Talk:Fiscal pedaling

You're invited.

@Elinruby, PauloMSimoes, Akld guy, and Saturnalia0: Soliciting contributions to the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

One L or two?

Regarding whether 'pedaling' should be spelled with one L or two, please see this discussion. Please keep the spelling used in the two articles in sync. Please add any comments about the proper spelling of pedaling at the linked article, not here. (If you disagree that the two articles should be kept in sync, please add your thoughts below.) Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Pedaladas fiscais literally translates to fiscal pedaling. As in the act of using a pedal, as in a bicycle pedal. I believe pedaling is EN-US and pedalling is EN-UK. I don't think the articles have to be in sync, they just have to use either EN-US or EN-UK throughout them (possible one EN-US and the other EN-UK). It's odd that you'd ask us to use the other page to discuss the matter but start the discussion here. Anyway, feel free to revert me and add my comment there. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not start the discussion here, I started it there, and the whole point was to keep the discussion unified by linking to it, the way one does, say, with a merge discussion in order to avoid fragmenting an already existing discussion over the two pages concerned. Your comments about UK vs U.S. English have previously been made at the linked article. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Concerns over the legitimacy of the concept.

I am concerned that all of the sources reference Rousseff's impeachment or Operation Car wash. Additionally, this article only exists in English and Portuguese, indicating that "Fiscal pedaling" is not an established or widespread concept in economics or politics, outside of Lava Jato.

To be blunt, I am not sure that "fiscal pedaling" exists and may have been manufactured for political reason's against the Worker's party of Brazil.

The article in it's current state doesn't really address the controversy and complexity behind Lava Jato. Instead it presents fiscal pedaling as an established concepts in corruption by saying it "is a governmental creative accounting technique" and "gained popularity with the Brazilian Presidential election". Conversely, the Portuguese article better explains that the concept was invented during Rousseff's impeachment.

I think presenting this as an established concept -that is a form of corruption- misleads the reader by not acknowledging that the idea of fiscal pedaling was invented to discredit the Worker's Party in Brazil, whether legitimately or not. GamerTimeSwag (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, GamerTimeSwag, and welcome. Your theories are interesting, but carry no weight as far as the multiply-sourced content of this article is concerned.

• The fact that "all of the sources reference Rousseff's impeachment" or "Operation Car Wash" is perfectly okay. That is the context where fiscal pedaling took place.
• As far as fiscal pedaling not existing, that is irrelevant; see Perpetual motion machine.
• This article could exist only in Nepali, and that would not be a concern. Conversely, it could exist in 46 Wikipedias, and that would not help establish notability of the topic, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Only reliable sources count in evaluating whether a topic is notable enough to have an article about it. You cannot make any statement at all about notability of a topic based on how many other Wikipedias cover it. English Wikipedia has 7.1 million articles, and German Wikipedia is in second place with 3 million; does that mean we need to delete 4.1 million English articles appearing nowhere else?
• It doesn't matter whether it was "invented during Rousseff's impeachment", just like it doesn't matter that the ideas of crimes against humanity, and individual criminal responsibility (as opposed to state responsibility) for wartime crimes did not exist before they were created by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 during the prosecution of crimes committed by Nazis in WW2. Ideas start somewhere, and previous non-existence has no impact on whether they merit having an article in Wikipedia.
• Indeed you are right that this article does not address the controversy and complexity behind Lava Jato. However, all of that is addressed in several articles on the topic, including these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It would be inappropriate to include all that in a niche article on a narrow topic.
• The article explains it "is a governmental creative accounting technique" as a summary of what the first several sources (in English) say. If you wish to find other words, that is open to discussion, but we must avoid copying or close paraphrasing a source. Exact quotation within double quotes and sourced is permitted, of course, but articles cannot be all quotation; our chief role as editors is summarizing the most important points of the majority opinion on a topic as express in reliable sources.
• Whether the Portuguese article explains it "better"—whatever that means—isn't helpful, because it is an unreliable source.

If you would like to cast doubt on the current article content, there are several avenues open to you. You can argue that the topic (i.e., the concept itself, in the absence of an article about it) is non-notable, and therefore the article should be deleted. You can argue that even if the topic is notable, there are problems with the content; violation of copyright, unverifiable content, or other violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But generally speaking, the points you offer above don't fall into those categories, and seem more about what your opinion of the article is, untethered from any particular guideline. This is something pretty much anathema at Wikipedia. These two essays may be of interest to you:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions

I hope this has helped. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you still interested in discussing this? Where you might have an angle, is not in deletion, imho, but in a possible merge. This article has some good content and good citations, and is not very long; that would make it a possible candidate for a WP:MERGE. You could argue that the content could fit in a related article, and that might gain traction. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)