|
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. |
|
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 {{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 (]). |
|
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 (]). |
