Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
First, i know a lot of people don't like the term "far-right". It implies fascist and things like that, but that's not the whole picture. You can be far-right without being a fascist, and you can be far-left without being a communist, for instance. that don't matter much. And i know that seeing something that you don't agree with in a article about something or someone you like (like a political belief) can be sad or revolting in a way and people tend to take it personal, and it can draw some rasty and even aggressive response. But i urge people to try to see past that. I'm editing this article with a clear conscience, because i don't care for Alliance for Brazil one way or the other. They can be far-left, they can be far-right, i couldn't care less. What i care is: what the sources are saying? So, on that remark, lets go.
For starters, the sources {{u|Factsinwiki}} used (when he eventually did) where the ones that were already in the article and they don't even mention or hints the political spectrum of the party, but rather quotes some things that the president of Brazil said his new party would defend. Now you argue that based on what he says you can draw the line on where he lies on the political spectrum but that's a bit of a reach. First of all, Bolsonaro and ''Bolsonarism'' are widely considered far-right. There are so many sources on the matter, that's not even up for discussion (, , , , , , , , , etc, not even mentioning academic sources). So, on this front, there is no discussion. But what are the media and political pundits talking about his new party? Well, the consensus among the sources say the same thing: , , , . Sources in portuguese say the same thing: , , , etc. So, as far as the sources go, there is no debate. Of course, to say "he defends family values", so that's clearly a right-wing thing, not only far right. Yeah, but you can find ], you are just making a assumption that the source itself don't indulge (]).
So, usually political spectrum is not so cut and dried, black and white. And involves a lot of emotions on people, i know. But that's why ] exists: ''Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Misplaced Pages articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published source''. I hope people keep that in mind. ] (]) 11:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
First, i know a lot of people don't like the term "far-right". It implies fascist and things like that, but that's not the whole picture. You can be far-right without being a fascist, and you can be far-left without being a communist, for instance. that don't matter much. And i know that seeing something that you don't agree with in a article about something or someone you like (like a political belief) can be sad or revolting in a way and people tend to take it personal, and it can draw some rasty and even aggressive response. But i urge people to try to see past that. I'm editing this article with a clear conscience, because i don't care for Alliance for Brazil one way or the other. They can be far-left, they can be far-right, i couldn't care less. What i care is: what the sources are saying? So, on that remark, lets go.
For starters, the sources Factsinwiki used (when he eventually did) where the ones that were already in the article and they don't even mention or hints the political spectrum of the party, but rather quotes some things that the president of Brazil said his new party would defend. Now you argue that based on what he says you can draw the line on where he lies on the political spectrum but that's a bit of a reach. First of all, Bolsonaro and Bolsonarism are widely considered far-right. There are so many sources on the matter, that's not even up for discussion (Fox News, Al Jazeera, Reuters, The New York Times, Vox.com, Deutsche Welle, The Washingtonpost, Vice News, Associated Press/Business Insider, etc, not even mentioning academic sources). So, on this front, there is no discussion. But what are the media and political pundits talking about his new party? Well, the consensus among the sources say the same thing: The New York Times, EuroNews, BBC, The Independent. Sources in portuguese say the same thing: Deutsche Welle, El País, Folha de São Paulo, etc. So, as far as the sources go, there is no debate. Of course, to say "he defends family values", so that's clearly a right-wing thing, not only far right. Yeah, but you can find left-wing people who supports that, you are just making a assumption that the source itself don't indulge (WP:SYNTH).
So, usually political spectrum is not so cut and dried, black and white. And involves a lot of emotions on people, i know. But that's why WP:V exists: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Misplaced Pages articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published source. I hope people keep that in mind. Coltsfan (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
