Open main menu

Talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
November 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 14, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Where in the world is Lula da Silva?Edit

It is impossible to determine from this article whether this individual is in prison or not, and if so where. (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. (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. (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moro in the leadEdit

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.[1][2][3][4][5]"

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)


  1. ^ Greenwald, Glenn; Pougy, Victor (2019-06-09). "Hidden Plot: Exclusive: Brazil's Top Prosecutors Who Indicted Lula Schemed in Secret Messages to Prevent His Party From Winning 2018 Election". The Intercept. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
  2. ^ Fishman, Andrew; Martins, Rafael Moro; Demori, Leandro; Santi, Alexandre de; Greenwald, Glenn (2019-06-09). "Breach of Ethics: Exclusive: Leaked Chats Between Brazilian Judge and Prosecutor Who Imprisoned Lula Reveal Prohibited Collaboration and Doubts Over Evidence". The Intercept. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
  3. ^ Waldron, Travis (2019-07-01). "Brazil's Anti-Corruption Superstar Faces A Scandal Of His Own". HuffPost. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
  4. ^ "Opinion: Brazil's anti-corruption drive has been exposed as corrupt and it could bring down Bolsonaro". The Independent. 2019-07-01. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
  5. ^ Londoño, Ernesto; Casado, Letícia (2019-06-10). "Leaked Messages Raise Fairness Questions in Brazil Corruption Inquiry". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

Moro in the bodyEdit

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)

Edit warEdit

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

TeleSur unreliable?Edit

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. [1]

  1. ^ "Lula Denied Visits By Senators, Even Pepe Mujica". TeleSur. 17 April 2018. Retrieved 27 October 2019.

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 factEdit

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)


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 2019Edit

Luiz Inácio Lula da SilvaLula – 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)
The primary topic and usage of Lula is under discussion, see talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -- (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 -
The signature on any of the laws from his tenure - for example:
(edit) Here's a decent one in English (from Encyclopaedia Britannica):
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)
  • Oppose D'accord with Lecen (see also my above argumentation) AVS (talk) 06:45, 12 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)

Honoris causa titlesEdit

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

Return to "Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva" page.