Talk:Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | A news item involving Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 May 2016. |  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
changes to 3rd para of lede look good. edit
I have not read up on these events yet but what you wrote reflects my current understanding of the decision today. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Article needs the attention of a bi-lingual editor edit
I just did a copy edit of the article and would like to use this opportunity to appeal to one of you fine people, who is fluent in Portuguese and English (preferably a native speaker of both), to give this piece a makeover. – BroVic (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What's the deal with the opinion poll? edit
There's a very small section named "Public opinion survey and economics". You would think that such a subheader would include a public opinion survey of, you know, Dilma Roussef's Impeachment, not Temer's government. What's up with that? Why is this included here and not in the numerous articles concerning Temer and/or his mandate? Surely there are many surveys about the public's perception of Dilma's Impeachment that can be included there, rather than this attempt at adding barely-relatedd anti-news to the article. I'll make changes to that section if no one objects. YuriNikolai (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @YuriNikolai: I agreed. The text is out of scope in section "After impeachment". It couldn't be transferred to the section "Public Opinion" ?--PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality concerns? edit
This article was tagged for neutrality in 2016, yet I do not see an active conversation here about it. This needs to be discussed, or the tag is eligible for removal (WP:DETAG). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The one who tagged it should be the one to explain why it was tagged. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, they are the one who started the conversation in Archive 2 but it ceased years ago now. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can we just ping them and ask them to address their concerns?--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bri Should we remove the tag, since the one who tagged it didn't address the problem? Template:POV states that: "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor".--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can we just ping them and ask them to address their concerns?--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, they are the one who started the conversation in Archive 2 but it ceased years ago now. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I just removed it. If someone has an issue they should discuss here. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)