This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Berzerker king ( talk) 05:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
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))
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.
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?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
Also please refer to the policy for considering a news item as fact.
/info/en/?search=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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
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"
/info/en/?search=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)
@ 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."" /info/en/?search=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)
@
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
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.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44919769
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-election.html
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Berzerker king ( talk) 05:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
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))
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.
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?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
Also please refer to the policy for considering a news item as fact.
/info/en/?search=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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
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"
/info/en/?search=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)
@ 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."" /info/en/?search=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)
@
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
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.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44919769
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-election.html
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)