Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 19 December 2019

Brazil Unassessed

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 has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Far-right or simply 'right-wing'?

First of all, i know a lot of people don't like the term "far-right". It implies fascism 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) were 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 can 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, you can say "he defends family values, and that's clearly a right-wing thing, not only far right", but, like i said, it's not so simple. All political positions and spectrums in the horseshoe have a lot of things in common. You can even find left-wing people who supports some conservative opinions. In essence, 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 invokes 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)

Sources sait it is a far right, so it is a far right. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be this obvious, this is what the rules tells us to do. But when it comes to articles that deals with political themes, sources takes second place to POV. Coltsfan (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Acronym

@Coltsfan and Mathglot: Second the statute and the Portuguese article, the acronym is ALIANÇA, not APB. Also, Karina Kufa is the Treasurer. 187.26.223.72 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only far-right

Little basis to the party being considered "far-right", ideologies mentioned as being followed by the party aren't far-right, it's a national conservative party and therefore it's right wing, at best the classification of "right wing to far-right" could be used, which is what I put. Please let's not make changes based on personal biases and lack of facts, not everything you disagree with is far-right, simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsinwiki (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Factsinwiki:, this appears to be a follow-up to the discussion #Far-right or simply 'right-wing'? above. Follow-up posts and replies to a Talk page discussion should take place in the same section, so it doesn't get fragmented, or archived in separated locations. Do you have any objection to having these two sections merged? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unassessed Brazil articles
• Unknown-importance Brazil articles
• WikiProject Brazil articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles