Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil)

Requested move 8 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Social Liberal Party (Brazil) → Free (Brazil) – Name changed. 201.92.177.177 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it did, I believe it's just an internal movement inside the party. Could you provide any sources for the name change? Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If it is moved it should be to Livres (political party). No need for slavish translation unless it commonly is translated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence that the common name has changed in English. See wp:official names and of course our article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The current article badly needs to be NPOV-ed. It seems from the previous version that the party was founded under a name that has now been completely removed from the article. Not good. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Social Liberal Party (Brazil) → Free (Brazil) – Name changed (see article and references). 201.92.169.226 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 201.92.169.226 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. As I said above, if it is moved then it should be to Livres (political party). No need for slavish translation unless it commonly is translated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's incorrect, it's not a reliable source, it's misinformation. That's why it should be moved. I gave up reverting it, I asked for page protection and it was ignored, so it should be moved. People want misinformation in here, let them have it. I am unwatching this article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.241.214.81 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a shred of evidence has been presented for the name change in either this or the previous RM. There are still plenty of references to Partido Social Liberal and the Portuguese versino of the article is still at pt:Partido Social Liberal.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Winged Blades ^Godric 06:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Social Liberal Party (Brazil) → Livres (Brazil) – Name changed (see article and reference [5]). 201.68.235.247 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 15:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 201.68.235.247 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support: The reference, the logo and the official website confirm the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.45.54 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Livres is not a new party, it's a group within PSL. Superior Electoral Court names the party as Partido Social Liberal (in Portuguese) Comuna de Paris (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: But the group become the party itself. The party's Facebook page uses Livres name. And the Brazilian judiciary system is very slow.

Livres is just a group, not a party. In Portuguese, Livres identifies itself as liberal and libertarian group[inside the party] (tendência liberal e libertária). There is no reason to rename it. Comuna de Paris (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: Did you see the party's Facebook page? The party was renamed after the group! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.205.51.204 (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What matters is the official name of the party, not the Facebook page. I repeat: the official name is Partido Social Liberal, not Livres. Comuna de Paris (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DISAGREE: BUT FACEBOOK PAGES ALWAYS USE THE OFFICIAL NAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.205.51.204 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. More likely this is some trend or new marketing some are trying to promote. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Social_Liberal says no such thing. Reference 5 says no such thing. Facebook is not worth looking at for any Wikipedia purpose. Livres is a nickname. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: You read the wrong reference. And the article is not biased.

• Comment: Reference is actually [6] (here).
• Support: Other Brazilian parties that changed their names had their articles moved. Why they not move this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.136.209 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Reference 6 is a nice article on brand renewal and problems with slogans and acronyms, but is not a reliable source for the party having changed its name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on controversial edit

The user @177.102.230.206: would like to make the following edits on this page. I am not involved in the subject or the article and noted recent vandalism as reported by @Araukan:. It appears that the edits requested by the user may be controversial as they involve the altering of political ideologies and removal/changing of sourced content. I've added this discussion as to find out if there is consensus or not. I do not endorse the proposed edit. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pro-bolsonaro editors removing sourced content

Some Anonymous users,possibly supporters of Jair Bolsonaro,have been vandalizing this page for some time by removing sourced content. I request this page to be protected from vandalism,by prohibiting anonymous and unconfirmed users and prevent more vandalism in this page. Araukan (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure this is vandalism and not because you disagree with their point of view? I find that left leaning radical communists are subverting the article by inserting their political ideology into encyclopedia entry in order to create a political narrative to support their ideology. I find the danger of subverting the encyclopedia into a leftist propaganda tool, to be a more serious danger.

User:Berzerker_king (talk)

Berzerker king (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Berzerker king: please identify these editors that you are claiming to be "left leaning radical communists" (a term that makes no sense at all). Araukan says the editors who he objects to are anonymous, are you referring to only anonymous users or do you have some named accounts in mind? If so, name them please or withdraw this claim. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Logo of Jair Bolsonaro's presidential campaign.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Liberal or Conservative?

Some of this article is confusing and reflects the disparate meanings of the terms "conservative" and "liberal." Article starts out branding the party as conservative, when in fact as it states later, the party is liberal on economic/political issues. Historically "liberal" meant much like the form of government the USA had from its constitution in which there was no aristocracy or king. IMHO these terms need editing and removing in favor of non-weasel word descriptions. What the article seems to deem as "conservative" is the rejection of the very recent (Johnny come lately) PC revision of what is moral and immoral; such conservatism is little more than rejecting the radical revision of Western thought which had long considered certain sex acts & murder of unborn babies as extreme immorality. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC))

@PeacePeace: At least in Brazil, the "liberal" term have always been connected with conservative views (like the "need of a military dictatorship") since, at least, the 19th Century. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Inserting one's own political ideology into an encyclopedia entry

It is incorrect to portray a political party as far-right unless and until there is a huge consensus. If more than half of a country has voted for the party, then at the very least, either the entire country must be labelled as far right, or the party should not be labelled as one.

People are using their own personal leftist prejudice and inserting them into encyclopedia articles. It is extremely dangerous to allow people coming from the leftist ideology to control encyclopedia entries to call their political opponents as "far right". This is kind of like allowing an authoritarian ideology to rewrite history as in 1984.

And newspaper articles cannot be used so lightly as a "source". If one were to consult the CNN then Trump is evil and if one consults fox news then Trump is a good man. News reports can be used as "source" that some event happened, bot as a proof of some ideological conclusion / categorization because news themselves carry huge bias and most sources behave as ideological propaganda arms of their respective political ideologies.

Edit warring and vandalism-november 2018

In recent days ,right-wing militants and Bolsonaro supporters have been vandalizing this page to appease their political views. These right wing editors have been removing the label "far right" despite having reliable sources proving that the social liberal party is a far right political party ,because most of these vandals see the label "far right" as pejorative and prejudicial due to its historical association to nazism and fascism . So to prevent more attacks against this page i request this page to be protected to prevent anonymous and uncofirmed users from editing this page. Araukan (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Response:

This is highly improper, calling those who do not agree with your ideology or who refuse to submit to your bullying as "right wing militants". It is highly improper that an encyclopedia page is using newspaper articles of no credibility to malign their political opponents. A lot of people who are intolerant of political opposition, and who wish to use wikipedia as a propaganda wing of their political ideology, are inserting baseless and borderline abusive misinformation about their political opponents.

All I ask is that if a political party that has just recently won a democratic election in their country, not be called a far right party just because the left political ideologues are intolerant of it.

If there is a proper academic discussion on this subject, please site that and freely stamp the party according to that. But using something as arbitrary and ridiculous as an article on "infomoney.br" is highly uncalled for, and it shows intellectual bankruptcy and academic dishonesty. The desire to paint nazism and fascism as being associated with right wing ideology is further proof of this academic dishonesty. The nazi party was a socialist party, "Nationalist Socialist party" and fascism was the brainchild Giovanni Gentile who was another socialist. This is just an attempt by left leaning ideologues to use an encyclopedia site for their political narrative.

I request that using baseless articles be not allowed in this manner. I request that hijacking of an encyclopedic website by political ideologues not be allowed. This is not a site for creating political narratives, it is an encyclopedia site.

Berzerker king (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2018 (Eastern time)

Berzerker king (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You used a youtube video made by a notorious fringe far-right youtuber (Paul Joseph Watson) to prove your point of view and the wikipedia explicitily prohibts the usage of social media posts as sourced because social media posts arent permanent and aren't considered a consistent kind of source.

Also the Brazilian Journal Infomoney isn't a left wing news paper ,they are a very reliabe and renowed jornal here in Brazil and so using it as a source isn't bias .

The wikipedia guidelines permits only newspapers and academic articles to be used as sources ,sources that come from blogs ,youtube channels and social media pages can't be considered as sources ,for generaly not being reliable.

So before you try to vandalize this page again,read the full wikipedia guideline. And if you try to vandalize this page again ,you will recieve sanctions for your poor behavior. Araukan (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This is my point, that anybody who does not agree with you, you categorize them as a far-right. It is your personal subjective opinion that Paul Joseph Watson is far right. Can you prove that he is far right? youtube is not a social media site, it is a content hosting site. It is not permanent, but neither is any of the websites. If in case youtube videos are violation of wikipedia guidelines, please give me reference and I will not cite them in future.

There is absolutely no information about what is infomoney. Even infomoney itself does not have a page that explain their charter, their funding and the nature of their operations. You merely quote them because they support your point of view.

This is not a vandalism, I am merely standing up against your bullying. None of the articles that you have cited, are from any reputable source and moreover, none of the articles discuss how the classification of "far-right" was done. They merely use it casually.

If you have any source that discusses / analyzes and shows that for given reasons, the party is far-right, please source that. Please do not source sites simply because they are convenient to your political ideology.

You are making just as many changes as I am, without tolerating dissent from your ideology. If I am to be banned, or if my actions are edit-warring, then you are just as much at fault as I am and you deserve to be banned as well.

We can settle this right away. Please show how the party is far-right and if you can convince me using your arguments, I will concede the point. Rather than citing articles with suspicious motives, please state facts.

talk)

Mr. Araukan, please refer to the neutral point of view requirements of wikipedia policy and tell me how do the articles that you have referred, stand to their scrutiny?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Also please refer to the policy for considering a news item as fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Based on this, you can site the news article to say that "the author said this", but you cannot claim that this is a fact. You are free to claim that the newspapers you have cited, claim that the party is far-right, but you cannot claim that this is a fact.

talk Berzerker king (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Again ,you failed to prove your point . The wikipedia permits the usage of mainstream newspapers as sources because most them are reliable and bans the usage of blogs and social media as sources because they are filled with fake news stories . And unlike what are you stating i'm not left wing neither right wing,i fight against vandalism from both sides ,more recently i debated with a radical left wing vandal. Wikipedia is made to be neutral ,not a place for political militancy or for promoting points of view.

You claim to be neutral ,but you're cleary showing right-wing political views ,like for example you claim that fascism and nazism are left-wing ideologies and use Paul Joseph watson ,a notorious right-wing radio host and member of the infamous infowars website ,which belongs to Alex Jones (a youtube and twitter-banned conspiracy theorist ) as a source. So claiming that you're neutral is idiotic because you're showing a clear right-wing tint.

As i said before ,this kind of political militancy is prohibited by wikipedia and you could be permanently banned for doing this . I'm not bullying you ,i'm trying to correct you due to your poor behavior . Araukan (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If wikipedia has banned youtube video, then please give reference to the wikipedia policy page and I will not share youtube video as evidence. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but I think you are introducing your bias here.

as per the following wikipedia policy ... "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I am not showing a right leaning tint, you are bullying me because you are intolerant of dissent from your political beliefs.

I shall not put up to this kind of bullying by you.

None of the articles that you have put up explain why the party has been described as far-right. At the very least you need to give article that tell why the party is called far right. If that is not acceptable, then I'm going to ask for arbitration by an admin.

Berzerker_king (talk) Berzerker king (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view clearly states that if an opnion is stated in a news then it must be clarified in the encyclopedia entry that it is opinion of someone and not a fact

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The citations given are from websites with questionable integrity like infomoney.br, of whose charter and aims we know nothing about. Also the citations do not explain at all why the labelling of "far-right" has been done, it just uses it casually.

It is highly improper to use newspaper articles in this manner. News can be used as citation to say "event x occurred", but not as a conclusive evidence to say "x is a bad person" or "x is a far right" or "x is a far left". I disagree with this kind of biased approach and I request for comments.

Berzerker king (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Disputing the "Far-right" tag for the party

@Doug Weller: Hi Doug. You reverted my last change with comments that the links I shared do not discuss the party. But neither do the pre-existing sources cited as support for categorizing of the party as "far-right". I searched the links. You can do a word search for the text "party", and see what is said in each of the occurrences and none of them say anything about why the Social Liberal Party of Brazil is a far right party.

I consider this a serious case where the subjective political ideology of the editors is being entered into encyclopedia entry. The citations are news articles, which are good enough to say "event x happened" or that "according to person / source x, so and so is the case", but not to state in wikipedia voice that the party is a far-right party. I checked the policy of wikipedia and it says the same thing

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I would like to remove these other sources and the categorization of "far-right" as well please. Until there is a proper discussion about why the party is being called far right, it is not fair to stamp the party with this kind of label. Especially one which has just won a democratic election in Brazil. This would be like calling the entire country of Brazil as a far right country.

If I have missed where the other cited links talk about the party being far-right please let me know so that I can correct my mistake.

Berzerker king (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC) --Berzerker king (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Far-right candidate Bolsonaro wins Brazil presidency
• right-wing-candidate-jair-bolsonaro-sweeps-election/
• Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro wins Brazil's presidential election
• Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro wins presidential election in Brazil.--Moxy (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Hi Doug. I checked the sources and the sources are not discussing the party either. They are all discussing the candidate and not the party. Please let me know if I can remove the citations that are not about the party, just like you removed the content that I had added with comments that they did not discuss the party or if not that please let me know if I can re-add my citations as well. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The following links were added to show that the social liberal party's categorization as far right is disputed.

https://www.heritage.org/americas/commentary/will-jair-bolsonaro-make-brazil-great-again

https://www.foxnews.com/world/fascist-populist-debate-over-describing-brazils-bolsonaro

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/10/08/how-bolsonaro-becomes-brazils-next-president/#7f908bc457e5

The links mentioned above and the "disputed" tag was removed from the article. They were removed with comments that the article does not discuss the party itself. While at the same time, the following citations were allowed to remain, which also do not discuss the party as such, but propose the opposite point of view than the ones that were being presented in the articles that were removed. The effect of removing the links mentioned above while allowing the links given below to remain, was that only a single point of view was allowed to express as a commentary on the political party while the opposing point of views were not allowed to be present.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2018/10/why-brazil-s-far-right-challenger-jair-bolsonaro-has-already-won

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/07/brazil-presidential-election-far-right-populist-jair-bolsonaro

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44919769

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-election.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-congress-analysis/bolsonaro-transforms-tiny-brazil-party-into-congressional-powerhouse-idUSKCN1MI07Q

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/brazil-election-democracy-jair-bolsonaro-lula-haddad/572470/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election/brazils-far-right-bolsonaro-no-coalition-politics-in-cabinet-picks-idUSKCN1MJ27U

https://www.infomoney.com.br/mercados/politica/noticia/7324428/com-bolsonaro-extrema-direita-embarca-forte-para-vencer-nesta-eleicao

https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/08/05/politica/1533482571_722395.html

I wish to propose that either the other citations which do not discuss the party also be removed on the same grounds that they do not discuss the party as such, or that the 3 links I mentioned above also be added along with a "disputed" tag to show that the "Far-right" designation of the party is disputed. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

None of your sources show that any reliable sources dispute the description. It is helpful to readers because it places the party in the same category as the National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece and the generals who ruled Brazil when Bolsonaro began his career. TFD (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any widespread dispute there. Only one source, Fox, even touches on the topic, and they're a WP:PARTISAN source - they can be used as a source, definitely, but they don't have much weight when weighing in on a matter of whether something is controversial like this, especially when so many other sources are unambiguous. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion:If you say that foxnews cannot be cited because they are partisan then please tell which of the sources cited for the opposing point of view, is non partisan and reliable. --Berzerker king (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• This RfC is malformed and ought to be closed/re-written per this. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• • I agree. It's a bit of a mess. I'll note that the editor's perspective is fringe; he sees Nazism and Fascism as left-wing ideologies. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I see what you are doing. Just like every political group that is opposed to your ideology is far right, you call me also a fringe because I do not confirm to your ideology. The nazis were indeed socialists, it is right in their name, and this is not an outlandish statement in any way "https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/24/history-lesson-would-smear-moderate-right-nazis-socialists/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb&fbclid=IwAR3TPOkkGpH3g57A5IkCNYGK_jonfUhJ6omoFyQsHMj-H2Fj8tr6KRrOago"

Seeing the situation that admin is approaching the situation not on the merit of argument, but by paint brushing me as a "fringe" and by refusing to address or acknowledge arguments that I am making, I see no point in this discussion. --Berzerker king (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Canada issues terse statement after far-right candidate elected president of Brazil

A small far-right party, the Social Liberal Party...

Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, of the far-right Social Liberal Party, flashes victory hand signs to supporters after voting in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday.

Jair Bolsonaro, of Brazil's far-right Social Liberal Party, is running for .

Jair Bolsonaroof the far-right Social Liberal Party won the presidential elections in Brazil on October 28, 2018

Jair Bolsonaro, president-elect of Brazil from the far-right the Social Liberal Party.

--Moxy (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Tebbit's an idiot. In that article he's arguing that the English Defence League isn't far right but is close to communist. Of course all those people with Nazi symbols at the Unite the Right rally were under the impression that they right was the left. And Hitler was confused when he and his thugs killed and imprisoned so many socialists and communists. Our article on Nazism#Position within the political spectrum explains the issue (which I admit could be confusing to the uninformed, the less intelligent and the more malicious members of society). See also this thoughtful analysis which does explain where some are coming from.[1] Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, thrived in Nazi Germany. Read Economy of Nazi Germany/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

IP socking

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Far-right category

The Vargas Era and its totalitarian constitution (execution of political prisoners, censorship, purges, militarism, state propaganda, cult of personality) are not considered far-right so obviously not included in the far-right category, but the conservative Social Liberal Party is? How does that work? Only Jair Bolsonaro and his party included in this category is totally WP:NONDEF, isn’t it? --Belconen (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another sock? Endymion.12 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by sock? I'm just asking why and how in the whole Brazil's history context, there is only one person and his corresponding party categorised as far-right in the Wikipedia? Not even Vargas accomplished such a feat, that's why I'm curious (honestly!). --Belconen (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Did some research and found what is a sock, maybe because I've raised the same matter as the guy above. Well, I'm sure you guys can do some sort of check and correlate the devices/IPs being used, so go ahead and do that! But first could you please clarify my question to the WP:READERS? --Belconen (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based not on editors' opinions or knowledge but on what sources meeting our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS say about a subject. They use the term far right. Whether the Vargas Era article should use that term is not something to be discussed on this page. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Some people consider anyone to the right of Mao to be "far-right". Sensible folk will just ignore the trend for a decade or so by which time the wheel will have turned a couple of notches. WP is going to be here long after every contributor to this thread is dead, and time will tell. Tigerboy1966  19:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Belconen being a dictator or a mass murderer does not make you far right, ie Stalin, Mao etc. Like all political movements it's ideology that defines it. The far right is generally defined as: authoritarian, exclusive, ethnocentric, antidemocratic, traditionalist and displays elements of social Darwinism. Bolsonaro's government ticks these box's hence more than a dozen reliable sources referring to him and this party as far-right, including Reuters. Bacondrum (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Massive sockpuppetry by SacredGeometry333

Pages about brazilian politics in english wikipedia have been falling victim of one of the largest cases of sockpuppetry in the history of wikipedia. The now perma-Banned User:SacredGeometry333 created hundreds to even thousands of sockpuppet accounts to disrupt and vandalize wikipedia with clear political goals,as according to some evaluations made by administrators,he is a right-wing militant.

We encourage ,based on the principles of impartiality and transparency,user to track down suspected sockpuppets of this account and report it to the administrators.

Sockpuppetry is unacceptable in the wikipedia and should not be tolerated at any cost. Araukan (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We're doing that. We've done 17 investigations recently. Thousands is an exaggeration. So is hundreds. Also I can see that there have been 3 editing this article in the last few months. One of them only changed "a" to "an" Doug Weller talk 04:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Page protection as a defensive measurement against socks.

This page is getting hit hard by sockpuppetry by a permanently banned user. They are removing the sourced "far-right" part in the infobox. Should the page be permanently, or at least for a long time, protected just to stop the massive socking for a while? --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous how...

There seems to be some fierce campaign intent on branding PSL as a "far-right" party (not really disputing that statement, since the rule we play by is reporting what the so-called "reliable sources" say, even when the "reliable sources" are notoriously and undeniably biased), but the major party shift that raised the number of PSL congressmen from 52 from 55 is simply ignored like it never happened. Not a word on it. Please get your priorities straight, editors.191.217.37.58 (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP user

The IP user 2804:14C:658E:536A:5032:97F4:95C9:9454 has a total of 5 times now made edits to this page that label the PSL as a “proto fascist far right” party, as opposed to the “right wing to far right” party that it is currently labeled as and that it is. This not only misleads readers, it is also making the article inconsistent with the info box (which labels the party as “right wing to far right”. I’ve warned the user to stop but as of recently they have continued to make the change again and again. Can I suggest that we either put the article under semi protected status or block the user in question? Thanks. Victor Salvini (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Bolsonaro is no longer a member of PSL

The President decided to disband from his current political pary, the PSL.

Here are some sources:

Bolsonaro's departure from PSL already taken for granted by party summit.

Bolsonaro decides to leave PSL.

After fights with the party, Bolsonaro decides to quit PSL.

Bolsonaro has nothing to do with the party anymore, says party president.

--189.48.211.168 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideology and Political Position

Even considering Bolsonaro as far-right, PSL has a lot of internal division between liberal and liberal conservative members like Junior Bozella, Luciano Bivar, Joice Hasselmann, Felipe Franchiscini and Dayane Pimentel against National conservative and Traditionalist members like Eduardo Bolsonaro, Nelson Barbudo, Major Victor Hugo, Cris Tonietto and Carlos Jordy. Suggestion: Change the ideology section to Conservatism, Brazilian nationalism, anti-communism and economic liberalism (and lower a faction section detailing the ideological factions) and political positions to Right-wing with centre-right and far-right factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.219.72 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Far-right edits. Again

This page has a long history of being vandalized by users tagging it as a "far right" party when in reality it is not, nowhere in the BR-PT version of the page this information can be found, and the sources cited here talk only about Bolsonaro not the party. Even ignoring the fact that the sources talk about a person, not the party, Bolsonaro has not been a member of this political party since 2019.

Attempting to edit it is undone, attempring to tag the irrelevant sources is undone in seconds, due to their "reliability", even if that is not the problem. One user has undone such edits in this page multiple times and it seems to be a case of disruptive edition at best, or vandalism at worse. The irrelevant souces which dont even mention the topic of this page will me marked as irrelevant again, instead of undoing this please find new sources or remove such claim.

DrJujubes (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok... first, it's not vandalism if it has sources. Second, the page in portuguese also has "far right" in the article, multiple times, really (but even if they didn't, we follow the sources in this article not in other wikis). Third, there are multiple sources backing this (16, to be precise). So, you are trying to change what sixteen different sources are backing, so for you to claim that it's wrong, it's a tough sell to begin with.

Btw, this has been debated before, and the "far right" thing stick, specially do to the overwhelming amount of sources. Coltsfan (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Sources throughout the entire history of the party do not support labeling it as "far-right." Therefore, using sources from closer to the party's dissolution to label it as such is inaccurate. It is also worth noting that it is common for party articles to include both "right-wing" and "far-right" labels.

So a neutral version should be:

The Social Liberal Party was an originally liberal party, which as of 2018 has adopted right-wing policies some of which, associated with Jair Bolsonaro, have been described as "far-right" by various journalists.

or

The Social Liberal Party was initially founded as a liberal party and had no affiliation with far-right ideologies. However, with the adoption of right-wing policies, some of which are associated with Jair Bolsonaro, the party has been described as "far-right" by several journalists in recent years.

It should be noted that many of the sources utilized are not from specialized experts. The label 'far-right' applied by some of these sources has been a topic of controversy, as it remains unclear what criteria were utilized (in relation to established political spectrum models) to assign this label (i.e. 'far-right'). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Sources throughout the entire history of the party do not support labeling it as 'far right'." So, first of all, I would call that not only factually wrong but dishonest. There are several sources in the article (18 in total!) that mentions this party as having far right inclinations. Second of all, not all the sources are just journalistic, but there are also a couple of academic sources there too and/or articles by political pundits and analysts. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this topic was already discussed (in at least two different points in time, just check previous discussions here in the talk page). So, by analysing all this, i have to assume bad faith in a way, considering the huge discrepancy between what's been said here and what is actually in the article (again, 18 freaking sources and the person saying one thing and the person says "no source supports this", come on). Coltsfan (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan First of all reread what I wrote. Second respect the method and guidelines. Third, you are referring to a 2-year-old discussion made with other users. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I read everything and it doesn't make any sense. The discussions are old, yes, but considering you brought no new arguments, the consensus of those discussions stand. Coltsfan (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan p.s. As mentioned above the party is described as "far right" as of 2018. You can't just start the article with "was a far-right party." This label is only valid for 3 years of the party's life. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The article uses past tense not because it was an opinion held back during those days, but rather because, as of 2023, this party doesn't exists anymore (being dissolved in February of last year). There are no sources that claim that, in the last four years of the parties existence they changed their core political views that would justify a realignment in the political spectrum. Coltsfan (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan Sources totally support that the party was not 'far-right' from 1994 to 2018. So why should you start simply with it "was a far-right party"? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Back when they were a fringe movement, barely a political party with no representation whatsoever? Again, you don't seem to understand how reliable sources work, now you don't seem to understand how articles here work. A pro tip for you: stick to the sources. You are discrediting the sources in the article as opinative but 99% of your argumentation is just that, your opinion. Listen, before Hitler the German Workers Party was not entirely far right either and barely had antisemitism as their core views (in fact, they even had a left wing branch), but nobody disputes that they are far right. Mussolini was a socialist too for half of his life. According to the sources, the Social Liberal Party came to prominence as a far right party, they won elections as a far right party, they elected a president as a far right party and the dissolved as a far right party. The different political factions that inhabited its environment during it's early existance is not that relevant as far as main descriptions go. Coltsfan (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan I disagree with the 'leftist' German Workers Party statement. Let's stay on the topic. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then read about Gregor Strasser and Strasserism. Coltsfan (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Strasserism is a bad example: 1. Strasserists were dissidents; 2. The left criticisms that stem from theories of exploitation perpetrated by the capitalist per se have never been integrated

The same applies to "intransigent fascism" in Italy. They were never part of the PNF (see the dissident Fasci nazionali) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I was making a point that even though a party, at some point or another can hold different sides of the political spectrum, no matter how minor they were, what counts was their mainstream view (per sources, always). Coltsfan (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan The article violates the following the guideline: Avoid stating opinions as facts. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, opinions of the users or of this person or that person should be avoided. But it's not the case, as the article is build on reliable sources and this information appears to be a consensus among said sources (again, over a dozen of them in the article). Per WP:V, "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". This guideline is more than satisfied. Coltsfan (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan Sources do not support that the party is far-right in its entire life, all sources are written by journalists, not experts in their field (political science, etc.). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Journalists, political pundits, respected voices in their fields. Journalistic sources (as long as they are independent and the people writing those articles are qualified in their respective fields) are valid. Coltsfan (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan Not true, most are freelance reporters. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian, The New York Times, O Globo, The Irish Times... all sources being used in thousands of articles throughout Wikipedia. You gonna have a hard time selling them or the analysts that write for them as unreliable. Coltsfan (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

But more importantly, there is a contradiction between the positions of the party and the positions of ideologies; above all, it is anomalous to describe "far right" a party that is not reactionary. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Nearly two dozen reliable sources disagree with you. Coltsfan (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan I checked author by author; they are mostly journalists. The guidelines talk about area of expertise (see WP:RSP). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan And as I have already said the phrase "was a far-right party" does not hold up to present the entire history of the party. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources, preferably, in the articles "journalistic and academic sources are preferable". Second, they came to their political prominence and got in to the political mainstream as a far right group, again, according to the vast majority of the sources. Most of what you are posting here is still your personal opinion and interpretation. Coltsfan (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan

I have already said the job of classifying a party is not within the area of expertise of Luiz Romero, Carolina Mandl, etc. They are simply not people who have a Phd in political science.

In addition, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. "

There is no academic consensus that the party ideologies supported by the sources (I excluded those supported by the party platform), conservatism, federalism, national conservatism, etc. are "far right." Ergo, you cannot start the article as it is now (see WP:INTEXT) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing a fringe opinion with the opinion of the majority. Again, it's not one, two or three sources, its several. If it's a opinion held by a few people, then it should be classified as such. However, it's the vast majority of the sources. Per WP:RS, journalistic sources are just as valid as academic sources. Academic sources are considered more prominent, but journalistic sources are allowed to be used (per WP:V) and they can express the overall view of pundits on a subject. Especially considering that there wouldn't be a lot of academic papers about political views of a single party in one particular country, political analysts writing for reputed journalistic sources more than suffice. Again, your argumentation is purely opinative and i've entertained this long enough, and yet you haven't even grasped a basic concept such as RS. There is 18 sources in the article, reputed journalists and analysts and two discussions in this talk page, and the only thing you can come up with is "i think...". Not a good look. Coltsfan (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan We have articles with parties that profess the same ideas (e.g., Progressive Citizens' Party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, etc., etc.) but yet are not 'far-right'.

It is not true that journalistic and academic sources carry equal weight (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

I repeat, regardless, that you cannot present as "far right" a party that for most of its existence has professed social liberalism and the like. By doing so you associate a lot of center and center-left politicians with the far right. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan

This way it is more neutral and clear to the reader:

The Social Liberal Party was an originally liberal party, which as of 2018 has adopted right-wing policies some of which, associated with Jair Bolsonaro, have been described as "far-right" by various journalists.

or

The Social Liberal Party was initially founded as a liberal party and had no affiliation with far-right ideologies. However, with the adoption of right-wing policies, some of which are associated with Jair Bolsonaro, the party has been described as "far-right" by several journalists in recent years. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

First, "the article of this other party says this or that", i could dismiss this as simple whataboutism, but i'll bite. We go with what the sources say. If there is no major source saying that the Progressive Citizens' Party or WhateverParty is far right, then don't add "far right" to that article. But in our case here, there are dozens of sources saying that the Social Liberal Party was a major far right party in the Brazil's recent history, so it should be noticed as one of the main points of article in it's introduction. To not say that, or phrasing the way you say it should, it's not being "neutral", it's disingenuous.

Second, "by doing so you associate a lot of center and center-left politicians with the far right". I ain't doing or saying nothing. Them sources say the party is far right, then they are far right. Is that too difficult to understand?

Third, you are using the term "liberal" loosely here. Liberal, in Brazil, is associated with economic liberalism and right wing policies (Europe and USA usually goes with "liberal equals left").

Forth, parties change ideologies and political views all the time. So, we must stick to what the sources say.

Fifth, don't be dishonest by saying that i said that both academic and journalistic sources have the exact equal weight. I definitely didn't say that. Academic sources do carry more weight, but that doesn't mean that journalistic sources are less reliable. Journalistic sources are used all the time on Wikipedia, but if you have an academic source that says that Social Liberal Party was not know primarily as a far right party, please show. But, in the end, this is already getting tiresome. I mean, you bring up WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which doesn't apply here, since we don't have sources contradicting each other so we can weight them directly, you don't seem to understand WP:RS in any way shape or form. And 99% of your argument is just your opinion. It doesn't matter. The article has a mountitued of sources saying that the intro is correct. And this is gonna be the word of the day for you: "Sources". Don't matter what you and i think. "Source" is king. Coltsfan (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Coltsfan Nope. My version is neutral and totally respects the guidelines. Your version is in direct violation with multiple guidelines. You took non-specialist sources by presenting them as an objective classification made by experts (i.e. stating opinions as facts).

See: WP:RS; WP:NPOV; WP:VOICE; WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; WP:INTEXT 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)