Talk:Dilma Rousseff

Edit request: Remove "Former Atheist"

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, I would like the "former atheist" portion of her religion to be removed. There is absolutely no factual evidence that she was an atheist at any point in her life. The only reference that is made is to the same Miami Herald article, but there is nothing factual to back up this claim. It has been leveled against her during the campaign by the religious zealots in Brazil who were just trying to damage her image.

I am fluent in Portuguese and I have searched all over the Brazilian news and journal articles for anything to back up the atheist claim, and I have found absolutely nothing.

I am a Master's student in a comparative politics program and my area of focus is Brazil. I hold no reservations that this claim about her is nothing more than a smear tactic that did not succeed because she was elected.

Feel free to e-mail me for further discussion on this, and please e-mail me if you do actually find a factual and accredited basis for this claim. Myself and many other Brazilian political scientists would LOVE to see it.

Thanks, Tony

Lonememe (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: The Miami Herald is considered a reliable source and it says she is a former atheist. We report what others have written about a subject, and are specifically forbidden to do our own original research. Therefore, the reason you give for removal is against our policies and I must deny the request. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz,

I vehemently disagree with your decision. If I ask the original author of the Miami Herald article for his source on her being an atheist, and he cannot provide it, can you please remove this?

I wasn't requesting you perform original research, I am simply saying that one unverified claim in a newspaper article that cannot be verified ANYWHERE else is hardly a credible claim and therefore should not be taken as fact.

Further, the article isn't actually from the Miami Herald, it's reprinted from "McClatchy News Service".

Again, you're doing the community a disservice by leaving this in. The claim that she was an atheist was used to tarnish her image, and I do not appreciate Wikipedia furthering falsehoods.

Lonememe (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Tony

I just removed "former atheist" from the infobox. Whether she was or not an atheist in the past, that information does not belong there. The fact is that her current religion is Roman Catholic as can be verified by a number of credible sources. Her own official website states: "Dilma is Catholic and was baptized and chrismated" (Dilma é católica, batizada e crismada) [1]. No one better than her to know what faith she practices. Therefore stop adding unnecessary controversial material to a BLP article. Limongi (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT this category shouldn't even exist.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Forbes list

B. Fairbairn is constantly removing the mention of Rousseff being included in the Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People. The Forbes' list is mentioned in many BLP articles, such as Angela Merkel, Hu_Jintao, Sonia Gandhi, etc. B. Fairbairn's opinion about the Forbes' list is just that: his opinion (POV). The fact is that Forbes is considered a credible third-party source and published this list. Therefore, the user should stop removing sourced, relevant content from the article. Limongi (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Limongi. As I had mentioned in B. Fairbairn's talk page, Forbes is a reliable third party source, and its opinion is made use of in many articles, many of them being Good Articles(GA). Please see the articles Indra Nooyi, Angela Merkel, Chanda Kochhar, Bill Gates, and the Featured Article Elvis Presley. In all of these articles (and many more by the way), A Forbes list is mentioned. MikeLynch (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both, but I'm looking forward to read B. Fairbairn's reply.

Maddox (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn hasn't replied here, but has went on to change the article nevertheless. I do not want to break 3RR, and so I would like a formal reply here by Fairbairn. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 12:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn hasn't made a single contribution to this article and only shows up here to erase sourced content. Like MakingTheMark pointed out, we started a discussion about his disruptive edits a month ago (30 November 2010) and B. Fairbairn has not replied here, preferring to continue his vandalism.Limongi (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Piauí as a source?

The two main sources for this article are

CARVALHO, Luiz Maklouf. "As armas e os varões: A educação política e sentimental de Dilma Roussef". Piauí, number 31 (April 2009), p. 22-31

and

Carvalho, Luís Maklouf (July 2009). "Mares nunca dantes navegados: Como e por que Dilma Rousseff se tornou a candidata de Lula à sucessão presidencial." Revista Piauí, nº 34, p. 26-33.

They are cited more than 40 times during this article. I have my doubts if this is a good source. Piauí is a highly controversial magazine in Brazil and often is not taken seriously by many people. "She reportedly knew how to handle weapons, confront the police, and use guerrilla tactics.[14]", for example, is not a known truth. See Dilma's interview @ Jornal Nacional, for example (http://video.globo.com/Videos/Player/Noticias/0,,GIM1367091-7823-JORNAL+NACIONAL+ENTREVISTA+A+PRESIDENTE+ELEITA+DILMA+ROUSSEFF,00.html , in Portuguese), in which numerous ex-colleagues of her in the leftist movements state that she never touched weaponry.

I am sorry if I do not take a look at other controversial spots in the article from the use of Piauí as a source, but the suggestion remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.13.152 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this article needs a complete clean up. And I say that as one of its main contributors (Yes, I was the one who added the Piauí sources... :P) Now is more than adequate to performe this, since there are plenty of biographical sources in English. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a collective effort could lead this article to a "good" or even "featured" status. It has potential. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that this article is locked for outside editing won't help much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.13.152 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. As you can perceive from the section below, rumors about Ms. Rousseff are widespread here in Brazil. Therefore, to protect readers from other countries from the vandalism perpetuated by Brazilian users, the article must be protected somehow. I agree it's unfair. But it must be done to respect Wikipedia's neutrality standards. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are some great bibliographical sources in English:

• Profile at CBC
• Profile at The Nation
• Article at The Nation
• Article at Foreign Policy
• Article about role as guerrilla at Foreign Policy
• Article at Foreign Policy
• Article at Foreign Policy (analysis of a Wikileaks cables release)
• Article by Mark Weisbrot at The Guardian
• Article by at The Guardian
• Article by at The Guardian

Her own website is also a great source, which happens to have an English version of her biography: http://www.dilma.com.br/paginas/dilma-roussefs-biography/

--Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The site of the President has also been updated: http://www.presidencia.gov.br/presidenta --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Final Cabinet Members Announced

When someone has a minute can they update the cabinet members list. Right now the page still says Ministry of Agrarian Development and Special Secretariat for Women's Rights are TBD. She released info about these last two posts on her site on 22 December.

Desenvolvimento Agrário (Agrarian Development) – Afonso Florence Mulheres (Special Secretary for Women) – Iriny Lopes

Here's the post with the whole list from her site. http://www.dilma.com.br/noticias/entry/ministerio-da-presidenta-dilma-rousseff/

Sorry if I didn't format this post correctly. I'm new to the contribution end of Wiki.

thanks

64.52.73.130 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)David

Captain Charles Rodney Chandler

I'm Brazilian and I'm surprised that in the English section of the article there's no mention of the Captain Charles R. Chandler, an US Army officer and a Vietnam War vet, who came to Brazil to study sociology and was assassinated in 1968, in front of his wife and 4yo son by Dilma's group, just because her group wanted to draw international media attention. She and her partners committed many crimes and acts of terrorism, but I don't expect this article to mention them and I won't discuss the reasons whatever they are. But an article in such size in English who contains even Dilma's opinion about a goalkeeper who killed his pornstar girlfriend while hiding the assassination of an American officer committed by an organization in which she took important rules...is really suspicious for me.

- Stalinácio Lula da Silva

Thank you for your opinions. You can write the relevant facts in the article yourself in the relevant section, but before adding anything, make sure that the added material is Notable, has Reliable sources, and generally complies with the Manual of style. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 11:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalinácio Lula da Silva, by your signature we can tell how biased you are and the reason why you'd want to add defamatory material to Rousseff's article. Well, it ain't gonna happen. Here are the facts: Charles Chandler was in Brazil to help train the DOI-CODI and DOPS torturers. For this reason he was gunned down by the VPR militant group in 1968. Rousseff was never a member of the VPR. At that time - 1968 - she was a member of another organization called COLINA. She would later join VAR Palmares in 1969. Therefore, there are absolutely no links, whatsoever, between Rousseff and the assassination of Charles Chandler. Limongi (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nando1301, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Clarification suggestions: (1) the terms "...being persecuted for" should be replaced by "...being prosecuted for". The article contains a typographical error. (2) the terms "...taken for inquiry..." should be replaced by "...taken for interrogation..." or "...taken for formal prosecution". This is a translation error from the Portuguese "inquérito" wrongly translated to "inquiry".

Nando1301 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

THERE'S A MISTAKE IN THE ARTICLE

VEJA IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER, IN FACT SOME OF IT'S JOURNALISTS HAVE A CLEAR PRO-ABORTION, PRO-GAY MARRIAGE AND EVEN ANTI-RELIGION POSITION, IN NAME OF INTELECTUAL HONESTITY PLEASE REMOVE THE "CONSERVATIVE" FROM THE ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.222.112 (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Veja is ultra-conservative, it's on the edge of being a facist pamphlet. Dornicke (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a pro-gay stance? Editor Reinaldo Azevedo recently compared PLC 122 to AI-5. I couldn't agree more with the user above. Veja has reached a point of no return in terms of adopting a right-wing (at times far-right) view of the Brazilian society. It might as well support views considered progressive every once in a while, but for the last 8 years or so it has always condemned broader progressive issues such as Keynesian economics, welfare state, trade unions, affirmative action, tax reform, land reform, cash transfer programs, Native Brazilian rights, and even homeless people's rights, as I witnessed once. I've also witnessed a defense of the death penalty. But Veja is hipocrite. They'll never admit that they are a conservative pamphlet inspite of that. They don't want to miss their few remaining readers. But fortunately, things are becoming clearer and clearer for the average Brazilian. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dilma's age

One paragraph gives her birth year as 1947, while another says she was 15 in 1965. They can not both be correct. Which is it?