Talk:Lula, Son of Brazil

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Brazil: Arts / Government and laws Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Arts in Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

POV political views[edit]

It seems that Brazilians from different sides keep vandalizing this article. It is about a movie, not about Politics in Brazil. Brazilian editors are welcome, but to discuss the movie, not Brazilian politics.

Please refrain from this activity.

189.102.170.111 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, protect the page. Hurry. Will be vandalized by October, Brazil's election date... Lula supporters wants to make positive advertisement desperately. This IP 201.0.202.118 was banned 3 months in Brazil by multiple registrations and vandalism. He must be banned here too. 189.4.240.56 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Criticisms"[edit]

This article is about a movie.

I believe it to be consensual that it is not about politics in Brazil. Furthermore, there are at least 1001 Wikipedia's rules which prevent its articles from discussing political positions, be it pro, or con, any political figure or political party.

I propose that the whole section "Criticisms" should be simply removed. It does not deal with the film itself. It is a collection of wild speculations, either by some of the Brazilian press, by some political figures such as former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, even by some people who auto proclaim themselves to represent "millions of Brazilians" on whether or not the movie will have an influence in the October 2010 elections. This is technically impossible to determine beforehand.

It seems impossible to reach a consensus on the theme "Criticisms". It has been the sole source of continual disputes between pro Lula and anti Lula anonymous IP editors, probably Brazilians. This section adds nothing to the comprehension of the work of art itself.

However, should the peer's consensual decision be to maintain the section "Criticism", it should at least have added the other side's story. It cannot be just an endless list of anti Lula opinions, as posted by his adversaries.

But, I insist, the whole section should be deleted, as this is not the proper place for such a political debate. 189.102.170.111 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it IS about politics, all brazilians know it. The section CRITICISM is equal than Portuguese Wikipedia, the home of the film. This film is being hardly criticized in Brazil. I think you are the the vandalist IP who is trying to make this a big propaganda to Lula and Dilma Roussef, here and at Portuguese Wikipedia, using sock puppets. You want to misrepresent the English Wikipedia to justify putting the same text, after, into the Portuguese Wiki, a pretty obvious scam. Let the admins decide. 189.4.240.56 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of order[edit]

The above comment is out of order. "Oh yes, it IS about politics, all brazilians know it" is a POV. It signifies that the IP should have an ample knowledge of the opinion of 190 million people, and that his POV represents the position of all of the Brazilians, an argument that needs no further comment.

Based on Bias:

"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."

There is no single counterargument to the article's current biased view, albeit it is endorsed by some of the Brazilian press. Fernando Meirelles own interview, with his reasons for making the film, is not there. On its place we see some IP speaking for "all Brazilians".

This is intolerable. Apart from political divergences, this fact is sufficient for the removal of the whole section. Let the admins decide.

http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arnaldo/posts/2009/11/28/lula-filho-do-brasil-um-filmaco-tem-todo-direito-de-se-lo-245280.asp

Lula, o filho do Brasil, é um filmaço. E tem todo o direito de sê-lo. (... is a great movie. And has all the right to be.) by Arnaldo Bloch¹. Published by O Globo, saturday, November 28, 2009.

¹ Arnaldo Bloch was the Editor for Culture in O Globo 1998-2000 and Executive Editor for Culture in 2000.

189.102.170.111 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is YOUR POV. You want to transform the article into propaganda to Lula, so, "please remove the Criticisms, I want to have a 100% Lula page. Please, do it. In Brazil all 5-year boy knows that film is a giant propaganda, but I dont want to see it at Wikipedia, Lula needs to elect Dilma, remove the criticisms". 189.4.240.56 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lula, Son of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]