and tec revolution":
It´s fully cited on Collor de Mello talk page. But I can provide even NEW ONES (citations):
1.[10]

"Ele destacou as realizações administrativas do então presidente Collor, tais como a abertura da economia, a modernização da indústria, instalação da indústria de computadores de última geração, implantação da telefonia celular, projetos educacionais como os CIACs, além da aprovação e sanção de leis como o Código de Defesa do Consumidor, Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente, a lei de incentivo à cultura, mais conhecida como Lei Rouanet, entre outras."

2. "A MODERNIZAÇÃO NO GOVERNO COLLOR"

[11]

3. The same above link for "défict público";
Again: sources mention this word. Ludovicapipa yes? 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said the first source doesn't meet WP:RS requirement since it's a book review. I have to look at Bresser's paper still.--Dali-Llama 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the second one fits? Ludovicapipa yes? 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For debt reduction:
1. "O governo Collor pareceu inicialmente representar uma mudança dramática em direção á modernização. Não apenas a

velocidade das mudanças se alterou, mas as políticas econômicas também se alteraram. O ajuste fiscal, nos primeiros dois anos, foi de fato enorme. Entretanto, em 1992, a economia voltou a apresentar déficit público. A principal razão para isso não foi o aumento de gastos de caráter populista, mas sim um enorme aumento das taxas de juros pagas pelo governo, que alcançaram mais de 30% ao ano em termos reais, enquanto a economia estava mergulhada na recessã ..."

2. Tec. mod and revolution (revista Isto é and along Bresser´s text) Ludovicapipa yes? 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percolate

[edit]
One more brief (from Collor de Mello article):

"this content is also present in History of Brazil, and Plano Collor so consensus on this page should percolate there as well--Dali-Llama 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"

Remaining points
1. "Priv. x Management./Tec Mod. and revolution": Priva. is a major step on Collor´s plicies. Several citations provided eulogize priv --NOT management at all. Unless you can provide links that say it was mangement and not priv that increase their profits (Acesita, Telebras, Embraer) citations are welcome.
[12]
And SCIELO source (several authors) and Revista "Isto é"
1a) "Deficit publico"
[13]
And SCIELO source (several authors and Faucher)
1b) "Fim da hiperinflação"
Revista Isto é
And SCIELO source (Faucher)
2. "FHC segue Collor "
Third opinion sees no problem, as long as I can provide NEW citation; So:

http://clipping.planejamento.gov.br/Noticias.asp?NOTCod=298984 Ludovicapipa yes? 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time today, you misquote me. What I meant was that once we had agreement on particular pieces of content (with relation to OR, V, NPOV and RS), the changes we made to those paragraphs would be applied to other articles which also contain those paragraphs. That is not an endorsement of all paragraphs to be in all articles. And in any case, those issues have not been resolved.--Dali-Llama 05:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did justify

[edit]
No I didn´t fail to justify, justification above (FIRST subtitle). Ludovicapipa yes? 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

The paragraph I iserted was OK for the third opinion. Ludovicapipa yes? 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same paragraph--at least not close enough to the other paragraph. You have multiple NPOV, OR and RS issues in this paragraph. We have already addressed them in this and other articles. If you'd like I can repeat them, but these are still outstanding and unresolved.--Dali-Llama 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this paragraph was rewritten by Sparks himself. Ludovicapipa yes? 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs) [reply]
Really? I looked up the talk page histories and I didn't find anything. I'd like to hear that from him. --Dali-Llama 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before reverting, shouldn´t we wait Spark´s? He wrote it and even if he didn´t, this paragraph offers citations, is made of facts and shoudl remain there. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that according to WP:V, the burden of proof is on those adding content? It should stay out until the issues are resolved.--Dali-Llama 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zélia Cardoso de Mello. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zélia_Cardoso_de_Mello&oldid=1257359711"