Draft talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Grew what?
"He transformed Brazil from a debtor to a creditor, and rapidly grew the country's." -- Grew the country's what? Economy, presumably? Indy (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm talking about the economy.--BluePink (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not ready for mainspace
This "article", if it can be elevated to such heights, is pathetically vapid. Devoid of critical analysis of Lula's policies, (which, fun fact, I have a book on), it instead relies on childish jabs and vapid moralism, which denigrates its supposed credibility. Move the damned thing back to draftspace. 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Christopher (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already tried sending it to draftspace for those issues, but someone apparently decided it was mainspace worthy. Plutocow (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was, the article's creator, although he did it incorrectly (copy/paste) so the page's history indicates it was me. Christopher (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded accusative, I could tell that Dropix was the one responsible (note to Dropix: at least try to improve the article or say why the critics are wrong if you want to move it to mainspace again). Plutocow (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree. this article needs a lot more work (and more sources) before it's ready for mainspace. i'll add more content myself once i make the time to sit down and do some research. in the mean time, kudos to those who are currently working on improving this draft. The G (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this draft when I have time, probably around February. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the article is well written and well sourced. It concerns a basic description of the subject, the most notable parts of his biography, etc. The only problem here seems to be with the contentious/biased statements about Lula. I've seen smaller stubs in mainspace without question. - Dropix (talk)

why were the opening quotes removed?
i don't think you should remove the opening quotes  just because you don't like them. i mean, the sources are valid. (folha, for instance, has long been noted for its political independence (mota & capelato, 1981 ) unlike, say, . it's basically the brazilian equivalent of the new york times.) at least clarify the context of the quotes, but don't delete them unless you have a good reason to do so. The G (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The top quote was removed due to the way it framed the remarks in question, which going through the article cited contextualizes them as anti-privatization. If you wanted to add the remarks in question back to the article, I would advise a paragraph or subsection, not a quote, due to issues with framing in the latter format. The second quote, based on some brief digging, seems to have some kind of feud with Lula, though I'm not 100% so far, hence it was commented out, not removed entirely. 20:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * got it. thanks for the explanation. i like the idea of adding a paragraph or subsection. i saw that the draft previously made the claim that lula made a lot of controversial statements . i think this deserves its own section. eventually, we can make one addressing these claims, even if the sole purpose is to clarify or debunk them. i mean, the article on biden has a |section on his gaffes, after all. The G (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could have a separate section for quotes, just like we have one on Bolsonaro's page. - Dropix (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hit piece
Why does this draft still read like a hit piece? So fucking what if Lula engages in diplomatic relations with Cuba and Venezuela. When the US backs Israel and Saudi Arabia no one bats an eye, but when a socdem in the Global South engages in diplomacy with countries we don't like they're the Second Coming of Josef Stalin. Why the double standard? Vee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the new edits say the tax rate was increased, but on who, exactly? If tax rates were increased on the rich, is that necessarily a bad thing? Also the new edits perpetuate the cult of economic growth, that some abstract rate of "growth" is more important than improving the quality of life of the citizenry and reducing socioeconomic injustice/inequity. All in all this seems incredibly reductionist. We're given statistics, but no context to the statistics in question. Vee (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People on this wiki definitely bat an eye at the fact the US enables Israel and Saudi Arabia. 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But we still consider them "good presidents" despite the fact. Our article on Biden isn't nearly as harsh as this draft is on Lula. Vee (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I haven't had time to dig in and engage in fact checks and rewrites. 00:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good edit with removing the polemics. Chavez was corrupt, but he was democratically elected. Vee (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire page is a disaster. Jesus CHRIST. Who wrote this? The CIA?--A p r i l Chat? 02:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

i haven't even had the chance to work on this page that much (apart from some minor edits), but apparently, some feathers have already been ruffled. i have already told y'all that lula isn't the saint or hero y'all think he is; if anything, his popularity is overrated. that said, if you really don't like the information in this article, you have a few options: The G (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC) as a side note, please organize your sources and ideas, and make sure the links work, too. i'm still fixing that train wreck of an article on bolsonaro. for starters, i'm pretty sure half the links are dead (the reference section is littered with bare urls). and that are only one of many things that's still wrong with that article. i don't know how on earth it ever received a bronze brainstar in the first place. The G (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) check your own bias, first.
 * 2) if it's factually and objectively wrong, make the changes accordingly, but cite your sources.
 * 3) the article appears well-sourced. if you think the source(s) used is/are wrong or unfairly biased, please elaborate. merely saying "i don't like it" doesn't cut it.


 * if it makes y'all feel better, i'm adding nuanced (i.e., less loaded) language to water down the "hit piece" tone of the article. The G (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Engaging in diplomatic relations with commie countries is one thing, but openly supporting and financially aiding them is another thing. I don't agree with editing out this important info from the article. - Dropix (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i don't agree, either, especially when the press and the left is worshiping him as a hero of global democracy. (then again, if you really wanna go there, the usa's reputation of being a beacon of democracy is also overrated. now that's out of the way, i think lula's financial aiding and abetting of anti-democratic countries should be added back.) The G (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Zero Hunger
Archive.org has a copy. Please use it. 02:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hitler quote
First of all, putting this at the top of the page has a similar effect to putting "We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" on the top of Joe Biden's page; it only serves to poison the well since it's not in a place where the context behind the quote can be explained. Secondly, it seems to be part of an anti-left strawman that seems to be getting increasingly common in recent years, when saying that fascists were rhetorically/tactically effective is conflated with being supportive of fascism. While maybe you could explain this quote somewhere else in the article, it should not be at the top of the article. Plutocow (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert your edit because of the Hitler quote, or at least not solely because of it. I did it because you removed much more content without explanation. I don't mind if you don't want this in the top of the article, though I think it should be on the article. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, trying to justify Lula's support for Putin because of Pinochet is stupid. I'll revert that as well. He supports Putin because loves autocrats. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically every leftist in South America, from Morales to Correa to even Mujica to a small extent, has had to play ball with Russia to some extent. You can't pretend that the U.S.'s long history of pulling coups on democratically elected Latin American leftists has had no effect on how they act geopolitically. Plutocow (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, here is Boric condemning the invasion . You can't just conclude, without any sources, that he's supporting Putin because of that, since, well, you're not inside his mind. We do know, however, that he has supported many autocrats and dictators in the past. Putin is just another one. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * His comments are more hedgy and "both-sides-y" than outright supportive of Putin, so saying he's supportive of Putin because he supports autocrats is just as much of an assumption if not moreso. One counterexample does not disprove a larger trend. I don't see why you're so agressive on this issue, it's an explanation not an excuse. Plutocow (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC)Because there's no evidence for your explanation! Also, being on the fence in this case is supporting Putin. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He has condemned the invasion despite his hedginess, so regardless the article doesn't provide a fully accurate view of his stance. Yes, I am aware of how centrists effectively tacitly support the more extreme side, but that is no excuse for misrepresenting someone. Plutocow (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(EC)Also, to be fair with Lula, I don't think it's right to blame the deforestation on him. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) He just did that when he saw that his bothsidesism was ruining his reputation, after over a year of war, but I agree that we should say that he might have changed his mind to some extent. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yeah, and these trends will probably take a long time to reverse anyway. Apparently the supposedly low amount of deforestation in January may have been because it wasn't counted accurately, so it might be more helpful to see if the two-month amount is higher or lower than average. Plutocow (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also of the opinion that the quote shouldn't be on top of the article anymore, even if I originally placed it there, for the reasons I already stated and, as Plutocow observed, lack of proper context. However, I'm also against editing it out entirely from the page, which would be tantamount to censorship. Relevant bullshit said by politicians, even if it was decades ago, should not be diminished or ignored, regardless of their ideology or position in the political spectrum. And before someone tries to pigeonhole me with some political vision, please remember that I have also added several controversial quotes to Bolsonaro's article. I don't think any politician should be free of criticism. - Dropix (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

quality control (previously titled "second presidency")
ok, i probably have the least favorable view of lula on this site, and even i think the second presidency section reads like a hit piece. i edited the lead so that it's at least a bit more neutral. we should also highlight the good and neutral things he has done (similar to the biden article). i have edited the lead accordingly. The G (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

also, i will be checking for sources. i understand this is a draft, but please include a source for whatever claim or statement is made, regardless of whether it's favorable. oh, and please avoid weasel words. The G (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)