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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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.
editI 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
editI 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?
editThere'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?
editThis 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)