Talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Categories

"Catholic Socialists"? Really? Can I add "Bearded Heads of State"? Or "Widowed Trades Unionists"? Bagunceiro (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fome zero

The article gives the impression that the Fome Zero program actually existed, when in fact Lula's administration set it aside in favor of the Bolsa familiar, before it even began. It has to be fixed. --Lecen (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Chief of Staff

Update: a federal judge suspended Lula's appointment as Chief of Staff of the Presidency, claiming that there is evidence of obstruction of the justice. Érico (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Protecting this Wikipedia article against vandalism. This Wikipedia page is about the ex-president of the Republic of Brazil and we are in the midst of a political breakdown of the establishment, so incoming vandalism is probable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleiz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Need for an update

The article could do with an update to reflect recent political events and Lula's role.AçaíBaby (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222235128/http://www.iedi.org.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?2=217&sid=77&1=43&infoid=1749 to http://www.iedi.org.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?2=217&sid=77&1=43&infoid=1749

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua edits

Juniorpetjua has reverted multiple changes by me, ZiaLater, and Cambalachero over a couple of days. In each case Juniorpetjua offered no edit summary explain the reverts. What's the deal here? Why is WP:BLPREMOVE material restored without proper sources and no explanation in edit summaries? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have warned the user, let's see if that helps. Cambalachero (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content, Juniorpetjua should have consensus before restoring the deleted unreferenced sections. Cambalachero (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Have tried as well, and left Juniorpetjua a warning message. Edwardx (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Have raised this at WP:AN3, and notified Juniorpetjua. Edwardx (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture

The film "Lula, son of Brazil", despite being a failure, is still a biopic focused on the subject of this article, and there are secondary sources that talk about it. It can be considered appropiate. Then there's the other, let me copy it here

In the 2011 Latin American postmodern fantasy novel United States of Banana by Giannina Braschi, President Lula joins Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Fidel Castro, Rafael Correa and Cristina Kirchner on a quest to liberate the people of Puerto Rico from the United States.

First problem: the only reference is the work itself. Second problem: Lula seems to be just one minor character among many others. If we start listing all works where a poliician has been mentioned, the list would be giant and meaningless. See WP:TRIVIA. As the article is now in the main page, I will remove this entry while we discuss if it should be re-added. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds trivial. Let's keep it out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br/artigos.asp?cod=290JDB017
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518032347/http://www.iias-iisa.org/e/newsletter/e-newsletter/fall-2009/Pages/page-2.aspx to http://www.iias-iisa.org/e/newsletter/e-newsletter/fall-2009/Pages/page-2.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021142313/http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Webflyer.asp?docID=4388&intItemID=2068&lang=1 to http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Webflyer.asp?docID=4388&intItemID=2068&lang=1

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

United Nations Human Rights Council

The article said that the case is being taken to the UN Human Rights Commission, which is what it says in the sources. However, according to Wikipedia the UN Human Rights Commission was replaced by the Council in 2006, so I have edited the Lula article to change Commission to Council. However, just to make things even more confusing there is also a UN Human Rights Committee!! Can anyone provide a definitive answer? Thanks. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Chronology Section says it is the Committee, This seems more likely. Reference [[1]] page 25. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree, thanks. - Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 01:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal conviction

I suggest we update the first paragraph and include his criminal conviction. Currently, the preview of the article on the mobile version does not mention this. A lot of users stop there, therefore it is important that it contains key information about the subject of the article, in this case his presidency, being a union leader and being convicted of a crime. Thoughts? Mutedsignal (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be okay with that if it were mentioned that the conviction is controversial and widely accused of being politically motivated. I think the controversy around his conviction is the most notable aspect of the topic at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.98.114 (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Shoeshiner

As a perusal of this article suggests, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. Hoktiwe (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoktiwe: Because it is trivia and not a defining characteristic of this subject, nor of other subjects where you have been adding the category. See WP:CATDEF (as I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted your edit). (Please stop asking the same question on every page where this edit was reverted — by now, I'm sure you have been alerted to the fact I have answered the same question on multiple articles' Talk pages. The answer will not change.) General Ization ^Talk 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Melo's opinion

Why Carlos Melo's opinion is more important than others? It`s not

This concerns
The newspaper The Guardian quoted Carlos Melo, professor on political science at São Paulo's Insper: "It's like preventing the opposing team to play..". Also in Brazil, the difference between the judges and the prosecutors exists."Brazil reels at claims judge who jailed Lula collaborated with prosecutors". The Guardian. 10 June 2019. Retrieved 12 June 2019.

This is [not more] important, as it describes a) in short what this occurrence means, and b) reflects the impression on outside observers as The Guardian (and its readers). AVS (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you should unlink Carlos Melo. The Carlos Melo on the article you linked it's not the same who emitted this opinion. Second, this is only the opinion of a non-notable person collected for one specific newspaper. Why should it be in the article?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

.1 Right, done. -2 The Guardian quoted Melo (and so did I quote The Guardian), as this comment describes the situation best. AVS (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Intercept reporting

The Intercept recently reported on interactions between the prosecutor in Lula's case and the judge Sérgio Moro. Mention of this has been removed a number of times. Does anyone else think it should remain on the page? Burrobert (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, me. I'm asking for page protection now. Always an IP deletes, w/o any preceeding discussion. AVS (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This time it was removed by Lecen, complaining that The Intercept is not a reliable source. However it meets the requirements, imho, as it is an independent, third-party source, has a team of investigative journalists on staff, and their fact-checking operation of the large, leaked archive is what is slowing down release of the news. The fact that they also partner with Folha, the largest Brazilian daily, with Veja, a center-right source previously aligned with Bolosnaro, and with other media inside and outside Brazil, also lends credibility. I've restored the material for the time being, however, I invite Lecen to provide his view. Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain. The Intercept is an RS and the text is also supported by articles from The Independent, HuffPost and New York Times. I don’t think “close relationship” accurately represents what the sources are saying. Whether we use “conspire”, “collude” or “plot” is not a major issue for me. All sources indicate that the connection was inappropriate and possibly illegal and that is what should be reflected on the page. Burrobert (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Where in the world is Lula da Silva?

It is impossible to determine from this article whether this individual is in prison or not, and if so where. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

He is in prison in Curitiba, Brazil as stated in the article: "He turned himself in and began serving his sentence on 7 April 2018."--SirEdimon (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes but subsequent text says that his release was ordered and there is much activity reported up to the current date which it is unclear he is conducting from prison (if so). A thing that would settle (if in fact he is in prison) is to put the name of the facility as his residence in the infobox. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he was neither released nor any release order was ever issued, despite several attempts by his allies and followers. He still under arrest at the "Policia Federal" headquarter in Curitiba. He was never transferred to a "real" prison. The article is a mess, mostly because: A - Most people who contribute with the article knows few or nothing about the theme and just add all the info they find elsewhere. B - Because the article is a "battlefield" (just like it's, also, at the pt.wp). Lula is a very controversial person in Brazil. Some love him, others hate him. Some think he's innocent, others are pretty sure he's guilty. Due to that fact, people try to add their own vision to the article.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

i c, ty for clarifying. Wikipedia has some fairly severe limitations that become apparent in such cases but fortunately people can look at the history, back matter for pages, and exercise whatever critical thinking skills they may have to avail themselves of the truth, such as you have provided. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

almost....
Myproposal: A concise resumé remains in the header. AVS (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Moro in the body

Some text was recently added to the article related to an interview given by Moro denying wrongdoing. The article from which the text derives is in Portuguese. As I don’t speak Portuguese I used google translate. This is the translation of the relevant parts that google provides:

“Sérgio Moro, denied, on Monday (10/6), that he gave guidance to prosecutors who integrate the Car Wash operation. "There is no guidance," said Moro, referring to mobile phone message exchanges released on Sunday by The Intercept. … When asked about the issue, Moro also questioned the authenticity of the conversations, although he did not deny the truth of the information. "There's no guidance there in those messages. And I can't even say they're authentic because, see, it's things that happened, and if they happened, it was years ago. I don't have those messages anymore. I don't keep it, I'm not aware of it But there is no guidance there, "he said. … For the minister, conversations between judge and prosecutors are normal. "See, the judges talk to prosecutors, talk to lawyers, talk to cops. And that's normal”.

Based on this translation I changed the text to read:

“Moro denied any wrongdoing or judicial misconduct. He said he was not providing guidance to the prosecutor and that it was normal for judges and prosecutors to talk to each other. He said he no longer had access to the leaked messages to confirm their authenticity”.

Another editor considered the original text better and reverted my change. The original text reads: “Moro has thoroughly denied any wrongdoing or judicial misconduct during the course of Operation Carwash and his investigation of the former president, claiming that the conversations leaked by The Intercept were misrepresented (and even tampered) by the press”.

What do other editors think? Which version is a more accurate summary of the article? Burrobert (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pro tip: don't open up several discussions on the same topic. This might be considered WP:DISRUPT since it dilutes the discussion and make it harder for people to follow up on whats going on. Farewell. Coltsfan (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate issues as the headings and description of the issues show. Do you have any comments about the issue under this heading, specifically about the English translation of the Portuguese article? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Moro in the lead

The following text was recently removed from the heading section:

"In June 2019, the investigative newspaper The Intercept reported that the prosecutor responsible for investigations of Lava Jato Deltan Dallagnol and then Judge Sérgio Moro plotted to prevent Lula's candidacy for the 2018 presidential election."

I re-added it but it was removed again. The reasons given for the removal were that it was already in the article elsewhere, that it didn’t flow well and that it is irrelevant in the lead. I believe that it is an important development and deserves to be in the lead. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing it fails WP:DUE, given the discussion in the lead of his arrest and imprisonment. I’ve restored it again. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with the redaction. The way it's written makes one believe that it's an "all true" thing, which, everyone who follows the case knows that it's not an "all true" as the case is way more complicated.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: We can certainly reword it; what wording to you object to, and can you propose something better?

@Coltsfan: You've been around for ten years and are not a newbie; you know perfectly well that after removing the information from the lead here and being reverted, that you are supposed to observe WP:BRD and bring it to talk. Instead, you reverted once again here. This is edit warring; knock it off. Please self-revert your last change, and come here to discuss the issues you have with the content. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, you are not a 'newbie' either. You must know that one, that phrase is bias, poorly written and only shows one side of a very lengthy story, apart from being too big (violiationg WP:NPOV and MOS:INTRO). Two, you have to keep in mind that this is an ongoing thing. wikipedia is not a news agency and thought that info is relevant in the text, in the intro it's not cus the lead should give only broad strokes of the situation (see MOS:LEADREL). Third, and most importantly, that whole information is already in the article, almost word for word and with the exact same sources. Seriously, i can't emphasize this enough (see section "Prison"). You can't have a copy and paste of something that is already in the article and put it in the intro. This is plain wrong and violates MOS:MAIN. I also advice reading MOS:LEADBIO. If you want to put that info back into the aricle, keep this in mind:

1. Use other words than the ones in the article and be as concise as possible.
2. Remember WP:POV and MOS:LEADBIO, information must be summarized and only keep what's absolutely relevant, and, as always, must show the other side, written in the most neutral way as possible.

Hope i made myself clear now. Coltsfan (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me try to discuss your points separately:

1. "bias": can you indicate where the bias is and who it is against? How can the disputed text be reworded to remove the bias? As you pointed out the text is taken from the body so does the bias also exist there?
2. “poorly written”: I’ll let other editors judge this. It may help to remove "then Judge" perhaps as this seems a little awkward. The sentence otherwise seems fine to me. If you have a better version then provide it.
3. "too big": the disputed text is one sentence.
4. Point of view and "showing the other side": Are you referring to Moro’s denial of wrongdoing here? That seem to be the only "other side" mentioned in the body of the article. I don’t see a problem with adding Moro’s denial after the sentence in dispute.
5. "this is an ongoing thing. wikipedia is not a news agency and thought that info is relevant in the text, in the intro it's not cus the lead should give only broad strokes of the situation": I am not clear on what you mean here and how it relates to the text in dispute. Can you break down this down into separate points and be more specific about how each one relates to the disputed text?
6. Duplication of the text in the lead and body of the article: information in the leading section will generally also appear in the body of the article as the leading section summarises the body. If you think the wording in the lead should be different from the wording in the body, a rewording would solve the issue. Can you indicate what parts of MOS:MAIN, MOS:LEADBIO you are referring to?
7. Conciseness: The text in dispute is one sentence. I can’t see that it can be trimmed any further but if you have a suggestion can you provide it?
8. "only keep what's absolutely relevant": the sentence in dispute seems relevant to me. What part of it do you think is not relevant?
9. "written in the most neutral way as possible": Can you indicate how the sentence in dispute violates this? Do you have an alternative phrasing? Are you suggesting the text in the body also needs to be changed? Burrobert (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Burrobert: so basically you did not address any point that i made, just replied with questions that actually were already answered above. For instante, i wasn't the only one to consider that sentence bias or too big. For instance, when you say that it's only "one sentence", that doesn't mean anything. A sentence can be long or short. The number of sentences has nothing to do with it. And remember, the onus is all on your side. You saying that i should say what needs to be changed, and i did. But who needs to propose a new version is you, who needs to read the rules and to prove that there is nothing wrong it's not me, it's you. As WP:ONUS says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." But since you don't want to read the policy guidelines that i told you too (probably in order to try to prolong the discussion or something, i don't know), here it is: "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm". "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." "If there is a difference in emphasis between the two [the lead and the body of the article], editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with 'due weight accorded to each."

I'll give you one example now in the content that you want to add, to illustrate. "Moro plotted to prevent Lula's candidacy for the 2018 presidential election". First, not quite what the sources say (WP:SYN). Like i said, this is a developing issue and by what i could gather from my research, this accusation led to nowhere, had no ramifications and it end up being not relevant to the case of the former president or to Moro, apart from the initial (and natural) media frenzy. Plus, the sentence makes appear that this assumption is a fact. If you don't see the bias in this sentence i have as an example, i won't copy and paste here what WP:POV for you. You can simply pick up a dictionary and see what "bias" mean. MOS:MAIN says that what is written in the lead must be concise and the "prolonged version" is to be in the body of the article, after all an intro is just an intro. So, to sum up, it's bias, violates guidelines on Intro and about biography of living people. Coltsfan (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My problem with the redaction is that the sentence: "Moro plotted to prevent Lula's candidacy for the 2018 presidential election" the way is written, simply do not reflect the truth and everybody who follows this case knows it. This is the Intercept allegation and the way is written it leads unwarned readers to believe that this is a simple "truth" when it's not the case. This case is way more complicated than that.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an attribution for the claim earlier in the sentence ("the investigative newspaper The Intercept reported that ...") so it isn't being written in Wikipedia's voice. Would you prefer that the attribution be strengthened by replacing "reported" with another word?Burrobert (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

TeleSur unreliable?

Removing unreliable source

On 17 April 2018, Brazilian senators who were members of the legislature's Human Rights Commission, the Argentinian Nobel Prize laureate, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and the former president of Uruguay, José Pepe Mujica were not allowed to visit Lula in prison to acquire information of violation of Lula’s human rights.

AVS (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I rather like Telesur and read it regularly. However, I vaguely recall there was an RFC about it recently. If it has been deprecated, my understanding is that it can still be used for certain things (such as explaining its own position for example). Regarding the text you posted, is there another source for it? Burrobert (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Telesur is cleary unreliable. They are propaganda network created by Hugo Chavez to cover favorably his and other "Bolivarian" governs in Latin America. They are highly biased towards their ideology and they never did hide their intentions or editorial policies.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, my edit was done per WP:RSP (and yes, per the previous RfCs). The consensus was to deprecate Telesur, and at bet its statements should be attributed. To prevent this, I suggest to find another source. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As the visit took place at the end (Mujica visita a Lula en prisión para entregarle su apoyo) the entry should be modified. The struggling around the visit should be mentioned, at least. AVS (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Assumption or fact

We don't do assumptions here. I do report facts and only facts
?
Mr. da Silva’s imprisonment paved the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right politician who appointed Sergio Moro as justice minister and offered to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court
This is fact, and to describe this in an other way, would be rather laborious. AVS (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Fact for who? You are interpreting events on your own away and give it the meaning that you want for it. This is called original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

His party, the PT, intended, to nominate him (Lula) for presidency. The imprisonment of Lula prevented his (promising) candidature. See here e.g. AVS (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Honoris causa titles

Lula won many honoris causa titles from various universities around the world. --191.193.19.190 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lula

Is "Lula" actually part of his name or is it just a contraction of "Luiz Inacio"? I have a suspicion that it's the latter, but the article is suggesting that it's actually one of his three given names. Anyone know? – PeeJay 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Lula" is a "nickname". He was born "Luiz Inácio da Silva".--SirEdimon (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No. See discussion below AVS (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2019

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move.(non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva → Lula – Per section above, Lula is not part of his name but a nickname. "Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva" is a ridiculous construction. It should either be "Luiz Inácio da Silva" or just "Lula". – PeeJay 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"In 1982, he added the nickname Lula to his legal name.[3]" -- well, since then 'Lula' is part of his name.Vitruviano (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no source there. The link provided is dead. – PeeJay 16:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This can handled by a redirection. AVS (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Lula (disambiguation) . In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If Lula is unavailable, then it would have to be Lula (politician). He simply isn't commonly known by his full name, and this bastardised version has yet to be reliably sourced. – PeeJay 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The primary topic and usage of Lula is under discussion, see talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't a "bastardised version" - that's his name. A couple of authoritative references here:

Library of the Presidency - http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/presidencia/ex-presidentes/luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva

The signature on any of the laws from his tenure - for example: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/LCP/Lcp135.htm

(edit) Here's a decent one in English (from Encyclopaedia Britannica): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Luiz-Inacio-Lula-da-Silva

And, by the way, "Lula" isn't unavailable, it already redirects here so this and the current title could simply be swapped over. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support his WP:COMMONNAME is Lula, and he is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support He is certainly much more commonly known simply as Lula so it makes sense for that to be the primary name for the article (as per WP:COMMONNAME) with his full name as a redirect. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Move makes no sense. He’s McLovin now? There’s already a redirect for him. --Lecen (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What does that mean? This is a nonsense argument, so I'm not sure why people are agreeing with you. He has always been known by the mononym "Lula". Comparing his name to one from a comedy film makes a mockery of this proceeding and, I feel, is entirely disingenuous. – PeeJay 08:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose D'accord with Lecen (see also my above argumentation) AVS (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support He is much more commonly known as Lula and this is how the media refers to him. WP:COMMONNAME is clear on this, the most recognizable name should be used. Hakimsheriff (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose First, he's commonly referred to as Lula da Silva; Lula is chiefly the Brazilian version. Moreover, as Lecen pointed out, Lula is already a redirect. As a comparison, this is the same as for Ghandi, Putin, Merkel, Mandela, Obama Pcgomes (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't the same as those cases. "Lula" is a mononym that apparently he added to his legal name (not sure this has been properly established yet), whereas the ones you mentioned are all surnames that are fairly recognisable as referring to those specific individuals. Also, can you provide a source that he is referred to as "Lula da Silva"? That seems like even more of a bastardisation than the current title. – PeeJay 08:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • From Britannica's article: “Lula” was a nickname that he later added to his legal name. I believe this settles the doubt. Moreover, here are few references to Lula da Silva being used: . Finally, neither Stalin nor Lenin are lastnames by birth. The latter hasn't even been incorporated to the name. Still both cases are redirects. Pcgomes (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Guidance per WP:NCON would suggest that you refer to other encyclopedic sources for common usage eg [2]. I could tediously go through other examples but the result would be the same ie reflect the current status quo. The comment from PeeJay2K3 is apposite, precedent with other individuals known by mononym is to use the full name e.g. Ghandi. WCM_email 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's a short "tedious list of other examples" (rather than just an assertion) - Pelé, Tiradentes, Neymar, Nicson, Eusébio, Aleijadinho, Xuxa, Mazarópi, Cartola, Carybé.

And, by the way, the one exampĺe you do give uses the name he is commonly known by, not his full name. Bagunceiro (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Heavily disagree. He's better known as Lula, this title doesn't reflect his actual WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of famous Brazilians go by mononyms, and Wiki generally reflects that.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:CRITERIA Coltsfan (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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

References

Length of prison sentence

Wasn't his sentence extended to 17 years? The OCW article already mentions this. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Change: I suggest adding a section called "Affiliations" and adding the following text:

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva urged Brazilians to vote for the nation’s most famous monument, Christ the Redeemer, in the New 7 Wonders of the World campaign.[1] The statue was chosen as one of the New 7 Wonders of the World in 2007.[2]

Sources: [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wonders-vote-idUSL198215920070620 [2] https://world.new7wonders.com/wonders/christ-redeemer-1931-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/#:~:text=A%20symbol%20of%20Christianity%20across,constructed%20between%201922%20and%201931.

Relevance of suggested edit: Lula’s involvement in the New 7 Wonders of the World campaign was a key factor that led to the election of Christ the Redeemer as one of the New 7 Wonders of the World. Lula used his weekly radio address to tell listeners how to vote for the statue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melita Cameron-Wood (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Change

On 9 June 2019, The Intercept published leaked Telegram messages between the judge in Lula's case, Sérgio Moro, and the Operation Car Wash lead prosecutor, Deltan Dallagnol, in which they allegedly conspired to convict Lula to prevent his candidacy for the 2018 presidential election.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105] Moro was accused of lacking impartiality in Lula's trial.[106] Following these disclosures, the resumption of legal proceedings was determined by the Supreme Court.[107] Moro has denied any wrongdoing or judicial misconduct during the course of Operation Car Wash and his investigation of the former president, claiming that the conversations leaked by The Intercept were misrepresented by the press and that conversations between prosecutors and judges are normal.[108] Moro became Minister of Justice and Public Security after the election of president Jair Bolsonaro and it is disputed whether an agreement was in place prior to Bolsonaro's election.

To

On 9 June 2019, The Intercept published leaked Deltan Dallagnol, lead prosecutor of the Operation Car Wash, Telegram messages between various members of the MP and outside the MP, including Sergio Moro. [1] Intercept and politicians opposed to the operation claims the messages shows that they conspired to convict Lula to prevent his candidacy for the 2018 presidential election[2], while defenders claims it only shows normal conversation between the MP and judges that happens frequently [3] [4] [5]. The Justice system denied all claims of Lula’s defense to use the messages, claiming they are worthless [6] [7]. The Justice system also confirmed Sergio Moro sentences in Lula’s trial on the second instance (TRF4) [8] and third instance (Justice Tribunal) [9], and also found Lula guilty on another case by judge Gabriela Hardt [10], that was also confirmed on the second instance (TRF4) [11] and third conviction is on the way by judge Luiz Antonio Bonat [12], totaling conviction by more than 9 different judges of multiple instances of the Justice System. Moro became Minister of Justice and Public Security after the election of president Jair Bolsonaro, but left the Government accusing president Bolsonaro of interference on the Federal Police [13] and abandoning the anti-corruption agenda, including a claim that the government found Lula’s release from prison as positive for political gain and not supporting his anti-crime laws and prison on second instance conviction. [14]

[1]https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2019/06/09/site-divulga-trechos-de-mensagens-atribuidas-a-procuradores-da-lava-jato-e-a-sergio-moro.ghtml

[2]https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2019/09/13/oposicao-quer-cpi-para-investigar-decisoes-de-moro-na-lava-jato.htm

[3] https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2019/06/10/deltan-acao-hacker-foi-criminosa-e-conversa-entre-mp-e-juizes-e-normal.htm

[4] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2019/06/ex-chefe-da-lava-jato-em-sp-diz-que-dialogos-sao-normais-e-critica-ministros-do-stf.shtml

[5] https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-jun-19/senado-moro-defende-conversa-procuradores-normal

[6] https://istoe.com.br/relator-da-lava-jato-no-trf-4-nega-a-lula-uso-de-mensagens-hackeadas/

[7] https://www.poder360.com.br/lava-jato/justica-nega-novo-pedido-de-lula-para-usar-mensagens-da-vaza-jato-em-acao/

[8] https://www.trf4.jus.br/trf4/controlador.php?acao=noticia_visualizar&id_noticia=14914

[9] https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2019/04/23/maioria-da-5a-turma-do-stj-mantem-condenacao-mas-vota-pela-reducao-da-pena-de-lula.ghtml

[10] https://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/2019/02/06/lula-e-condenado-em-acao-da-lava-jato-sobre-sitio-de-atibaia.ghtml

[11] https://www.trf4.jus.br/trf4/controlador.php?acao=noticia_visualizar&id_noticia=14914

[12] https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/sentenca-de-lula-sobre-cobertura-em-sao-bernardo-esta-prestes-ser-dada-por-juiz-substituto-de-moro-23781723

[13] https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/04/28/moro-bolsonaro-inquerito-stf-entenda.ghtml

[14]https://www.otempo.com.br/politica/moro-diz-que-planalto-achava-boa-a-soltura-de-lula-1.2343381

[15]https://diariopopularro.com.br/noticia/cujubim/2020/06/21/noticias-de-rondonia-diariopopularro-produto-100-cujubim-26-anos-homenagem-a-essa-terra/776.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapirreum (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

More complete history and recent unfolding of events, complete with reliable sources of mainstream Brazilian media. 201.79.54.154 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The way this is written makes it very confusing and puffery words such as "worthless are also used", I suggest making the text more readable and making the tone more neutral and then submitting it again. The sources and everything else is fine. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox Image

While the current infobox image is an official portrait, it is very outdated for a still very active politician and 2022 presidential contender. I think this infobox should follow the other examples of politicians here at enwiki that are ditching outdated official portraits to up to date images. I'm leaning towards option B or C. Here are some potential replacements:

• 
  Option A (current; 2007)
• 
  Option B (2022)
• 
  Option C (2020)
• 
  Option D (2020)
• 
  Option E (2017)

TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

Please place a protection (  ?) on the page. Vandalism has re-surfaced since his recent release from prison. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenulisHantu (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archive

So, where is that mentioned archive ? I had a hard time looking but could not find any link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:fd:d711:d312:5a94:6bff:fef6:2be4 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lula campanha 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Union what?

' is a former union and'

A union what? First paragraph. 80.5.77.149 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Brazilian amputees

The page is in Category:Brazilian amputees, but do we have more information about that? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

He lost his little finger due to an accident at work, many moons ago. The information does not seem to be in the article - it probably should be - but he does belong in the category.

It does seem an odd sort of category to me though. Bagunceiro (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Change infobox caption to 'Official portrait, 2007' 2804:14C:55:8D94:D57D:6634:493A:1D6D (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022 (2)

Lula da Silva is now president. 73.228.121.75 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Not until he is sworn in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Change Picture

Proposal A

The picture is severely outdated. 2A00:23C8:F81:D401:F908:3770:12CA:DE90 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Every single other creative-commons image I've seen is dreadful. We should wait until his inauguration, and use that new picture once it's released. DFlhb (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a recent picture because the current one is extremely outdated. I'd support a RfC and support option A. --2601:249:8E00:420:6577:7C19:BB3:2BA1 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Option A looks good. --38.106.246.208 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Liberalism?

Lula isn't Liberal/liberal; In the majoritory of the World Liberalism is right wing- even the US Republican Party is Liberal- or are they Monarchist or Fascist? The Partido Trabalhadores is defifinatly a Centrist, Social- Democratic party' the PT is as comcervative and Centerist as the Australian Labo(u)r Party. Liberalis has been on the Right for a hundred years, except for in the US. Labour and Socialist-Social Democratic Parties all over the World have occupied the Left in Parliamentary/Republic Democracies- All Liberals are on the right Conseratives are liberal nut Monarchists and Fascists are farther Right. 124.170.117.129 (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

you're too biased to make such claims 124.169.150.108 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Current text: "During his two terms in office, he undertook radical reforms, leading to growth in GDP, a reduction in public debt and inflation, and helping 20 million Brazilians escape poverty.[12] Poverty, inequality, illiteracy, unemployment, infant mortality, and child labor rates fell significantly, while the minimum wage and average income increased, and access to school, university, and health care were expanded."

Lula did not implement a single vital reform in his 8 years as president. GDP grew in spite of his blunders in the economy because of the rise in Chinese demand for agricultural commodities (of which Brazil is a major supplier). He did not decrease public debt in any way - he paid off the IMF by issuing internal bonds (which had shorter terms and higher yields than those IMF bonds). Social variables stayed roughly the same throughout his terms, as the official data available at sidra.ibge.gov.br can attest. Average grades for school years 1~9 actually decreased in this period. Minimum wage and average income increased due to increased agricultural activity.

SUGGESTION: remove the cited portion of the text. VAtAtmaja (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@VAtAtmaja: This is a controversial edit request that needs consensus to be done. Mentioned content is reliably sourced and you'll need strong sources backing the opposite narrative, otherwise this seems like a basic case of WP:OR requested because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Vipz (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Notable portrayal of Lula.

The section "In popular culture" is incomplete. Lula was also portrayed by Ary Fontoura in the 2017 Brazilian film Polícia Federal: A Lei É para Todos. 201.17.92.33 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Minor typos in First presidency (2003-2011) section, Education subsection: "In 2006, a reform was introdued exyending primary education from 8 to 9 years as a means of improving the accessibility of education for the poor."

Change "introdued exyending" to "introduced extending". Gabgab4273 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese naming convention

"In this portuguese name, the first or maternal surname is Lula, while the second or paternal name is Silva. Am i right? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:F884:7569:86AA:5DF3 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think so. I have more questions on this topic. For example, I'm not clear where his given name(s) stop and where his last name begins. It doesn't help that the article refers to him as " Luiz Inácio da Silva," but it's titled " Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva." Is Lula a nickname? If so, then maybe the title should be Luiz Inácio (Lula) da Silva. And is Inácio a middle name or the first word of a two-word last name? When writing about him, do I refer to him as President Lula or President da Silva? (I have a pretty good idea that his last name is just da Silva, and Lulu is a nickname, but a Wikipedia article should do better than give us a "pretty good idea" of a basic fact.) I don't know if Brazil uses the Spanish tradition of two last names, one from each parent, but he doesn't have his mother's name, so maybe not. But what part is Inácio? Did his Father have two last names and pass them both on? Or did he give his son his middle name? The article could be more clear. And maybe the article should refer to him to as President da Silva (Or whatever it is) at least once, to clarify this. MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Ogedei908 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

The page states the date of death of Lula (who is alive) as being Jan 8th 2024. Please correct that. 2804:7F5:9492:6848:C522:2B1:F46F:F843 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Translation expansion template

The article appears to be long enough where the translation expansion template on the lead is no longer needed, in my opinion. Should the template be removed? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Unclear

Lula was the 7th of their 8 children. But when then did his father make his mother pregnant w his youngest sibling? After he moved out - and moved in w her cousin? 24.97.185.90 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)