Talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Please strive for NPOV in this. Thanks.

If his name is "Luís Inácio Lula da Silva", then "Lula" is simply his surname, so why does everybody point out that he's known as "Lula" all the time? So even his friends call him by his last name; that's not very special. I ask because if my interpretation is correct, then we should move the article to the full name like usual; whereas if "Lula" is properly a nickname, then it should be at Lula da Silva (since there are probably other "Lula"s in the world). Or maybe I just don't understand Brazilian nicknames, that's another possibility. — Toby 13:40 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

AFAIK, in Portuguese, everybody has two names, one of his father, one of his mother. I think Lula's mother's name was "Lula", his father's "Da Silva" (might be reverse, like in Spanish, but I thought this was correct). Most people are usually known as either "Da Silva" or "Lula da Silva" - "Lula" is not as common, although nicknames are very common (just look up some Brazilian football players...). Jeronimo

Yes, this is what I suspected, modulo worrying about which parent is which. But I guess that this isn't true in his case, as we see below. — Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

He was born "Luís Inácio da Silva". During his political career he became universally known by the nickname "Lula". He then had his name legally changed to "Luís Inácio Lula da Silva". The article should definitely be at Lula.' — 200.165.239.87

The article should be at the full name, not merely Lula. 129.186.18.57 17:56 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

We don't always place articles at full legal names; the standard example here is Jimmy Carter. I guess the question for me is, would anybody recognise "Lula da Silva" as his name now, seeing "Lula" as a nickname being used in place of a first (Christian) name and "da Silva" as the correct last (sur-) name? If so, then it should be at Lula da Silva, not just Lula (just as we wouldn't put Jimmy Carter's article at just Jimmy). OTOH, if "Lula da Silva" would sound wrong to a native Brazilian (or even just be rejected by him as incorrect), that Lula alone seems reasonable (especially if "Lula" is some weird nonsense name that nobody else goes by). In any case, since "Lula" is a nickname by which he is commonly known, not going by "Luís" or "Inácio", I don't think that Luís Inácio Lula da Silva would be best, just as James Earl Carter is not best, since Jimmy doesn't go by "James" or "Earl".

Of course, you might be against the whole Jimmy Carter standard from the very beginning, but then I would take that up at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, since that goes beyond just this one article.

— Toby 18:25 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes the man's name is "Lula", with the exception of government forms and the like, which are presumably of very minor interest to Wikipedia users. The article should definitely be at Lula. We have nice redirects from the rarer names. — 200.165.239.87

What makes the article name troublesome is that those who like him call him "Lula", and those who don't and those who want to remain neutral (like some news reports) call him "da Silva."

I don't have a strong opinion about where the article should reside--I support the "most popular name" policy but I have my questions as to whether the use of the name in this case might violate NPOV. But really, I don't care about that. One relatively clear-cut issue is that we should use "da Silva," as news articles do, rather than "Lula," to identify the man in the article itself. --Larry Sanger

Absolutely disagree with your characterization here. Neutrals and those who like him tend to prefer "Lula". Those who don't like him tend to prefer "da Silva". Actually, I suspect it comes down to "those ignorant of Brazil prefer 'da Silva'". — 200.165.239.87

You're just making a bald claim, and we know nothing about how much you do or don't know about Lula da Silva ;-). Why should we believe you? More to the point, are you of the view that the majority of the news reports, which use "da Silva" rather than "Lula," are not actually neutral? Since, presumably, these are major news sources and are at least as familiar with the man as either of us is. --Larry Sanger

I didn't interpret 200 as saying that the majority of news reports are negative towards Lula but instead as implying that the majority of news reports call him "Lula". I suppose that either way would work, but I wouldn't rush to judgement. If my interpretation turns out to be what 200 meant, then (s)he wasn't making any balder a claim than you were — I don't in fact know which is true (although my own quite limited experience suggests that 200 is correct). — Toby 23:52 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

Toby, my argument was: a lot of news reports use "Mr. da Silva." Many if indeed not most--all the ones I linked to on the subject page, except the Dutch radio report; see http://news.google.com/ for plenty more. Some reports use both, including the BBC article I linked to ("Mr da Silva," and The Independent. Since presumably these sources are making an attempt to be unbiased, the well-informed, unbiased tendency is toward using "Mr. da Silva" or both names. So perhaps that's what we should do. That's not a bald claim--merely an (inductively strong) argument from authority. ;-) I'm not afraid to admit I'm a little sensitive about accusations of bad or no argumentation; I'm teaching critical thinking this quarter. :-) --Larry Sanger

I understand your argument, and I do not believe that you were making a bald claim. However, I believe that you do not understand 200's argument (although their explanation is less clear, so perhaps it is I that don't understand). 200 is claiming that neutral sources say "Lula". Even Matthew below cites the BBC (presumably as a neutral source) that says "Lula". You concluded that 200 was claiming that the mainstream news media were not neutral, but it seems just as reasonable to conclude (as I did) that 200 was claiming that the news media were using "Lula" (which had in fact been my impression too). This is not a bald claim either. It may be wrong, it may be right; I don't know. In fact you've now cited some specific examples in favour of your claim, so I hope that 200 will come back to cite examples in favour of their claim. But nobody is making bald claims; there is simply (as I read it) a disagreement about what the neutral sources do in fact actually say. (This will go better if 200 also comes back to explain exactly what they meant.) — Toby 04:13 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Oy, not that this really merits all this discussion, but...(1) I did not say or imply, if you'll read what I wrote, that the mainstream news media were not neutral; (2) if you'll follow the link I refer to above, the BBC uses both but seems to prefer "Mr da Silva" in the article linked; (3) I understood perfectly well that 200 was saying that neutral sources say "Lula," and that is precisely what I was citing the news sources to refute; (4) the claim of 200's that is bald is precisely that neutral parties use "Lula." What's 200's evidence for this? --LMS

I know that you didn't imply this; you implied that 200 had implied this.
You never mentioned that BBC link in your response to 200.
But your response cited no news sources.
And what was your evidence that they don't? Although you eventually came up with some, at the time of your response to 200, your claim was as bald as theirs; neither of you had cited any evidence.

I give up. I could reply, but I am not going to bother. --LMS

Let me tell you why I'm making a point of this.

You certainly made that clear. I think you're confused, overly combative, and in general way off-base, but I'm too disgusted to engage in this any further. --LMS

You said that neutral sources used "da Silva", and 200 said that neutral sources used "Lula". At that point, neither of you had cited any evidence for your position; you were merely reporting your impressions. When you replied, you characterised 200's weak position in derogatory terms, but your position was then equally weak. Furthermore, you didn't bother to strengthen your position then either. You knew that you were correct, you knew the mainstream news articles that backed you up, but you didn't actually cite them to the rest of us here. We just had to take your word for it, when we could just as easily have taken 200's word if we wished, until somebody actually cited some particular neutral sources. It was an arrogant expectation to think that people would trust your claim over 200's when you didn't back your claim up, and especially to characterise 200's claim as "bald" when yours had no more evidence backing it — among the evidence presented here, that is. (In the meantime, you've presented specific citations, and even explained away the specific citation offered by Matthew in defence of 200's position. So you definitely have the stronger claim now — but not when you were talking to 200.) I see that 200, a newcomer, has left this discussion too, although they are participating on several other pages. I hope that they didn't feel bullied away. — Toby 15:28 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Please remember that the world is a big place. None of us is in a position to say what name the majority of news reports are using. But as one data point, the BBC is just saying "Lula". Matthew Woodcraft

Another data point: "Da Silva" is the most common surname in Brazil. I think it makes sense to have the article at Lula; within the entry, it's a tossup whether to use Lula or da Silva. We generally use last names within the article. --The Cunctator

He is President-elect and will be sworn in on 1 Jan 2003.

<Opinion>I suspect the current position of PT and Lula is only slightly to the left of Lyndon Johnson and may not be any more left than FDR. But the USA has moved so far to the right in the last 25 years that this looks leftist indeed by comparison.</Opinion>

Possibly. It's also difficult to compare current politicians to historical standards, because the socioeconomic landscape is so different. In today's global political climate, Lula is certainly leftist, and certainly far left in comparison to the alternatives. It is definitely worth discussing how the definition has shifted, in the leftism entry. --The Cunctator

I don't care whether the article is at Lula or Silva or Da Silva or Lula da Silva, as long as readers looking for info on the man can find it. What is all the fuss about? Is this something personal between Toby and Larry? Take it off-line, guys.

No, Ed, it's nothing personal. --LMS

Right, nothing more than what you see here. — Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

The standard is: name an article with either the most common form or the "preferred form" of the English spelling of a person's name. All the variations get a REDIRECT to the main article. Major variations are mentioned in the article, usually in the first parapraph (if not the first sentence).

Based purely on reading this talk page, it seems that people talking about the man call him variously Lula or da Silva. When I have time, I'll look into it further, but I wish you guys would cooperate a bit more. --Ed Poor

I've been arguing with Larry over whether something that 200 wrote was a "bald claim", and things like that. But I do believe that he's established the the major news media refer to Lula as "da Silva" on second reference. The only think that I'm left wondering about is whether "Lula da Silva" is a reasonable name for the guy or whether that just doesn't parse. If "Lula da Silva" is analogous to "Jimmy Carter" (something that works), then we should put the article at Lula da Silva, but if "Lula da Silva" is analogous to, say, "LMS Sanger" (which doesn't work), then we should move it to Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. I'm inclined to guess the former, but I'm not certain. In any case, I agree that it shouldn't stay at Lula. — Toby 17:37 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

I think there's a naming convention about this, but I forget where on the 'pedia it is -- maybe it's buried inside a longer article that attempts to address all possible naming problems. I think we need a separate, easily located article on "what to call people".

Some newspapers just use the family name for the 2nd and following mentions, as in John Smith died. Smith was a famous pianist. or Kim Il-Sung died. Kim was a famous politician. But what do you do if the "family name" isn't commonly used? When we report Saddam Hussein's death, do we say Saddam died or Hussein died? (Not an urgent question -- yet). --Ed Poor

In the Brazilian press, he is always Luís Inácio Lula da Silva rather than Lula da Silva. I assume they are familiar with correct Brazilian naming conventions. :-) -- The consensus here seems to be shaping up for putting the main article at Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, with redirects from Lula and all the other variations.

Incidentally, as of 31 Oct 2002, the actual text of the article seems to be settling into a pretty good NPOV groove.