Talk:Operation Car Wash

Title Translation

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

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

Political Implications

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

Title

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

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

Requested move 10 March 2016

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

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

---

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

• Support - "Operation Car Wash" per OP.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - "Operation Car Wash" as per usage in http://news.google.com/ fgnievinski (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 14 May 2016

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

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

---

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

@Tavix and Dicklyon: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Looking at that previous RM discussion, it seems that the new title "Operation Lava Jato" would have been accepted if it had been considered, since it's more than twice as common in English sources as the one they made up there by literal translation. Let it go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I strongly dispute the above claim that "Operation Car Wash" was "made up" in the previous RM. This is a nonsense. "Operation Car Wash" is the common English name for this. One can see its appearance in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, and even a BBC article dating back to November 2014. This name has existed since the start of the investigation, and it is even more important to mention that none of these articles use the half-translated "Operation Lava Jato" at all. I struggle to understand why this controversial WP:BOLD move is being allowed to stand, given the result of the last RM. If you've got evidence to counter this usage, Mr Lyon, I'd suggest you present it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at search hit counts; but looking again, I see I must have made a mistake. I withdraw my opposition. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look. I've asked for the assistance of Jenks24 in cleaning this up. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Lava Jato is used in the majority of English-language media: BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post and others [6], [7], [8], [9]; The Guardian reports 177 hits of Lava Jato and "car wash" is not even a right translation. Google has less hits [10] for "Operation Car Wash" than [11] for "Operation Lava Jato" while a lot, lot more cover refers to it just as "Lava jato" as in Google News. Frenditor (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is a "right translation". It is the translation used by the vast majority of English reliable sources. All of your hits include "car wash" or "carwash" (there are two spellings possible) alongside "lava jato", and none use mixed form "Operation Lava Jato" as opposed to using the Portuguese for "operation". Your searches are not demonstrating anything in support of "lava jato". RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Fgnievinski and Insertcleverphrasehere: Pinging past participants. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with simply Lava Jato (with no operation or operação), as per Google News search results in English (in decreasing order):

• brazil "lava jato": 57,700 [12]
• brazil "operação lava jato": 29,000 [13]
• brazil "carwash" (or "car wash"): 21590 = 4,290 + 17,300 [14] [15]
• brazil "operation carwash" (or "operation car wash"): 2,049 = 439 + 1,610 [16] [17]
• brazil "operation lava jato": 374 [18]

fgnievinski (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, Don't half translate a title, the sources don't (per RGloucester ), we shouldn't either. I am confused as to why Anthony Appleyard moved this page to "Operation Lava Jato" in the first place, as this was not the decision that was made in the last RM.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, very many sources do exactly use that half translation. Google searches seem to disagree as to what's more common. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Many sources" is somewhat of an overstatement, don't you think? The search for the mixed form produces results from a selection of minor publications, whereas "car wash" or "carwash" appear in all of the top-rate publications. A search for "lava jato", as provided above, nearly always shows that most of the results are something like "Operation Car Wash (lava jato), and so the fact that "lava jato" appears in articles that put "car wash" in the primary position is not an indication that we should use "lava jato". Indeed, it tells us that we should not use it. More importantly, the above searches include results in Portuguese, which certainly cannot be accepted here. RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I was searching for the complete quoted phrase, getting 13700 and 38,600. That's many, though not close to half. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. These two searches seem more in line with what I expected. I don't know why we all get different results sometimes even if we type in the same thing. Regardless, I'd say that this makes "Car Wash" the clear winner. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Usually operations name aren't translated, Operation Weserübung for example. Frenditor (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation names are not translated if English language reliable sources do not translate them. In this case, they do. We base our usage on the preponderance of WP:RS. If RS refer to "Operation Weserübung", so do we. If RS refer to "Operation Car Wash", so do we. We don't invent our own usage per WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just you pretending they don't exist. Plenty of occurrences were already showed. Frenditor (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pretending "they don't exist". All of the searches have shown that "Car Wash" dominates, and should be used per WP:UCN. "Lava Jato" does appear, but usually in parentheses following "Car Wash", or in less reliable sources, not as the common name of the operation in English language. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural note. Should this RM end as no consensus then the status quo ante title, "Operation Car Wash", should be restored. Jenks24 (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.fgnievinski (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Impact on politics

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

Improvements for article

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

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

translator/researcher/edit notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The opinions expressed above are of course not something that I'd wite into the article, but I believe them to be correct, which means that the associated articles aren't all that accurate or complete, if that's the case, so *much* needs to be addressed. Naturally if things turn out to be otherwise as more coverage and explainers emerge, the important thing is that the articles be accurate, whatever that may turn out to mean. Thanks to anyone who applies brainpower to any part of this. Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As an American living for six years in Brazil with a Brazilian wife and daughter, and also fluent in Brazilian Portuguese, I appreciate your perspectives on the scandal, the largest in Latin American history. I have made some comments above on the corect title of this article, which you can read by scrolling up. I would point out, however, that as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS and not interject our own personal opinions into the article WP:OR. Your opinions on this 'Talk' page about how to improve the article are most welcome. It is perhaps ironic that I am writing this while my wife went to the polling station to cast her vote in the presidential election runoff, which has been greatly influenced by the scandal. (I am not a Brazilian citizen and therefore cannot vote.) American In Brazil (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

DMY dating style & source language

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

Infobox

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

A lead and a summary?

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

I agree AmplifyWiki (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@AmplifyWiki: Thanks.

Hearing no additional feedback, I'll be bold and make the change. Dig _deeper ^talk 00:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Intercept

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

• How and Why The Intercept Is Reporting on a Vast Trove of Materials About Brazil’s Operation Car Wash and Justice Minister Sergio Moro - Part 1;

• Brazil Prosecutors Plotted Against Lula's Party in 2018 Election - Part 2;

• Triplex: Deltan duvidava de provas horas antes de denúncia - Part 3 (Portuguese);

• Leak Reveals Ethics Failures in Brazil's Operation Car Wash - Part 4.

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

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

From now!: Leia os diálogos de Sergio Moro e Deltan Dallagnol que embasaram a reportagem do Intercept. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

English: WATCH: Glenn Greenwald Explains the Political Earthquake in Brazil Caused by Our Ongoing Exposés Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)