Talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva/Archive 1

Dispute
Article is completely frozen for new additions as of today (Oct 31, 2006). There are a broad number of vandalism published, including sections that provides information about his political and social achievements ("his goal is to make rich himself and his family" ??). There must be some kind of respect towards the institutional and public character as the president of Brazil. We all know there are still corruption issues to be assessed by Superior Court of Law, however, it does not entitled an individual to disseminate such vandalism. Thiago Zaninotti

--

Grief, this article is a total mess. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but shouldn't someone just freeze it asap, to stop any more vandalism? In the intro, "corruption-oriented" and "most unworthy President since....". Then a string of abuse in the sections headed Political Orientation, Social progress, foreign policy and re-election. This isn't what Wikipedia is all about and the article is just being hijacked. Cardicam

He won the election today, this information should be added. David Kofoed Wind utdiscant@gmail.com

Is this article still being disputed? I guess we can take the tag off. Does anyone disagree? Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Parts of this article is written in a enthusiast-socialist vision. The government projects, decisions and votations are sad - Tributary Reform is a complete joke. Fome Zero do not practical exists and your base act numbers was contested by IBGE. I could spend 300 lines to speak how many controverses they are promises of this Sir. But I will leave this for 2006, when all the ruin that him made in Brazil will be shown in the elections. --Mateusc 04:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not..--Dardorosso 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the year of ellection changed to 2009? The correct year is 2002, which was correct.


 * Vandalism Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Important note: don´t use "Señor". That is SPANISH, not PORTUGUESE. Anyway, there is no reason using the expression "Senhor da Silva". This is an english wikipedia, and he is NOT known as "Senhor da Silva" in Brazil.


 * brrr.... the correct should be "Senhor Silva" not da silva. "señor" gosh :| -Pedro 10:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please strive for NPOV in this. Thanks.

"Mr. da Silva"?? Does that sound a little lame to anybody else (especially when it comes right after a comment about how people don't refer to him using his surname)? Isn't "Mr. da Silva" a little Western-centric? Would "Señor da Silva" or "Sr. da Silva" be more appropriate in this case? --Jizzbug
 * western?????? Isnt Brazil in the West? Isnt Portugal in the west? Señor is Spanish! -Pedro 10:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If his name is "Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio Lula da Silva", then "Lula" is simply his surname, so why does everybody point out that he's known as "Lula" all the time? So even his friends call him by his last name; that's not very special. I ask because if my interpretation is correct, then we should move the article to the full name like usual; whereas if "Lula" is properly a nickname, then it should be at Lula da Silva (since there are probably other "Lula"s in the world). Or maybe I just don't understand Brazilian nicknames, that's another possibility. &mdash; Toby 13:40 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, in Portuguese, everybody has two names, one of his father, one of his mother. I think Lula's mother's name was "Lula", his father's "Da Silva" (might be reverse, like in Spanish, but I thought this was correct). Most people are usually known as either "Da Silva" or "Lula da Silva" - "Lula" is not as common, although nicknames are very common (just look up some Brazilian football players...). Jeronimo


 * Yes, this is what I suspected, modulo worrying about which parent is which. But I guess that this isn't true in his case, as we see below. &mdash; Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)


 * He was born "Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio da Silva". During his political career he became universally known by the nickname "Lula". He then had his name legally changejohnd to "Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio Lula da Silva". The article should definitely be at Lula.' &mdash; 200.165.239.87

The article should be at the full name, not merely Lula. 129.186.18.57 17:56 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

We don't always place articles at full legal names; the standard example here is Jimmy Carter. I guess the question for me is, would anybody recognise "Lula da Silva" as his name now, seeing "Lula" as a nickname being used in place of a first (Christian) name and "da Silva" as the correct last (sur-) name? If so, then it should be at Lula da Silva, not just Lula (just as we wouldn't put Jimmy Carter's article at just Jimmy). OTOH, if "Lula da Silva" would sound wrong to a native Brazilian (or even just be rejected by him as incorrect), that Lula alone seems reasonable (especially if "Lula" is some weird nonsense name that nobody else goes by). In any case, since "Lula" is a nickname by which he is commonly known, not going by "Lu&iacute;s" or "In&aacute;cio", I don't think that Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio Lula da Silva would be best, just as James Earl Carter is not best, since Jimmy doesn't go by "James" or "Earl".

Of course, you might be against the whole Jimmy Carter standard from the very beginning, but then I would take that up at Naming conventions, since that goes beyond just this one article.

&mdash; Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)


 * For all intents and purposes the man's name is "Lula", with the exception of government forms and the like, which are presumably of very minor interest to Wikipedia users. The article should definitely be at Lula. We have nice redirects from the rarer names. &mdash; 200.165.239.87

What makes the article name troublesome is that those who like him call him "Lula", and those who don't and those who want to remain neutral (like some news reports) call him "da Silva."

I don't have a strong opinion about where the article should reside--I support the "most popular name" policy but I have my questions as to whether the use of the name in this case might violate NPOV. But really, I don't care about that. One relatively clear-cut issue is that we should use "da Silva," as news articles do, rather than "Lula," to identify the man in the article itself. --Larry Sanger


 * Absolutely disagree with your characterization here. Neutrals and those who like him tend to prefer "Lula". Those who don't like him tend to prefer "da Silva". Actually, I suspect it comes down to "those ignorant of Brazil prefer 'da Silva'". &mdash; 200.165.239.87


 * You're just making a bald claim, and we know nothing about how much you do or don't know about Lula da Silva ;-). Why should we believe you?  More to the point, are you of the view that the majority of the news reports, which use "da Silva" rather than "Lula," are not actually neutral?  Since, presumably, these are major news sources and are at least as familiar with the man as either of us is. --Larry Sanger


 * I didn't interpret 200 as saying that the majority of news reports are negative towards Lula but instead as implying that the majority of news reports call him "Lula". I suppose that either way would work, but I wouldn't rush to judgement. If my interpretation turns out to be what 200 meant, then (s)he wasn't making any balder a claim than you were &mdash; I don't in fact know which is true (although my own quite limited experience suggests that 200 is correct). &mdash; Toby 23:52 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)


 * Toby, my argument was: a lot of news reports use "Mr. da Silva." Many if indeed not most--all the ones I linked to on the subject page, except the Dutch radio report; see http://news.google.com/ for plenty more.  Some reports use both, including the BBC article I linked to ("Mr da Silva," and The Independent.  Since presumably these sources are making an attempt to be unbiased, the well-informed, unbiased tendency is toward using "Mr. da Silva" or both names.  So perhaps that's what we should do.  That's not a bald claim--merely an (inductively strong) argument from authority.  ;-)  I'm not afraid to admit I'm a little sensitive about accusations of bad or no argumentation; I'm teaching critical thinking this quarter.  :-) --Larry Sanger


 * I understand your argument, and I do not believe that you were making a bald claim. However, I believe that you do not understand 200's argument (although their explanation is less clear, so perhaps it is I that don't understand). 200 is claiming that neutral sources say "Lula". Even Matthew below cites the BBC (presumably as a neutral source) that says "Lula". You concluded that 200 was claiming that the mainstream news media were not neutral, but it s

eems just as reasonable to conclude (as I did) that 200 was claiming that the news media were using "Lula" (which had in fact been my impression too). This is not a bald claim either. It may be wrong, it may be right; I don't know. In fact you've now cited some specific examples in favour of your claim, so I hope that 200 will come back to cite examples in favour of their claim. But nobody is making bald claims; there is simply (as I read it) a disagreement about what the neutral sources do in fact actually say. (This will go better if 200 also comes back to explain exactly what they meant.) &mdash; Toby 04:13 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)


 * Oy, not that this really merits all this discussion, but...(1) I did not say or imply, if you'll read what I wrote, that the mainstream news media were not neutral; (2) if you'll follow the link I refer to above, the BBC uses both but seems to prefer "Mr da Silva" in the article linked; (3) I understood perfectly well that 200 was saying that neutral sources say "Lula," and that is precisely what I was citing the news sources to refute; (4) the claim of 200's that is bald is precisely that neutral parties use "Lula." What's 200's evidence for this? --LMS


 * I know that you didn't imply this; you implied that 200 had implied this.
 * You never mentioned that BBC link in your response to 200.
 * But your response cited no news sources.
 * And what was your evidence that they don't? Although you eventually came up with some, at the time of your response to 200, your claim was as bald as theirs; neither of you had cited any evidence.
 * I give up. I could reply, but I am not going to bother. --LMS


 * Let me tell you why I'm making a point of this.


 * You certainly made that clear. I think you're confused, overly combative, and in general way off-base, but I'm too disgusted to engage in this any further. --LMS


 * You said that neutral sources used "da Silva", and 200 said that neutral sources used "Lula". At that point, neither of you had cited any evidence for your position; you were merely reporting your impressions. When you replied, you characterised 200's weak position in derogatory terms, but your position was then equally weak. Furthermore, you didn't bother to strengthen your position then either. You knew that you were correct, you knew the mainstream news articles that backed you up, but you didn't actually cite them to the rest of us here. We just had to take your word for it, when we could just as easily have taken 200's word if we wished, until somebody actually cited some particular neutral sources. It was an arrogant expectation to think that people would trust your claim over 200's when you didn't back your claim up, and especially to characterise 200's claim as "bald" when yours had no more evidence backing it &mdash; among the evidence presented here, that is. (In the meantime, you've presented specific citations, and even explained away the specific citation offered by Matthew in defence of 200's position. So you definitely have the stronger claim now &mdash; but not when you were talking to 200.) I see that 200, a newcomer, has left this discussion too, although they are participating on several other pages. I hope that they didn't feel bullied away. &mdash; Toby 15:28 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)


 * Please remember that the world is a big place. None of us is in a position to say what name the majority of news reports are using. But as one data point, the BBC is just saying "Lula". Matthew Woodcraft

Another data point: "Da Silva" is the most common surname in Brazil. I think it makes sense to have the article at Lula; within the entry, it's a tossup whether to use Lula or da Silva. We generally use last names within the article. --The Cunctator

He is President-elect and will be sworn in on 1 Jan 2003.

I suspect the current position of PT and Lula is only slightly to the left of Lyndon Johnson and may not be any more left than FDR. But the USA has moved so far to the right in the last 25 years that this looks leftist indeed by comparison.


 * Possibly. It's also difficult to compare current politicians to historical standards, because the socioeconomic landscape is so different. In today's global political climate, Lula is certainly leftist, and certainly far left in comparison to the alternatives. It is definitely worth discussing how the definition has shifted, in the leftism entry. --The Cunctator


 * Lula was one of the most revolutionary left-wing politicians in Brazil for some time. More radicals parties and leaders have shown up since he started his political life. He was known to talk to the congress in the year 2000 asking for a referendum to decide whether the country should keep up paying interest over the sovereign public debt or should declare a default and use the money for social projects. By the year 2002, when he was elected president, he had a much more moderate speech, which he has sustained until this date. Although moderate, PT and Lula himself are considered left-wing, and most of all, they like to be considered that way. Poli 20:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether the article is at Lula or Silva or Da Silva or Lula da Silva, as long as readers looking for info on the man can find it. What is all the fuss about? Is this something personal between Toby and Larry? Take it off-line, guys.


 * No, Ed, it's nothing personal. --LMS
 * Right, nothing more than what you see here. &mdash; Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

The standard is: name an article with either the most common form or the "preferred form" of the English spelling of a person's name. All the variations get a REDIRECT to the main article. Major variations are mentioned in the article, usually in the first parapraph (if not the first sentence).

Based purely on reading this talk page, it seems that people talking about the man call him variously Lula or da Silva. When I have time, I'll look into it further, but I wish you guys would cooperate a bit more. --Ed Poor

I've been arguing with Larry over whether something that 200 wrote was a "bald claim", and things like that. But I do believe that he's established the the major news media refer to Lula as "da Silva" on second reference. The only think that I'm left wondering about is whether "Lula da Silva" is a reasonable name for the guy or whether that just doesn't parse. If "Lula da Silva" is analogous to "Jimmy Carter" (something that works), then we should put the article at Lula da Silva, but if "Lula da Silva" is analogous to, say, "LMS Sanger" (which doesn't work), then we should move it to Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio Lula da Silva. I'm inclined to guess the former, but I'm not certain. In any case, I agree that it shouldn't stay at Lula. &mdash; Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)


 * I think there's a naming convention about this, but I forget where on the 'pedia it is -- maybe it's buried inside a longer article that attempts to address all possible naming problems. I think we need a separate, easily located article on "what to call people".
 * Some newspapers just use the family name for the 2nd and following mentions, as in John Smith died. Smith was a famous pianist. or Kim Il-Sung died. Kim was a famous politician. But what do you do if the "family name" isn't commonly used? When we report Saddam Hussein's death, do we say Saddam died or Hussein died? (Not an urgent question -- yet). --Ed Poor

---

In the Brazilian press, he is always Luís Inácio Lula da Silva rather than Lula da Silva. I assume they are familiar with correct Brazilian naming conventions. :-) -- The consensus here seems to be shaping up for putting the main article at Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, with redirects from Lula and all the other variations.


 * Larry had already convinced me that we should include "da Silva", and my only question was whether or not to include "Lu&iacute;s In&aacute;cio". With this report from the Brasilian press (especially coming as it does from a previous supporter of the opposite choice), I'm convinced. I think that this means that there are now no objections to the situation that Brion has already made a reality. So, great! &mdash; Toby 06:16 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Incidentally, as of 31 Oct 2002, the actual text of the article seems to be settling into a pretty good NPOV groove.

IMPORTANT: His actual name (correct in Portuguese) is Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. Do we want to make the article under this or under Luis Inacio Lula da Silva ("looks like normal English spelling")?


 * It is kind of a mess now. The redirects are out of whack.  I think you want to make the article itself have the title Luís Inácio Lula da Silva and make Lula and Luis Inacio Lula da Silva into redirects.  If Luís Inácio Lula da Silva is the article, then the title will look right, with all its accents.  Ortolan88


 * I'll move it -- please no one touch the articles for a few minutes! --Brion 01:31 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yikes, that was fun. It should be intact now. --Brion 01:45 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

--

...Has the dust settled?...

Okay, a round of applause for Brion for intrepid administering. Thanks.

More Brasilian name questions: When "da Silva" appears in the middle of a sentence but at the beginning of the name, do we capitalise "da"? I would think no, since we don't capitalise it when it appears in the middle of the name. Does anybody know for sure? &mdash; Toby 06:25 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)


 * I am Brazilian. "da" is NOT PART of the surname it is just a demonstrative preposition contracted with a definite article ("de+a=da" meaning "from the"). If a man's name is Roberto da Silva you should refer to him as "Mr. Silva", "Dr. Silva"... Another example Antônio de Castro (Mr. Castro, Dr. Castro, Senhor Castro, etc...). Never capitalise "da", "do", "dos", and "das". Use those words only if you use the full name (Ângelo das Neves, Lula da Silva, Roberto do Carmo, Eugênia dos Santos) and forget them when not citing the first name (Mr. Neves, Sr. Silva, Dr. Carmo, Ms. Santos -- this is the English way, in Brazil it should be: Senhor Ângelo, Sr. Lula, Dr. Roberto, Senhora Eugênia). I apologize for my poor English, and hope I have ade things clear about the usage of "da".

I am brazilian, and as far as I´ve seen in other wiki articles (some of those I´ve written months ago), I think he should be in Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, without accents. The URL with the accents is strange. Also, in the Brazil/History and List of brazilian presidents we have being using brazilian names without accents, at least in the term itself, but using the accents in the link (like Luís Inácio Lula da Silva|Luis Inacio Lula da Silva]. Sorry if I can´t sound polite, my english is rough... Can I move the page?

Yves 12:38 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * I put the page back here at Luís Inácio Lula da Silva for the time being. If you must rename a page, please remember to a) attempt to keep the edit history intact (use the handy "Move page" function, don't just cut-n-paste, which breaks the continuity of the revision history) and b) make sure you haven't broken dozens of redirects. Currently this must be done manually - check the "What links here" link. --Brion 02:53 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)


 * Sorry... Yves 02:53 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

That's a better photo than the one I've just put back into the article, no arguments on that score. But – particularly in light of the current fair use debate and this weekend's image tagging frenzy – I think the right thing to do is prefer pics for which we have clear permission. Maybe User:Cantor could tell us where he got this one? –Hajor 18:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Luís or Luiz
This article consistently uses "Luís". However, on the website of the Brazilian presidency (here) he is consistently referred to as "Luiz". Could one of our Brazilians/Lusophones explain or clarify that for us, please? –Hajor 00:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brazilian wikipedian speaking here. VEJA, the most important Brazilian magazine, writes Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that´s 'Luiz', no accent and with a z. He was born Luiz Inácio da Silva, and was nicknamed Lula, which is a nickname for both Luiz and Luís. Then changed his name to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. End of story Doidimais Brasil 22:15, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Doidimais! –Hajor 14:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Both Luiz and Luís are usual in Brazil, although only the second is spelled correctly (according to official spelling, it is). The first form was the official spelling before the Spelling reforms of Portuguese. According to the Brazilian law a living person must be called by the name as found in his/her birth certificate, spelled correctly or not, while dead persons must be called by the correct spelling of their names. That's why Brazilian writer Rachel de Queiroz is called as such (she was born before the spelling reforms), but she'll become Raquel de Queirós the instant she dies.

So, this question boils down to finding which form of the name is written on his documents. If Luiz happens to be written there, then it is the official form and language purists must wait for him to die or, in case of radical purists, go for it... jggouvea 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Imparciality
I'm brazilian. I would remark that the article about our president is against him. This Wikipedia must be imparcial.

''I'll add to this. The point of view that Lula was a Stalin in the making is one that comes from unrespectable ultra right-wing sources and following this point of view in the article is something like asking some neo-nazis to write the entry on Holocaust. A more neutral point of view should put him as a leftist labour and pro-democracy leader. I also fear those absolutes. He did not copy "all" policies from the previous administration, opting instead for gradual change. One immense philosophical difference in his policy is how his government has a strong determination to get the (huge) debt under control. Much of this huge debt is the result of his predecessor's government. But I think we shouldn't compare his government at all in the body of the article. History takes time. At most we should quote the strictly factual for now and avoid early judgement. Those who want to write opinion should avoid Wikipedia.''

He's Lula
In Brazil, we call him "Lula". Neither "da Silva", nor "Lula da Silva", nor "Luiz da Silva". Lula is a nickname, a contraction of "Luiz Inácio". It's not a surname. In Brazil, we use the nicknames a lot.

Expected vandalism: Veja case
Veja, the leading weekly Brazilian news magazine (with a circulation of more than 1,200,000) made a story about wikipedia, questioning the accuracy of its content. They claim to have made a "test", where they edited Lula's birth place, from "Lula was born (...)in an small city in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco", to "Lula was born in an industrial city in the state of Pernambuco", which was false. They wrote that the false version lasted 2 days without any revisions (the journalist states he had to correct the article himself).

Expect some low-IQ Brazilians to try to emulate Veja's experience in the next days / weeks.

Last time, I had to correct it from "Alagoas" to its previous (and true) birthplace, "Pernambuco". --(not signed)


 * I propose you lock this page until Veja story can be forget. --Osias 17:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that we must watch the article to see if there will be really that kind of vandalism. As I see, the readers of Veja are slightly smarter than the journalist. By watching the article (not blocking), we could also prove that Veja was wrong. Marcelo R. 03:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revista VEJA
In January 23, 2005, VEJA published an article about wikipedia, stating that it was edited by whomever wanted to. VEJA also stated on their article that some time ago they deliberately spread misinformation about president Lula on Wikipedia just to prove their point.


 * article link and the Wikipedia portuguese retaliation: "Mau-Caratismo"


 * This is the brazilian way to deal with critics.


 * This is the Veja way to criticize at the same time, Lula and Wikipedia. User:Sanmartin


 * Veja is often acused of parciality (though most Brazilian magazines are "in the same boat"). It is a conservative, right-wing magazine which appeals to the youth and to the modern people. Do not trust it too soon. jggouvea 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, could you please cite all the procedures that we'd done to revert the criticism (see current version of article, or the pt Wikipedia village pump)) and the fact that the user which wrote that was not licensed to speak for the community? "The way brazilians deal with critics" seems that your carry a lot of prejudice about us, and I can only say that the Veja's attitude was disastrous for the project; they call for something that they didn't and don't have, and by that they show only a small aspect of Wikipedia (vandalism), not the fact that hundreds or millions of people are working togheter in order to create a great and trusted encyclopedia. Marcelo R. 03:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is only a critic, it does not have reason for negative comments.


 * See pt.Wikipedia "Esplanada" negative repercussion


 * See Rede Globo and Leonal Brizola absolutely partial articles. It's obvious that communists and universitary idealists students invaded portuguese Wikipedia.


 * The brazillians have curious vocation to change small things in big controverses. See New York Times article about Lula causes diplomatic incident and converts in the last government crisis --- A strong punch on table, and the express order to banish New York Times journalist of Brazil. It's a first emotional reaction of president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.


 * The 3 cited articles contais a thing that we used to call a fact. If saying or writting the truth is something restricted to "communists and universitary idealists", I'm both. And, of course, Larry Rohter (the man who wrote about "fat brazilians girls on Ipanema" based on a picture of a european tourist) isn't a communist, I guess.


 * A fact? The president reacts as a dictator about a simple article, baning the journalist of Brazil, having bad repercusion in local press, and is a only a fact? Dear Brazilian friend, does not have secret here, Lula is being reason of jokes in the Brazilian press which had its controversial and banal acts. About fat brazilian girls... See IBGE 2004 Study: 40% of brazilians are above health weight. Very interessant, a government statistic organization contests the main government project Fome Zero!

About the neutrality of this article
This article has some NPOV problems. First at all, I would like to explain that I am brazilian and a lulist. And secondly, I say, to the foreign people, that there is a big and noisy opposition in the right wing of Brazil, and a little and noisy one in the extreme left wing. I noticed that a brazilian radical leftlist wrote something here, and it was not imparcial. Specially in the topic The Government - Political Orientation. I cutted something out, but not totally. I just ask: don't put it again here, because there's no place for it. Better write a topic with more than one point of view in the article about PT


 * If you are talking about me, Sanmartin, I am sorry to disapoint you but I really express no opinion on politics. All that you consider not NPOV is just what was stated in every major news in Brazil and elsewhere. The links you deleted were also helpful in determing the NPOV of my text. I will soon add more topics on his government, and, unlike you, I plan to write about them also. I will, as usual, express NO OPINION, and just use the information available on the media and official distribution channels. I consider the reinserted text as belonging to Lula's article, not only PT, for their decision to fight against the party and leave would probably never have happened if Lula didn't follow the present course of actions. Please note, once more, that I haven't expressed any kind of opinion: I just inserted the text as it is relevant to the article. As a matter of fact, you erased sourced information I inserted and inserted some politically-oriented affirmations. - Poli 02:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "I just use the information available on the media". Here, we have a problem: the brazilian journals have NOT a neutral point of view. It is clearly against Lula. I think that Lula's article is not a good place to discuss PT's problems. Just one reason: Lula is NOT PT. FACT: there are some radicals in PT that do not agree with the new orientation. The point of view problem is spending three paragraphes clearly in favour of the radicals. Notice that I have NOT deleted it from the article, I have just reduced it. User:Sanmartin


 * I have moved this to PT's article, all right? User:Sanmartin


 * "In favour of the radicals" now, where did that come from?! In favour? It was NEVER stated if they were right or wrong, or if Lula was right or wrong, or if the party was right or wrong. Was it? Sanmartin, you have a clear point of view about the subject, you are PRO lula. That is all right. But please don't mix things up. And about the brazilian news not being reliable... I guess international news shouldn't be too, right? As they stated precisely the same, and they do have independent writers in Brazil that most surely aren't influenced that much by the "evil" brazilian media. Please, notice that you are being politically oriented here. And I really don't think there should be a section for each of the "reforms", especially if you aren't planning on writting the text. --Poli 07:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Son of Moscow?"
This article states, under "Political Orientation," that Lula was "called the 'son of Moscow' in 1989," but fails to attribute this description. It is my opinion that the source of this epithet (or description, if you prefer) is extremely significant to evaluating its significance. It is too potentially inflammatory to stand alone, unless it was a widely used and popular turn of speech.

Please pardon me if I fouled this comment up, I'm rather new to actually participating in Wikipedia.

Dayv 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now edited this section, removing the unattributed "Son of Moscow" description. I've also removed "once-feared," as this is a meaningless or clearly POV statement without further qualification: by whom was Lula once feared? Dayv 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

This article is still rife with typographical and grammtical errors.
This article needs a near complete overhaul in order to conform to even the most elementary standards of English literacy. I understand that this page is constantly being edited and vandalized, and often by Brazilians with a less-than-perfect command of the English language. However, as this article is in the English Wikipedia, this sort of editorial history should not be any sort of excuse. I'm sending myself a reminder to tackle the Augean stable of errors as soon as I get the chance.

NPOV again
First of all, I'm Brazilian and PRO Lula. I want a more neutral article. Not all the people in Brazil, I know, like him. But not all the people hate him. Every one knows what NPOV means, it would be rather a Multiple Point of view. So, criticism and good things must come together. Althou, Wikipedia cannot agree with bias, hate or fanatism. Here is a list of some alterations I made and a bit of opinion:


 * Biography: it is alright. It is a standart biography...
 * Elections... "In the second round of the 2002 election, (...) and became the president of Brazil." instead of "to become the president-elect of Brazil". Just a bit of grammar.3
 * The Government - Political Orientation: some time before, I transfered a piece of text about the radical-left-wing of PT from this article to PT's article. I DID NOT DELETED it. I just put it in a better place, because it is not a personal problem of Lula, but a problem for the party. Every one agree? The external links about it i tranfered to PT's article, too.
 * The Government - Reforms and Important Laws. When I first wrote it I put each item as a section (I was pretending to write a piece of text for each one). It was oversized and so, following a sugestion, I changed it in a list. All right?
 * Deleted: "Unfortunately, there has been no control over the program on behalf of the government and "Bolsa Família" has been transformed into mere populism." - It is not the common sense. It is a political point of view of an action of the government. Populism is a dangerous word that must be avoided. Maybe we could use another phrase instead, like it: "Althou, there is some criticism on the efficency of this project.".

Thank you, SanMartin

The article is still pro-Lula
although it is getting better. I think it should be mentioned that many of the reforms Lula passed were proposed by the former admnistration, and Lula vocally opposed them at that occasion, in a non-constructive manner. It should also be mentioned that Fome Zero is widely regarded as joke, and that it's premiss(that supposedely there are tens of millions of starving brazilians) has already been proven false by IBGE(and Lula made a fool out of himslef by suggesting that IBGE used polling). In fact it is now known that statistically there is no hunger in Brazil(the 4% of the population that are underweight are within the expected due to genetic causes). -- Mr. Who-Are-You (what is your name, please?), I know you are AGAINST Lula, but you have to accept that there are people who believe and like him, there are people who don't. Althou, you have to comprehend that we cannot be agressive against anyone who are wikipediated. It mustn't be an anti-Lula article. If it was, it would not be a NPOV article, wouldn't it? So, when you say that these reforms were purposed in the former administration, I, with my own POV, say that if FHC has not passed them (he has indeed majority in the National Congress), it's Lula's now. When you say that "Fome Zero is widely regarded as joke" you are stating YOUR point-of-view, aren't you? (the numbers, oh, the numbers...). It's stupid to say that no one have hunger in Brazil. What about the 96% of the population that are underweight and don't suffer from genetic causes? Well, forget it... I sugest something: Let's NPOV it the fast we can. Até... User:Sanmartin
 * 1) we delete the reforms that have not been passed yet
 * 2) we write a little text for each one, with pros and criticisms
 * 3) we make a paragraph about São Francisco River, with pros and criticisms
 * 4) we write a couple of phrases on criticism on Fome Zero, not biased.

NPOV is all I'm asking for
My name is Luiz Paulo, BTW. I think this article was written with considerable left-leaning and pro-government bias. It clearly suggests that the government's social programs are effective, which is completely open to debate. I am a student of Economics and think they are a terrible misuse of resources, as do most people I've met in the field. Furthermore there is little to no criticisms of Lula in the article; I can't see why it shouldn't be mentioned that many of the reforms he aproved were loudly opposed by himself just a few years ago. I would also mention some of his authoritarian tendencies, or at least mention that some criticise him for supposed authoritarian tendencies. Regarding starvation in Brazil, the study made by IBGE is conclusive. Statistically speaking, it does not exist in Brazil. Of course there are some people who are starving, but they are nothing close to the bloated numbers that Lula mentioned during his campaign. Isolated cases of starvation can be found even in Western Europe. Obesity is by far a larger problem, as are low quality diets. All said, I do not plan on editing the article or whatever, overall it's quite informative. I'm just respectfully giving some ideas to improve it, or rather offering a different perpesctive. Regards.

Vandalism
Just a note: In April first, the user Gatchinho (in Portuguese, kitten) vandalisated this article. Fortunately, this stupidy was reverted by User:198.4.83.52. Thank you, Mr. .52. User:Sanmartin.

Answer for Luiz Paulo - NPOV, another time
First of all, my name is José San Martin, brazilian, and I would like to remark some relevant things:
 * 1) This article has just passed by a npov-isation, made by two people, me, pro Lula, and Mateusc, against Lula (I think), and I thought it was all right.
 * 2) I'm pro Lula, as I have already said.
 * 3) I ask you: don't do anything before some discussion.
 * 4) Articles mustn't be against its matter, that would not be NPOV. We must be diplomatic.
 * 5) This article have just sufferd vandalism against Lula.
 * 6) Even you know that Lula has a considerable popularity in Brazil. Not all the people in our county thinks like you.

I think this article was written with considerable left-leaning and pro-government bias. - Left-leaning bias? What on earth do you mean?

''It clearly suggests that the government's social programs are effective, which is completely open to debate. '' - No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about the efficency of them, it just says what is their purpose. Some critics say that hunger is not a real problem in Brazil. - I've inserted this phrase in the article, se isso te deixa mais feliz.

''I am a student of Economics and think they are a terrible misuse of resources, as do most people I've met in the field. '' - Sinceramente, você já encontrou alguém agraciado pelo programa falando mal? Ah, esquece.

Furthermore there is little to no criticisms of Lula in the article;  - What do you want, really? Your anti-lula point of view? I note that in Fernando Henrique Cardoso's article, there almost no criticism, and I do not want to write it there, because it is an encyclopaedia, not a forum on politcs. As encyclopaedians, we must to be kindful and diplomatic to every one.

I can't see why it shouldn't be mentioned that many of the reforms he aproved were loudly opposed by himself just a few years ago. I can't see why it should.

I would also mention some of his authoritarian tendencies, or at least mention that some criticise him for supposed authoritarian tendencies. - Vai encher o saco de outro, vai... Papo de tucano derrotado na eleição, não é?

''Regarding starvation in Brazil, the study made by IBGE is conclusive. Statistically speaking, it does not exist in Brazil. Of course there are some people who are starving, but they are nothing close to the bloated numbers that Lula mentioned during his campaign. Isolated cases of starvation can be found even in Western Europe. Obesity is by far a larger problem, as are low quality diets. - So, let them starve and die, hungry!'' They are nothing but number after the comma in your statistics. It is a anti-human and technocratic statemant. You know, that it exists, just walk along the city-centre, not far from your university.

''All said, I do not plan on editing the article or whatever, overall it's quite informative. I'm just respectfully giving some ideas to improve it, or rather offering a different perpesctive. Regards.''

Até mais ver.

So, no more NPOV problems, is there?

User:Sanmartin (ps: some paragraphs I have written in Portuguese are things that aren't nor important neither interesting for the foreign people. Don't worry about it. There's no offence to anyone)

Sanmartin is lying. There is definitely offence in one of the remarks he made to the other user ("Vai encher o saco de outro, vai..."). This kind of partisan behaviour is disgraceful. 201.81.183.136 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, long time ago. I'm sorry Check my history, I'm not doing this anymore for a long while. Por favor, releve José San Martin 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why nobody writes nothing about Brazilian Political Crisis?(Vote for Cash Scandal)
I think that is necessary add to the article something about this...respecting the Wikipedia imparciality of course!!!!

There's an article on it, Brazilian vote-for-cash scandal. I think a mention like "Lula basis and government was affected by a crisis in the end of 2005 and the effects of it remains unclear." I don't know where to place it, however. José San Martin 13:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the edits by 200.244.149.212 on this issue due to NPOV issues and anonymous edit status. --Dali-Llama 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fome Zero
I tried to edit the Fome Zero/IBGE study blurb. I think it's highly relevant in regards to his social programs, but I think we haven't nailed down how to do it within NPOV. I'll try again later on. In the meantime, does anybody have a link to the study itself? This is one of those things which is good to back up in order to avoid a revert war. --Dali-Llama 15:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This study from IBGE says that obesity is also a important issue, not that there is no hungry in Brazil. --Patrick-br msg 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are some good statistics about this government's social policies.  Shall that be mentioned? José San Martin 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend witholding any specifics until his first term ends. It's one of those things which go up, and then down, and then back up again. If we can find indicators which have been consistent, then absolutely. Then again, it'd be a year without indicators, so I'd say let's try it and see if we can keep it within NPOV.--Dali-Llama 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with you, Dali-Lama. We must not judge one's government till it has not ended! There are some data that are stronger, but let it out of this article. Yet, since we are not judging this government yet, I suggest to delete the statement that "there are criticism on the effectiveness of...". 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit different in those cases. The NPOV manual states that debates can be described without giving weight to one side. That statement is not saying that those criticisms are valid or not. Again, if we can find statistics on the program one way or another great. Personally I think the bit about Fome Zero, for example, is more important for characterizing the opposition and the arguments they used against it rather than the merits of the program itself (The same study still said 3+ million were undernourished). It's not a question of judging the government, but adding information to let the reader judge. The pitfall is the choice of what information to include, which is why we have to think about the indicators we choose to include. If we can find data on the program (or any other program) which can show several intervals of data, I'd say let's put it in.


 * P.S. I edited the article to add the updated figure from IBGE--Dali-Llama 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edit it. I totally agree with keeping the reference to IBGE's figures. Perhaps the text is a bit pro-fome, since FAO's statistics come after. I've deleted the references to overweighted people. I think that it is rather non-sense, but my actual reason was that I couldn't figure out how to put it there. Please, rew I have also deleted the sentence This program [Bolsa familia] is also subject to criticism, since it was completely lost and meaningless. There must be a reason for these critics. José San Martin 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing the overweight criticism. Per your own argument, if we are willing to concede that there are criticisms, we should say what these criticisms are. Again, it`s not a question if we agree with them or not, but that was a main argument used by the opposition. That's what NPOV is about--describing the debate. Removing the criticism is saying there's no debate or that it's unfounded (rather than poorly founded). Could you try to rephrase it or revert?--Dali-Llama 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, include the text about overweight. Just don't make it too long. I agree that it is a important piece in the debate. José San Martin 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DaliLama: great edit! 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval Numbers
Guys, "eroded" is less serious than you're thinking. Erosion in English (at least here in the US) has the meaning of a slow weathering or abrasion. I would say that "dropped" is worse than "eroded". His numbers didn't drop dramatically from one day to the next--they slowly "eroded" to where they are. They can go back up again, absolutely, but we'll cross that river when we get to it. Certainly a trivial issue which does not warrant a revert feud--and most definitely one which barely affects NPOV. For the record, I'm fine with either one--as I've mentioned, I think eroded is the appropriate word, even if I find "dropped" being the more grave of the two.--Dali-Llama 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept both. End of discussion? José San Martin 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Why don't we make a selection of some of ridiculous quotes from Lula ? We could really give an idea to the world about who is this president - believe me ...George W Bush is aN Einstein compared with the guy.. 200.160.107.168 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Must we put up with this kind of people? Ah, bah! José San Martin 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it bother you Sanmartin ? Really? Why not ? There is a link in the George Bush article to his famous "quotes"...Why not Lula ? I think Democracy really bothers people like you ...RegardsCloretti 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are there people who consider theirshelves superior to others ?200.160.107.168 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not start BlahBlahBlah and you-think-you-are-superior-than-me stuff. The other people don't deserve that. Whatever! There is no list of stupid quotations in George Bush's article. What wikipedia has is a link to Wikiquotes and there, there is a section of "bushisms". In this article, there is also a link to Lula's Wikiquote, which is already sufficient stupid. More discussions, please, go to Lula's article in Wikiquote, which deserves some improvements (and it includes including what you call his stupid quotes). And sorry if sometimes I become a little impatient; if you are against Lula, why can't I be pro? José San Martin 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, please!
I've erased this part of the text. It's unbelievingly partial: "Despite that, he let his government and party get involved in the greatest scandal of collective corruption in the history of the country, involving millions of dollars in tax evasion, embezzlemnt, foreign currency drain, etc. He continues to deny responsibility - a typical trait of Brazilian politicians - trying to make the population believe he was not aware of the crimes activities performed under the orders of his closest subordinates :José Dirceu, José Genuíno, Delúbio Soares, among others, all of them sponsored by the corruption scheme organized by publicist Marcos Valério ("Valerioduto"). He is currently trying to obtain funds to distribute vouchers for the poorest and humblest population, in a direct attempt to populistically manipulate the elections and ensure his re-election. The latest scandal of his government involves the use of the state to protect corruption from one of his ministers and using the federal police, one of the country's official banks and all effort from the Ministry of Justice to transform an accusation witness into a defendant, and not to allow investigations about Lula´s closest allies, such as businessman Paulo Okamoto, who was gifted by the very Lula the presidency of SEBRAE. Lula is the biggest disappointment and greatest frustration the Brazilian population has ever lived." 200.139.176.122 23:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this guy keeps including it. And we have to keep reverting. Bah. José San Martin 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"First Socialist president"?
The article states that Lula is the first socialist president of Brazil since João Goulart. I think it would be more apropriate to say left-of-the-center rather than socialist, since Goulart was pro-labour, but also an important land owner and his proposed reforms were far from revolutionary and Lula has never defined himself as a "leftist". 200.139.140.81 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I put "leftist", that is a less specific term, and makes more sense in the phrase. Remember that left-to-center and socialists are also leftists. José San Martin 12:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The section "Plans for reelection"
Shouldn't the section "Plans for reelection" be under "Political trajetory"? By the way, is there a better name for it? José San Martin 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tributary"
f/y/i: in american english, the word tributary isn't really used to mean "taxed" or "taxation" in the way that "tributario" is used in portuguese. dunno about British english. Streamless 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. 've changed. José San Martin 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Geraldo Alckmin as "Lula's direct adversary"
The most recent poll shows Lula with 47% of vote intentions, Geraldo Alckmin with 21% and Heloísa Helena with 12%. Where is the boundary line between not being a direct adversary and being one? And, since the president has more votes than all the other candidates together, how can one even say he has any true direct adversary? A.Z. 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At a glance, my response is: it's a long election, and a lot can happen. But if one is to consider Lula the "left" option in the election, and Alckmin as the "right" option, as elections typically pan out, then one can consider Alckmin his most direct adversary.--Dali-Llama 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rupture with the roots
He is formely Marxist and now is Neo-Liberal pro-Capitalism. 201.79.47.3 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Nice joke. Now, back to the real world: this guy supports and is supported by communist dictators all over the world. His pork-barrel spending policies and fierce defense of Brazil's heavy bureaucratic apparatus (with all the ensuing corruption scandals) also reek of old-fashioned leftism. Few people could be considered as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist as Lul(l)a.201.21.200.15 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. What is your point? Do you pretend to change anything is this article? José San Martin 02:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * f/y/i: in american english, the word pretend isn't really used to mean "intend" or "to have the intention of" in the way that "pretender" is used in portuguese. dunno about British english. A.Z. 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is pure POV.
What about máfia dos sanguessugas transfer all accusations to other article is POV.

severe vandalism!!!!!!!!!
this article needs cleanup immediately, and I suggest anti-vandalism urgently!!!!!!

Anything said about lula Is NOT VANDALISM he is a big mothafucker and deserved to be killed, not stay 4 more years kidding with peoples money, and duplicating his profits ...

Asshole !


 * Ok, that violates our Neutral Point of View policies, then. José San Martin 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be flagged and fixed
The current contents make no sense! Some idiot wrote lots of bullshit in it. Please fix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.144.204 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Requested page protection for the article and administrator intervention against vandalism. Limongi (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Expansion and Revision
This article needs a major expansion od some sections and revisions on the other, lets start to work on that. We need referencs for everything. The setio on the Union career needs a major expansion, the section on the major laws, needs expansion and cleanup. I am going to be working on this article for next few days, but I think the more people helping the better, lets try to get this article to at least a good article status. Chico 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Major changes
I have just made some major changes to the article, I would appreciate if we were to discuss any problems one may have with any of the changes. Chico 03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Badly sourced
"Prior to that, however, Lula had already filled various posts in the same union, and it was in that capacity that he traveled to the U.S., during the early 1970s in the middle of the Brazilian military dictatorship, to attend a course in trade unionism sponsored by AFL-CIO and ORIT the regional organization for the ICFTU . " We need the page number, and more information about the source to say this in a Bio.Chico 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Election results in first paragraph
I don't see why to mention in the first paragraph that he won elections with x% of the votes... It should be removed, or else it should also mention that both elections had a second turn. -- NIC1138 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupation and profession
Please note that my removal of the description "profession: metallurgist" from Lula's infobox does not imply any slight against Lula or any sort of incipient POV struggle. It's simply an error in translation.

Lula has never been a metallurgist in the sense that the word is used in English. I have _twice_ corrected this description in his infobox, and both times noted that it's a false cognate.

In Portuguese, "metalurgico" is used to describe any worker in heavy manufacturing, and particular in the auto industry (the article notes that Lula was a press operator before getting involved in union activities). In English, metallurgy is a specialized field within engineering, and would require a higher degree.

For Lula's subsequent work as a union organizer, and for similar reasons, I changed "syndicalist" to "trade unionist". Trade union organizer would be preferred, but does not exist in that exact form in the English Wikipedia.

--Ksimons (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Picture
I have a picture of Lula when he was working at the Sao Paulo Unions. Would you guys delete it if I put it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.32.108 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Term end in 2011 certain?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to replace the "January 2011" end of his term in the data box under his photo with something to the effect of "present"? He may have been elected to serve until then, but that is still a date in the future, and he may not serve until then.Mal7798 (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

is the pronounce correct?
currently it says shouldn't all those "ɐ"s be the same as the "a" in "da" and "i'nasju" ? I don't trust I'm good with pronunciation keys and such, I'm not sure, but whenever I hear people saying his name those "ɐ"s for me sound the same as the "a"s --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

you're right. i'm Brazilian and in Lula's name all a's sound like "a". it has to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.72.230.98 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lula vs Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho
Da Silva criticised Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl, who had had an abortion when she conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather, despite Brazilian doctors at the hospital said they had to take account of the welfare of the girl, and that she was so small that her uterus did not have the ability to contain one child let alone two. The girl herself was not excommunicated, due to her age, and nor was the alleged abuser. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, in his role as President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, lent his support to the Archbishop. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.73.110 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding this makes no sense, its of little relevance to this man's life.

Major NPOV violations
"Unfortunately this is only government publicity. Most of the money in reality was spent criminally on criminal projects in the slums. In Brazilian slums the land is stolen, generaly national forest land - Mata Atlantica, with the trees being illegaly cut. Then homes are constructed without permits, full of building code violations and are never inspected. Once these criminals move in, they do not pay property taxes, steal electricity, telefone service, water and cable TV. Then they polute the environment, dumping untreated sewage and letting it run off into the ocean, creating a health hazzard for all beach goers. They do not pay for garbage collection, instead creat illegal dumps on national forest land. As you can clearly see these are all criminal activities, which makes them criminals. Then this corrupt president insist in doing social programs for these criminals, which is nothing more than vote buying in disguise. Regardless, association with criminals is a crime just like in the US. Therefore, Lula by implementing any program in the slums is associating with criminals and is therefore comiting a crime. Additionally, he knows perfectly well about all these crimes being commited by these criminals, but refuses to enforce Brazilian laws. This makes him a criminal also.

Additionaly Lula is a thief and or corupt. When he registered to run for president it was revealed on his income tax filing that he had personal property worth 1 million. This he suposedly gained from a career as an auto worker and a union boss. Even though this wealth accumulation is well beyond the means of a Brazilian auto worker, no one was able to prove that the money was obtained illegaly. However, just ask yourself, if it was possible for Lula to accumulate this wealth as an auto worker, why aren't all Brazilian auto workers millionares?"

I'm going to delete that. Hope no one minds. Josh (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do mind. And mind very much

The above information is 100% true. I lived in Rio de Janeiro 2000 to 2006 and I know the above to be 100% true. Any non slum dwelling resident of Rio de Janeiro can confirm all the above information. If you want proof check the property tax collection receipts for the slums and you will see they do not pay property taxes (IPTU) You can also check the city land registration documents and you will see that the land in the slums was never purchased. It could not have been as the slums are on National Forest land - Mata Atlantica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.209.130.1 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The information about the slums is 100% correct. The use of public lands by corrupt government officials (mostly associated with criminals and paramilitary groups) to increase their power and prevent riots without actually touching the structural problems that caused the poor to be out of main stream society. The poor is then contented to invade forest land located in valuable sections in both town and countryside and pressure for reforms is then diluted. After allowing the invasion there is no move from government to provide transportation, sanitation and garbage collection. They do not pay taxes and live in high taxation areas. Of course the number of people coming is increasing by the day even tough it is a real estate operation where paramilitary groups are the ones that cut the trees and build housing that is outside the construction code and therefore unhealthy and unsecure. It is a perverse deal where the government has no cost, gain a lot of poor people votes and the poor is ending up without public parks and is restraining itself for demanding the government education for their kids, basic sanitation, efficient health care, access to credit,  etc. The association beetween government and paramilitary groups to pursue this end is probably a major component of violence and public areas degradation in Rio de Janeiro, but most of Brazil is under the same strain. It is a problem hard to deal with because any criticism to public land invasion by the poor seems to be an anti-poor, enemy of the people, when it is actually the opposite. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereignispunkt (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation
"There is much speculation in Brazil that, following the example of his friend Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Lula will in the near future attempt to extend his time in office by having the national congress change the constitutional presidential term-limit provision. Lula was vocal in his public support of the extension of Chávez' mandate prior to Venezuelans voting on that measure."

About the third term, it is not just speculation, it's outright fabrication, nobody in Brazil takes this seriously. As for his "public support of the extension of Chávez' mandate", i think is exagerated and isn't apropriate right in the introduction. I'm deleting it.189.35.192.106 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Appears to assume"?
"Lula appears to assume that his thoughts are of interest to everyone. While this works in Brazil, it can sometimes be embarrassing when he speaks out on his trips abroad"

I'm deleting it for obvious reasons189.35.192.106 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking ability
The section "speaking ability" doesn't have any sources and frankly, I think somebody made up all these quotations to screw the article.I'm deleting it.189.7.6.210 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the oligarchies happy and the people fooled
Lula is an embarrassement for many informed and educated Brazilians and a fiasco for the improvement of the poor people conditions. His government has been one of the most conservative in our post-dictatorial times. Close to nothing has been done in the very undeveloped areas of education, health care, infrastructure (roads, sanitation, water supply, etc). HIs followers are fanatical and very aggressive and intimidation to journalists and bloggers has been constant.

˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereignispunkt (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for posting your personal opinions. Neither is the article a place to write your right-wing propagandaThat Brazilian Dude (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lula in Brazilian TV,1989
These sites: [Lula 1] and [Lula 2] have a Lula's interview, in 1989.Agre22 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Agre22 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

Miriam Cordeiro's video
This site: [Miriam Cordeiro] has an interview of Miriam Cordeiro, in 1989.Agre22 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

Alma mater
I have included Lula's alma mater, after I read the term applies sometimes to secondary-level education in American English. Does anyone oppose this? Missionary (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaming Financial Crisis on White and Blue Eyed
Added a paragraph beneath Controversies citing the blame he put on "White and Blue Eyed" people for the international crisis. Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5983430.ece --Kibbled bits (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral
this is pure propaganda. How about we list his campaign promises and what he has delivered? And how about we mention all government scandals? Have we forgot about Mensalao (buying all the senate), about the corporate credit cards being abused, about the 1000 secret acts of the senate and the following procesution that got archived due to lula's agreements with senate president and J. Sarney? This is only to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.203.85 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Name
Lula was born "Luiz Inácio da Silva". Lula is a nickname. Shouldn't the artcle's title be "Luiz Inácio da Silva"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.73.32.3 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. He officially added "Lula" (his nickname and how he was nationally known) to his name in 1982 (Brasil: um país onde a adoção de apelido tem um privilégio legal inexistente ao prenome). Limongi (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lurian/Miriam Cordeiro
Please add to the article, in personal life: . "Lula and Miriam Cordeiro had a daughter, Lurian, out of wedlock in 1974."

Hi. The current version of this article hides the fact Lula and Miriam Cordeiro had Lurian Cordeiro in 1974; Lula had an affair with Miriam while dating Marisa. Miriam accused Lula of forcing her to abort and was a major player in the 1989 election, as the fact was exploited by Collor.

The article also hides the fact that Lula was detained/jailed in 1980 by the government; currently he is in the middle of a controversy due to a former collaborator saying that Lula declared that he tried to sodomize other detainees while in prison. While this fact may be debatable due to BLP rules, the fact that he was detained is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.74.214 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can only add that one you post references to back up your statement. Please post references here and then put up the edit semi-protected template again. And don't forget to sign your posts with ~ . Bejinhan  Talk   12:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

added.189.100.74.214 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, please post the URL of your references here. Bejinhan  Talk   04:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I did. The url is http://observatorio.ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/artigos.asp?cod=564ASP002.189.100.74.214 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. How would you describe that source? I don't speak Portuguese, but the Babblefish translation appeared to be a gossip section and the first section did not speak of Lula, it spoke of former president Cardoso and included "The former-president denied the information and ..." Before the information about an illegitimate child is added, we need to have a source that includes the information and is clearly reliable. Celestra (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very serious source, very far from gossip. It is a "ombudsman" site for media coverage. Looks like the URLs changed though. There is another mention here: http://www.clubenatal.fm/noticias/?id=11080,LULA-JA-ESPERAVA-DEPOIMENTO-DE-EXNAMORADA-SOBRE-ABORTO

and here:

http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/augusto-nunes/tag/miriam-cordeiro/

and here (it is a reprint of the original source though):

http://prof.reporter.sites.uol.com.br/jblurian.htm

and here:

http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,lurian-filha-de-lula-foi-atendida-no-hospital-sirio-libanes,201085,0.htm

This is public knowledge, not some gossip. He recognized the daughter and the relationship. There is another background story saying that he tried to make the girlfriend abort the gestation, but that does not matter. Looks like some partisan of the president is trying to "erase" the out of wedlock situation out of the bio. You can see that the daughter is on the infobox but has no mother - I doubt she was found in a cabbage.189.121.0.103 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(from the last article... this is the part that matters)

Lurian ganhou notoriedade na campanha presidencial de 1989, quando se tornou pivô de um dos episódios mais polêmicos da acirrada disputa contra Fernando Collor. No segundo turno, naquele que é considerado um dos maiores golpes baixos das campanhas políticas no Brasil, o programa eleitoral de Collor veiculou imagens de Miriam Cordeiro, ex-namorada de Lula, dizendo que o petista teria lhe oferecido dinheiro para que ela fizesse aborto para não ter Lurian, filha nascida desse relacionamento. Assessores de campanha petista cogitaram de levar ao ar uma entrevista com Lurian, mas Lula preferiu não expor a imagem da filha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.0.103 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Her name changed, looks like (now it is Lurian Cordeiro Lula da Silva Sato).

IPA for Lula's name is incorrect
Brazilian Portuguese speakers, except for very few million people in the Southern region (and definitely not in the regions where Lula lives or lived, Pernambuco, São Paulo and now Brasília), never pronounce an "l" before a consonant as a [l] consonant, but as [w]. That is one of the main features of Brazilian Portuguese in oppose to European Portuguese. So, the correct IPA transliteration of Lula's name, in what refers to his surname Silva, is ['siʊvɐ], not [ˈsiɫvɐ].201.9.251.43 (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Lula's name is incorrect
Brazilian Portuguese speakers, except for very few million people in the Southern region (and definitely not in the regions where Lula lives or lived, Pernambuco, São Paulo and now Brasília), never pronounce an "l" before a consonant as a [l] consonant, but as [w]. That is one of the main features of Brazilian Portuguese in oppose to European Portuguese. So, the correct IPA transliteration of Lula's name, in what refers to his surname Silva, is ['siʊvɐ], not [ˈsiɫvɐ].201.9.251.43 (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed in Brazil the coda /l/ is pronounced by most people as [w], but it is just an allophony, the transcription doesn't say it is [l], but, a kind of "l" that sounds like a [w], as it is pronounced in southern Brazil, some few Brazilians in other states, and most everyone in Portugal, we are not regarding the European Portuguese, but just trying to use a diaphonic transcription, as it is also being done with the English transcritions, but you are free to replace it to [w], or discuss it on Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese.--Luizdl (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Polemical style
The article has been written in a polemical style. And such style isn't limited to the criticism section alone. For instance, in the Economics section, there appears be a need to counterweigh a positive aspect of his policy with some polemical point - something that will diminish its mertis. An example: after noticing that in his government banks in Brazil have profitted the most vis-à-vis previous administrations, it is then pointed out that this is an objection to Lula's "socialist" credentials. Also, there appears to be a need to present his economic policy as a mere continuation of that of Cardoso - a point denied by Mantega (another figure against which the article adopts a polemical tone) and Delfim Netto. I will edit these things away. Guinsberg (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?
How about adding a section regarding criticism of president Lula? Anyone remember the mensalao? Perhaps buying a few senators?? This article is somewhat one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.169.205 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

this is your personal opinion and i bet noboddy cares about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neymoura (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think nobody cares about it, that's YOUR personal opinion. I do care about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.85.175 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For your information, he was never directly linked to the Mensalão or any other corruption scandal. Adding it to his biography article would be against Wikipedia BLP, Libel, NPOV, OR rules. You cannot calumniate or defame a person without proof, it is against Wikipedia rules and against the Law (both in the United States (United States defamation law) and Brazil (Brazilian defamation law). Any attempt will be reported. Limongi (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts - so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone's reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn't, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages. Slander is 'defamation by word of mouth. Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers. - BBC Action Network Limongi (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but You are wrong and using the law to threaten people and this is serious: . Lula government's scandals are not made up . Defamation is when one accuses other without proof, but the scandals of his governments are true and have been subjected to investigation that proved the involvement of high officials. As to him, as the leader of the party and directly involved in the electoral process , didn't he say " He did not know anything " ? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.27.98 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a misunderstanding here it seems. Mentioning criticisms in a Wiki article is not the same as criticizing. If such criticism have occurred it is highlig relevant to an article on a political figure, as well as any major objections to such criticims. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for bashing or sanctifying anyone. I support a 'Criticism' section.(Palmrot (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

There should be a systemwide decision. Many talk pages mention that politician X has a criticism section but not politician Y. That is the reason given to have a section. That is also the reason given not to have a section. A good decision should be made and followed on most articles unless there is a better reason not to be consistent. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Succeeded
After being reverted twice, I decided to explain better here. He wasn't "succeeded" and we can't afirm that he will be succeded by Dilma Roussef. She won the election and is the elected president (ok ). But she didn't took office. It will occur only next year. The box says that Lula was (or will be?) "succeded".
 * Dilma Roussef was elected and is the elected president? Yes
 * Lula was succeeded? Not yet.
 * Lula will be succeded? Of course... in january 2011.
 * Lula will be succeeded  by Dilma ? It is a lot but  If she dies tomorrow she will not take office and Lula will be "succeeded" by a guy named Michel Temer.
 * So, if we could asure that she won't die before taking office or that anything would happy to stop this process, her name could be inserted aside the word "succeeded".

Unfortunately, we still can't predict the future. It is an original research and unverifiable. That is why it have to be removed.” TeLeS  ( PT @ L C G ) 03:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Dilma is not "the elected president": She is president elect, which is different. She is, nevertheless Lula's successor - He is (it's not a question of was or will be) succeeded by Dilma. As you suggest, in extreme circumstances this could change. But as of now it is true - and we can't predict the future. ;-) Bagunceiro (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - It is contradictory. He is still the president and is not succeeded. For example, Tancredo Neves was elected but never was a president because he died before. The brazilian presidential inauguration occurs only on 1st january and it's when the presidential sucession occurs. You can't ensure that she will take office. So, it is written "succeeded" in that box, but it is about something that still did not happy and even with high chance of becoming real, it is not yet and we can't predict that. There is a ceremony to be followed.” TeLeS  ( PT @ L C G ) 09:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

35th President of Brazil
After being reverterd for the 2nd time (the last one by user Therequiembellishere), I ask here why can't my change on the infobox that says Lula is the 35th President of Brazil when he REALLY is the the 35th President of Brazil? Why can Barack Obama's profile say he is the 44th President of the United States and look organized and Lula's can't?Denisxavier (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above user. Most articles about Heads of Government lists the term number (consecutive time in office served by a single person) right before the office title on the infobox. Please stop erasing this information. Limongi (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth
The intro says he was born on 6 october, but "early life says" 27 october. Which is it? When was this gentleman born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.226.233 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reediting needed
After Lula's departure from office, verb tenses became obsolete, at least in the Foreign Policy section, which I read, that gives a sense of continuity to his government. Also important: please stop this siliness of "befriended" with Chávez and Bush. Heads of state are not "friends" of anyone, because countries do not have friendships, they have interests; and besides, those who know Lula personally know that he can't stand Chávez. The point in saying that he "befriended" this or that leader is to link Lula to these people in particular, which is a really big deal in domestic politics in Brazil, since his opposition loves linking him to (locally unpopular) Hugo Chávez; however, it is easy to notice that Lula relates to practically everyone, notwithstanding their position or whether he liked them or not, on a personal basis; so what is the point in highlighting this?

41.226.122.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

Article name
Shouldn't the name of the article be Lula da Silva, per WP:COMMONNAME?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotion
I believe that this particular page isn't impartial in a way that only the good things he did ( not many) are highlighted, the corruption scandals, the absurde spending of public funds and the blind eye he did whem his party was diverting money isn't shown anywhere, a person who sees the article i'll think whe's somehow an example of life.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.5.106.95 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lula recovers from cancer
I have recently nominated this article to appear on the main page at the "In The News" section, because of Lula's recovery from cancer. The discussion takes place at In the news/Candidates. Have in mind the criteria detailed at In the news before supporting or rejecting the nomination.

In any case, a salute to all Brazilians from Argentina, and I hope you enjoy these news. Your national leaders are an example that all South American countries should admire and follow.Cambalachero (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2015

 * 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: No move. After a full month there's no agreement that the subject is best known by "Lula" compared to his full name. I note that "Lula" is already a redirect here, so anyone searching for that term will find the correct article. Cúchullain t/ c 12:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva → Lula – Lula is by far the name most WP:COMMONNAME. This is consistent in google searches and in books. As a matter of fact, this article uses Lula for practically every refrence to him. Look up nearly any news/academic source and it'll never use his real name, only "Lula". I'm shocked this hasn't come up before, and I think it's time. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)  Kharkiv07 Talk  00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lula (disambiguation) should be moved to "Lula" instead. There is no dominance in results for this person Most results do not seem to be for this person -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the searches for "Lula" aren't for this person how do you explain the fact that the trends for "Lula" align perfectly with the trends for his full name?  Kharkiv07 Talk  11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It shows activity related to the politician, not that the politician is the primary topic, which I contend is not the case, by general google search, if the politician were the primary topic, most of the first 100 results would be about the politician, which is not the case. Therefore the disambiguation page should be moved to "Lula", while you can rename the politician to Lula (politician) if you wanted, but not "Lula". -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At least in part because "Lula" is part of his full name, so every hit for that is also a hit for "Lula": They are certain to correlate. You have to be very careful with statistics not to introduce bias. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. WP:PRECISION trumps WP:COMMONNAME here. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PRECISION is only for when the name would cause confusion otherwise, this name is what's used by most RSs.  Kharkiv07 Talk  22:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ebonelm (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: "Lula" is the common name of the subject of this article and is the primary topic for articles with the name Lula. Hack (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "Lula" mainly refers to this person, and per WP:COMMONNAME he is almost always simply referred just as "Lula". Not by chance, actually Lula redirects here. Cavarrone 18:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This fellow isn't commonly known by his nickname in the Anglophone world, making such a title inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. The proposed title simply isn't natural for an Anglophone, and hence fails our title criteria. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, look at all the sources; the BBC always uses "Lula", the Los Angeles Times uses "Lula", as does The Washington Post, The Economist, Al Jazeera, CNN, and others. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 12:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well.... no they don´t. They often use “Lula” once having introduced the subject and to make a punchy headline, but I cannot find a case where he isn't introduced initially with his full name (or a formal abbreviation thereof). I haven't selected here, just used the most recent reference I could find in each case.


 * BBC at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32587905
 * Brazilian prosecutors have opened a preliminary investigation into former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva over alleged influence peddling.
 * Washigton Post at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32587905
 * BELO HORIZONTE, Brazil — The chant went up from the Workers’ Party faithful: “Lula, warrior of the Brazilian people!”
 * Brazil’s popular former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was getting up on the stage here to cap the celebration of his party’s 35 years of existence.
 * Economist at http://www.economist.com/node/14229460
 * Four countries, including Chile and Peru, backed Colombia. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva...
 * Al Jazeera at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/brazil-petrobas-graft-probe-exapanded-150307130414283.html
 * Antonio Palocci, who was finance minister under the previous president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and was Rousseff's first chief of staff.
 * CNN at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/05/world/americas/luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva-fast-facts/index.html
 * Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva Fast Facts Bagunceiro (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed one from the list, but they too use the full name: Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-brazil-petrobras-scandal-20150416-story.html
 * ...and that her party, which has controlled Brazil's presidency since Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva took over in 2003... Bagunceiro (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2015 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101229032256/http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/21/the-most-popular-politician-on-earth.html to http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/21/the-most-popular-politician-on-earth.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mensalao Scandal the truth: Sources
The best leader of Brazil recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an attempt at hiding the truth of the mensalao with threats in disguise by some biased posters here by mentioning anti defamatory laws( see above) : People do not need to be scared to post over the mensalao here. because the corruption scandal is a fact and is proven it is everywhere to be seen ( Just check the main Brazilian media : Journals o Globo and Folha de Sao Paulo, Magazines Veja and Istoe etc.). The president is at least guilty of turning a blind eye on the activities of his party and when the scandal was close to topple him, he prefered choosing scapegoats to save his own head ( See Mr. Jose Dirceo). Some sources :

Woldpress Brazil: Major Bribes-for-Votes Scandal Threatens to Topple Da Silva http://www.worldpress.org/americas/2117.cfm

The Guardian -UK  Brazil in crisis over corruption claimsAllegations of payments to allies sour achievements of leftwing http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/11/brazil}}

Fundcao Getulio Vargas -FGV : Coalitional Presidentialism and Side Payments: Explaining the Mensalao Scandal in Brazil http://www.eesp.fgv.br/publicacao_detalhe.php?idPublicacao=678}}

Renno Jr., Lucio - Rewarding the Corrupt? Reelection and Scandal Involvement in the Brazilian 2006 Legislative Elections1(colomb.int. no.68 Bogotá July/Dec. 2008) http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0121-56122008000200005&script=sci_arttext

The Brazilian big corporative media is completely against Lula and PT in general. There is no proof of the existence of the Mensalão, even Roberto Jefferson told the STF he made it up (http://www.revistaforum.com.br/blogdorovai/2012/04/10/roberto-jefferson-admite-ao-stf-que-inventou-o-mensalao/). It's just a smear campaign to promote right-wing candidates, mainly PSDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.142.116 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)