Talk:José Sócrates

Freeport

Family members are being targeted by Portuguese and British authorities on the Freeport case, as of 2009. Sócrates denies any involvement and he is not a suspect, but his statement and the whole story should be included in the article 81.84.183.85 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

There is an ongoing investigation by the portuguese Polícia Judiciária regarding the alleged fraud case of Freeport Shopping Mall. This is a fact. http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=149762&idselect=21&idCanal=21&p=94 http://online.expresso.clix.pt/1pagina/artigo.asp?id=24749505 http://www.tsf.pt/online/vida/interior.asp?id_artigo=TSF158728

Pharotek 03:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Polícia Judiciária denied that Sócrates is even a suspect. muriel@pt 19:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete the sources from the discussion. And don't delete the info about the investigation from the main article. Pharotek 16:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The page should note that the Policia Judiciaria is also investigating the possible forgery of the document that implies Sócrates in the main investigation: http://semanal.expresso.clix.pt/1caderno/pais.asp?edition=1687&articleid=ES166803 (you need to register to see this, but I found a transcription [if you disregard the bolds] of that news article here: http://burrices.blogdrive.com/archive/363.html ). Also, Pharotek, two of your external sources seem to dissociate Sócrates from the investigation rather than implicate him as the page currently notes. - Serodio
• That paragraph about the accusation made on him seems to have become a bit excessive since the whole thing seems to have disappeared from the papers. Anyone agree?

And now someone affiliated with santana lopes is being accused of leaking false acusations to implicate socrates in the freeport case. Hmm, wonder if Pharotek will edit this into the article?Serodio 23:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The investigation pointed out that the accusation of fraud was created by the supporters of Socrates' election rival, Santana Lopes, in order to try to swing the election to his favour. Having this in mind and having in mind that this was proven months ago, I believe that the "investigation" section should be deleted from the talk page. --Mecanismo 09:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Discussion material should never be deleted, unless it is patent nonsense or vandalism, as it allows further editors to be aware of the debunking of the investigation, in this case. ^wS;✉ 16:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Family members are being targeted by the investigation. That's a fact worth mentioning. And even if Sócrates denies anything else, his statement should be included in the article. 81.84.183.85 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Why was this moved ? I've never seen him referred as José Pinto de Sousa, not even on the international press. Unless the editor gives any argument justifying the change, I'm going to revert it. ^wS 14:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• reverting is the right thing to do. The change was obviously made by someone bitter from Santana Lopes' defeat. It seems many of us Portuguese don't understand the concept of Wikipedia yet... :( Dehumanizer 15:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• most likely it was, but I'm going to wait until tomorrow by lunch time, anyway. ^wS 15:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• fine with me. Just so you know, this change made as much sense as changing "Aníbal Cavaco Silva"'s entry to "Aníbal Silva" (when everyone calls him "Cavaco Silva", and nobody would ever search for "Aníbal Silva" when trying to find info about him) - or "Madonna" (the artist) to her real name (making "Madonna" a redirect, and using her birth name throughout the entire article). Dehumanizer 15:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page move is completely insane. We need a sysop to undo the thing. muriel@pt 16:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I asked the deletion of the redirect. This move is absolutely wrong, according to wikipedia naming conventions that favour the most common form of a name. muriel@pt 16:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Noel (talk) 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

templates

Can someone please fix the overlapsing templates please? (I don't know how to)Serodio 03:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed it with simple line breaks, anyone know a better way to do this? they still overlapse in the displays I've checked, is it just my pc or is does everyone see it? Serodio 8 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Degree controversy

It should mention it, right? A Geek Tragedy 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gato Fedorento

It should be noted he is the most mimicked politician of Gato Fedorento, and that he appeared in sketches like «Debate Cavaco vs Sócrates», «Conferência de Empresa de José Socrates», «Comunicado de Sócrates sobre a OTA» and «Escola de Obediência», and others (all of these can be found here [1], since March 11th (Portuguese 11 de Março).--Midasminus 14:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Conferencia de empresa?

• I fail to see why that fact is relevant to the article. Political figures are usually the subject of satire. Moreover, I don't think "Gato Fedorento" has achieved any kind of particular historical relevance to the country. Cigsandalcohol 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Page Up 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

neither did he —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.229.113 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone

I tried to tone down the article but It should require more cuts.Page Up 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Head of state in infobox

There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous Portugese prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. --G2bambino 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Magalhães Man"

I lol'd. Massively. Should we let that stay there? 81.84.86.77 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

agnostic

Google searches turn up nothing other than references to the guy he apointed as head of the Committee on Religious Freedom.Geni 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Jose Socrates is agnostic, he doesnt really mentions that a lot, he sometimes uses references to god, but he doesnt practise any form of religon —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCIALISMEVER (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Face Oculta

Im adding this case to the controveries —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCIALISMEVER (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Political career

I strongly suggest the first paragraph of this section is removed. He was not a founding member of JSD and you won't read this in his biography in Portuguese. He was a member of JSD for Covilhã, possibly one of the first members, but certainly not a founding one in its own right. He dropped his membership within the first 12 months. This statement is controvertial and has received criticism after it was published on a brochure earlier this month (Columbia University, NY,USA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.97 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

"On 23 March, 2011, following a no confidence vote in parliament over spending cuts and tax increases, the motion sponsored by all five opposition parties failed and he resigned.[31]"

False. Mr Pinto de Sousa presented his resignation to the President (who hasn't accepted it yet) because his (Pinto de Sousa's) PEC 4 package of tax increases and retirement pension cuts (among other things), the fourth austerity package in a year, was not approved by any of the five opposition parties. It was not a no confidence vote, nor was it a motion. It is to be noted that the PEC 4 had already been approved by European instances before having been presented to the Parliament, and short-circuiting the parliament might have been a factor.

For sources, see current portuguese online press. Or, say, this: (NYT) Austerity Debate Fells Portugal’s Premier for instance. It's a good article, as almost all foreign press is too sketchy on the subject.

I will not edit the page. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Time as Prime Minister

So he's tendered his resignation and is still Prime Minister pending the President's approval of his resignation? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:54pm • 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Abuse?

What does the following mean? "José Sócrates studied in her mothers ass hole..." --Oguz.kupusoglu (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As this article is written it does not conform to the neutral point of view that wikipedia articles should be. It is tendentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipando (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time as Member of Parliament

The time span in that section is wrong. Portugal is NOT a parliamentary country (it is semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary biased towards parliamentarism system). As such, prime ministers cannot be part of the parliament. Actually, no member of the government can be at the same time a deputy. Please change those dates!

aw5678 at gmail dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.84.225 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

honorific prefix

If he is not Prime Minister at the present time, it doesn't have logic that the page refers him as His Excellency