Talk:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash

English sources needed

Eventually, the article needs to have English language sources added to the references. As explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."

It's natural that all of our initial refs are in Portuguese because of starting out as a translation. But moving forward, we should be adding refs from reliable sources in English in addition to the existing Portuguese ones. There is no shortage of good English sources: Reuters, BBC, other mainstream English media, and English-language services of Brazilian media all have articles about OCW.

If you happen to come across a reliable English source but don't have time to create a proper ref tag, either just dump it here on the Talk page and we'll add it later, or even better, just create a WP:BAREURL ref (<ref>some-url</ref>) in the article, and it can be dealt with semi-automatically (WP:REFILL). Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

there is a book in English written by one of the journalists that cover this; O Globo I think. I also found a couple of other good explainers in Englisn; as I come across them again I will put the links here; I agree that it would be nice to have more English sources. I should look into the Intercept, also. Right now I am trying to rewrite the sections with copy-paste problems, but I don't think I understand enough about what happned, so maybe I will switch to this task for now. Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/brazil-operation-car-wash-is-this-the-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-history
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/17/brazils-car-wash-investigation-faces-new-pressures/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/154150/conspiracy-discredit-brazils-left
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/arts/television/mechanism-netflix-brazil-jose-padilha.html
• https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/brazils-corruption-fallout
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061618302209
• https://www.icij.org/investigations/bribery-division/bribery-division-what-is-odebrecht-who-is-involved/
• https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-car-wash-sergio-moro/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/anti-corruption-crusades-paved-way-bolsonaro/596449/
• https://www.dw.com/en/brazils-anti-graft-operation-lava-jato-in-hot-water/a-49734344
• https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/brazil-lula-bolsonara-operation-carwash-moro-corruption-scandal
• https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/IN1518-PDF-ENG?itemFindingMethod=Search
• https://theintercept.com/2019/07/26/brazil-car-wash-deltan-dallagnol-paid-speaking/

This list does not include the book I was thinking of, but I will add that later. As far as I know the above meet RS standards; I have not screened for length, content or political slant. But if someone wants to help but can't read Portuguese it would be helpful to weave information from the above into the artticle imho. If we have Portuguese speakers working on translation I may do some of that as well, as I can read Portuguese, but only with an effort and many uncertainties. I *am* finding that English-language sources do not always use the Operation names, which is an issue given the article's current structure, but it should be possible to match the information up nonetheless.Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Maybe not all the English sources use the English operation names, but a lot of them do, interestingly, some of the English services of the Brazilian press, but also others like Reuters and others. See section #Operation names in English above. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. What would be useful is a list of Brazilian or South American news outlets that have an English version. The only one I know of offhand is Telesur, but some people do not consider it a good source because it is Venezuelan (which I had not realized). Elinruby (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

EBC is another; see the list in the See section section above. The Intercept, of course, is another. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

PPS The name of the book I was thinking of is The Mechanism. The first name of the author is Vladimir and he is in fact a Brazilian reporter. I misplaced the link again, but three early chapters are on Google Books, and I am fairly certain I have already cited it in this draft if it helps. Oh and Btw they are making a movie from it. Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

found it: Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

References

other operations

• Operacao Panatenaico - linked in article where I saw it, but link goes to main telesur english page
• Operation Greenfield - article links here
• Operation Zelotes - article links here

Found these here Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That same source also mentions

• Operation Weak Flesh (Carne Fraca) – March 2017

Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Operation Banestado ipld
• Operation Curaçao ipld Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming release to MAIN space, and To do list

The article is getting close to fully translated, although there is still plenty to do as far as clean-up, consistency across sections, and other maintenance tasks. I've created a to do list to help organize remaining tasks, which you can pull down from the Header at the top of this page. Please feel free to edit it. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on getting the article ready for release now. Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There's enough stuff completed on the to do list, and this is ready to move to main space. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Move completed; switching to post-move items on the to do list. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that each article section corresponding to an Operation name now has a redirect that corresponds to it. So you can link directly from other articles to, say, Operation Periodic Table and it will link to the section here via the redirect. In a couple of cases (Leviathan, one other) there was an existing article or redirect, so in those cases the redirect was defined as Operation Leviathan (Brazil), and so on. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Operation C'est fini

Hi Elinruby, section Operation C'est fini is marked {{under construction}}; is this one of yours? I'm removing the big fat box it generates for now, since I want to release the article to Mainspace, but if it needs some specific overhaul, could you add appropriate targeted tags, as needed, or just update the to do list, if you prefer?

Also, there are a number of {{clarify}} templates in that section, but they are not explained. Can you bring any questions with that section needing clarification here to this discussion, so we can discusys it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

been mostly offline for a couple of months. Plus 1 to all that. Will try to address the clarify boxes shortly. Usually I put something in the edit summary,if you need to do something with them before I do. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Furna da Onça

Portuguese wiki has an article called pt:Operação Furna da Onça which is listed as an "offshoot" in the third sentence of the lead: "A ação, que foi um desdobramento da Operação Lava Jato no estado do Rio de Janeiro...". More to the point, their reliable source identified in note 1 says that it is an offshoot. However, it is not included in the Desdobramentos article, which is why it didn't get translated in the original translation effort of the article. Operation Furna da Onça ("Jaguar's Den") should be included here. As the article explains, the title comes from the name of a conference room at the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro, as listed in their note 4. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Now added to the article; see Operation Jaguar's Den. (Note: There are now redirects in place for each operation, so you can just wikilink [[Operation Jaguar's Den]] and it goes straight to the section in the article.) Note that pt-wiki lacks a summary section for it, but it has an entire article about it (linked above). See this discussion at pt-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article split

I propose that the article be split based on size considerations, to move section Offshoots of Operation Car Wash#Abroad out into its own article, to be entitled, "Offshoots of Operation Car Wash outside Brazil" (currently a redirect).

The article currently has 66,876 bytes of readable prose (178kb of wiki markup). This puts it into "Probably should be divided" territory, according to the table at WP:SIZERULE. It would be a very natural split, since pt-wiki already has them separated into two articles (pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato, and pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato fora do Brasil), where the second one corresponds exactly to the proposed new page, to be split from this one.

The split would also permit the offshoots abroad to be expanded; as it is, each country has just a sentence or two. This would leave more leeway for expansion of the spinoff operations abroad. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Notifying users, per WP:PROSPLIT: @Elinruby and Bageense:. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: IIRC, the limit is 190kb in the pt wiki. In any case, I think the article is fine as it is. --Bageense^(disc.) 22:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not pt-wiki, and we go by readable prose size, not wiki code bytes. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The size limit in the pt wiki (which is also no strict rule) was just an observation. Anyway, I'm not against this proposal. I just don't think that moving only 15kbs of raw content is going to make any significant difference, but I won't mind if this gets done. --Bageense^(disc.) 05:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You may be right; my rationale for proposing it, is that if moved, it would give the "Fora" article plenty of elbow room to expand; whereas editors might feel inhibited from doing so now, due to bumping up against the size limit. It would also offload about 15kb as you pointed out, which would allow the main content to be expanded more easily as well. If nothing gets added to either topic, and we don't foresee adding anything, then I agree, there would then be reason to split it. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been four years, no one has split it and there doesn't seem to be a consensus here to, so I removed the tag. IMO, content in this article should be split - but the abroad section is a very small part and would not contribute to the page's length problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate and repeat links

This article is unlikely to be "read from top to bottom" but rather examined for information about particular operations. As such, it is analogous to a list or glossary article. Although MOS:DUPLINK doesn't cover this case exactly, because of the length of the article, the numerous short sections, and the general unfamiliarity with much of the material relating to Brazilian politics, economics, and criminal law, it promotes clarity and transparency to link certain terms the first time they come up in a given section, regardless how many times it was linked in earlier sections. To fail to do so, would be a disservice to the reader. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)