Talk:Alliance for Brazil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far-right or simply 'right-wing'?[edit]

First of all, i know a lot of people don't like the term "far-right". It implies fascism and things like that, but that's not the whole picture. You can be far-right without being a fascist, and you can be far-left without being a communist, for instance. that don't matter much. And i know that seeing something that you don't agree with in a article about something or someone you like (like a political belief) can be sad or revolting in a way and people tend to take it personal, and it can draw some rasty and even aggressive response. But i urge people to try to see past that. I'm editing this article with a clear conscience, because i don't care for Alliance for Brazil one way or the other. They can be far-left, they can be far-right, i couldn't care less. What i care is: what the sources are saying? So, on that remark, lets go.

For starters, the sources Factsinwiki used (when he eventually did) were the ones that were already in the article and they don't even mention or hints the political spectrum of the party, but rather quotes some things that the president of Brazil said his new party would defend. Now you can argue that based on what he says you can draw the line on where he lies on the political spectrum but that's a bit of a reach. First of all, Bolsonaro and Bolsonarism [sic] are widely considered far-right. There are so many sources on the matter, that's not even up for discussion (Fox News, Al Jazeera, Reuters, The New York Times, Vox.com, Deutsche Welle, The Washingtonpost, Vice News, Associated Press/Business Insider, etc, not even mentioning academic sources). So, on this front, there is no discussion. But what are the media and political pundits talking about his new party? Well, the consensus among the sources say the same thing: The New York Times, EuroNews, BBC, The Independent. Sources in portuguese say the same thing: Deutsche Welle, El País, Folha de São Paulo, etc. So, as far as the sources go, there is no debate. Of course, you can say "he defends family values, and that's clearly a right-wing thing, not only far right", but, like i said, it's not so simple. All political positions and spectrums in the horseshoe have a lot of things in common. You can even find left-wing people who supports some conservative opinions. In essence, you are just making a assumption that the source itself don't indulge (WP:SYNTH).

So, usually political spectrum is not so cut and dried, black and white. And invokes a lot of emotions on people, i know. But that's why WP:V exists: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published source. I hope people keep that in mind. Coltsfan (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources sait it is a far right, so it is a far right. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be this obvious, this is what the rules tells us to do. But when it comes to articles that deals with political themes, sources takes second place to POV. Coltsfan (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that wikipedia criteria put all national conservative parties with strong disdain for liberal internationalism and a hardline distaste for common positions of centrist parties (both centre-right and centre left) like immigrationism, gun rights, environmentalism and LGBT rights are far-right. But in Brazil, far-right are associated by an explicit support of overthrow democracy and impose an overt authoritarian and tradionalist dictatorship based on ultranationalism, social conservatism and anti-communism (Like Cabo Daciolo's Patriota, the Brazilian Integralist Action or the National Security Doctrine of ARENA. Although Bolsonaro has good eyes for some tenents of each doctrines, like Social conservatism, militaristic nostalgia, anti-communism and Christian nationalism, the alliance is a national conservative party which supports free-market like Likud, GOP, Fidesz, CDS-PP, Bharatiya Janata Party or the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. The classification of Right-wing or even Right-wing to far-right would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C98:5283:444F:340C:7CB4:BA8B (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to pay attention to the sources. Let alone the fact that they all categorically place the APB as "far-right", their ideology can be described as such. A right-wing non-extremist party will find a lot of common ground with far-right parties, just like a social-democratic party will have a lot of ideological similarities with communist parties. The academic view of what being "far-right" means, in a very simplistic way, can be determined by ultranationalist views (check), chauvinistic rhetoric (check), far-reaching appeal to tradition and/or some "glorious past" that must be reclaimed (check), stauch anti-communism (check) and over-all reactionary views (check). A regular conservative party might share some of the same views, but that doesn't change a lot of the facts, as can far-right and far-left might have a lot of things in common (see Horseshoe theory). And to say that "far-right movements are all anti-democratic" is a very simplistic and rather outdated thing so say, as we can see a lot of far-right parties being democratic elected throughout the world (Lega Nord, Vox, among others). In cases like that, we have to go with what the sources are saying and in this case, they are categorical. For instance, during an interview with Fox News (a conservative news channel), the interviewer questioned Bolsonaro about some of his views, that according to her, were not aligned with tradicional american conservatism (see here). As you can see, things are not so cut and dried one might imagine. Coltsfan (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned Vox and Lega Nord also have "right-wing to far-right" in their infobox, as opposed to solely "far-right". Given there are adequate news sources to describe APB as "right-wing", it seems appropriate to use that in the infobox here.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just got here and wanted to give my own thoughts on this. We should be cautious about referring to this party as only far right and not “right wing to far right” for a few reasons. First, the party that this one is splitting from, the social liberal party, is described as “right wing to far right” and considering who is leading this party, it would be fair to think the two parties have a lot in common. Secondly, the party isn’t even a year old and is still forming. Trying to label a party as far right or far left in this stage is like trying to determine the future job of an infant, and because of that we should give some lenience until more information becomes available. Thirdly, let’s use our common sense, what do you think of when you think of “far right”?: Fascists, Nazis, and the like! This is a nationalist party, not a fascist party (based on the ideology section) and as such we should use our common understanding of what “far right” is and not lump this party in with such ideologies (at least not yet). Nigel Abe (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only far-right[edit]

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

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

Acronym[edit]

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

(edit conflict) Hello, 187.26.223.72, and thanks for raising a Talk page section here, as requested on your Talk page. I'm guessing from your comment above, that your native language is Portuguese, and that you are using Google translate. This may account for some of the problems in this article, and others. I hope it doesn't cause any misunderstandings here. (Uma dica para você: "segundo" em português, no sentido de "de acordo com", é traduzido "according to", em inglês. Se você diz "second" em inglês, as pessoas pensariam que você está falando sobre o número "dois", ou sobre um sexagésimo de minuto.)
In response to your comment: first of all, ALIANÇA is not an acronym. See here for the definition of "acronym" in English (or here, for the definition in Portuguese).
Secondly (em segundo lugar), I don't know what "statute" you are talking about, and this may be another translation problem, because in English, a "statute" is a "law" (lei) or a "regulation" (regulação, norma); is that what you meant? If so, what are you talking about, exactly?
Thirdly, what was your point about the Treasurer? If you think that's relevant enough to add to the article, and you have a citation to a reliable source that substantiates it, feel free to add it, along with a citation. If you are more used to working in Portuguese Wikipedia, they are a bit more lax there about WP:Verifiability and citation of sources, than here at English Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Sorry my Engrish. Statute is the rules of the party. The statute of ALIANÇA is available in the website. Among its signers, there is Karina Kufa. 187.26.223.72 (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked, but I believe it is as you say. My question to you would be, do you think having the treasurer of the party in the Wikipedia article is helpful? If you do, go ahead and add it, just be sure you include a citation. If you're not sure what that means or how to do it, please see Help:Footnotes. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I found sources! "Acronym" List the parties. Treasurer 187.26.223.72 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for searching for and finding those sources. As far as the treasurer is concerned, that looks like a reliable source, and is fine. You can add Kufa as Treasurer, along with the istoe citation. The other one is just one source, and it's in Portuguese. When different reliable sources offer different options, you have to weigh which option is used by the majority of sources; and not the majority of *all* sources, but the majority of sources written in English. (If there are no English sources, then either the original foreign term can be used, or a natural translation of it, to be determined by consensus.) In this case, there are plenty of English references to this, and they call it APB:
  • He formed the Alliance for Brazil (APB) under the banner... – Independent
  • after the launch of a new political party, the Alliance for Brazil (APB)... – US News
  • Bolsonaro launched last month a new party, the Alliance for Brazil (APB),... – US News
  • Bolsonaro launched a new political party on Thursday, the Alliance for Brazil (APB), ... – Reuters
  • His Alliance for Brazil (APB) met in a hotel in the capital... – BBC
  • at the first meeting of his Alliance for Brazil (APB) party. – DW
  • and launching his own Alliance for Brazil (APB) party. – Market watch
To me, it looks like APB is a valid short name for the "Alliance for Brazil" party in English. (And note that it is not an English abbreviation, because the middle letter is 'p'--for pelo, not 'f' for for. Thus the common term in English sources might be foreign, or might not; the issue is, what term is used most often in English-language sources, irrespective of what language the term happens to be in.) If you wish to use another term other than APB, you would have to demonstrate that the term you prefer is more common in English sources than 'APB' is. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: But ALIANÇA is the official abbreviation, according to the statute and the source, which is the Superior Electoral Court. 187.74.168.156 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As of today (Dec 19 2019), APB is not even listed in the official political party list of TSE (Superior Electoral Court of Brazil): Registered Political Parties (in Portuguese). The short name is not an abbreviation, and is usually translated to English as "initials". The official short name/initials for the party is chosen by the party and must be approved by TSE, and is used in voting booths and election campaigns. The link I mentioned in this paragraph lists these short names for the existing parties in Brazil. The party is not fully functional yet and all this discussion comes from editors jumping the gun and trying to write on a subject for which the events are still developing rapidly and reliable sources are scarce. As of today, TSE lists APB/ALIANÇA as a "party in formation": Parties in Formation (Portuguese), and there is more than one party in formation with "Aliança" in the name. As of today, there are 77 political parties listed as "in formation". Fbergo (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
187.74.168.156 (talk · contribs) said,

But ALIANÇA is the official abbreviation, according to the statute and the source...

I think it depends where you want to use it in the article. I think in the Infobox you could use ALIANÇA because the parameter calls for the official abbreviation there. If you want to mention it in running text in the body of the article, similar to the bullet point examples above, you have to use "APB" because that is what English sources use. You could use ALIANÇA in the body of the article, if you specifically call out the fact that you are listing the official short name the party uses, perhaps like this: "Alliance for Brazil (APB) Portuguese: Aliança pelo Brasil (official abbreviation: 'ALIANÇA') is a political party...". But if you are referring to it in the body with a parenthetical abbreviation without further explanation, then I think it has to be APB, as in any of the examples above.
Fbergo, yes, events are developing, and the whole article should perhaps be tagged {{current}} to call out that fact. However, I don't agree that "reliable sources are scarce", as the bullet examples above should make clear. If those aren't enough, here are more from around the world:
  • Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro on Thursday launched a new political party, the Alliance for Brazil (AFB)...  – India
  • launching a new political party, the Alliance for Brazil (APB), under the banner... – Zambia
  • Brazil's far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has launched a new political party, the Alliance for Brazil (APB) – Australia
  • Bolsonaro launched last month a new party, the Alliance for Brazil (APB) – Canada
  • Bolsonaro launched a new political party Thursday, the Alliance for Brazil (APB) – Lebanon
so I don't think we can claim it's "scarce" anymore. The name of the party, and the abbreviation as used in English, already has numerous reliable sources in English, and per WP:Verifiability policy may be given in the article in Wikipedia's voice without in-text attribution.
As far as your comment that "The short name is not an abbreviation", that's incorrect; it is an abbreviation. An initialism like APB is just one form of abbreviation. Abbreviations in English can take many forms, including contractions, portmanteau words, acronyms, itialisms, and other forms. ALIANÇA is an abbreviation, and APB is an abbreviation, because both of them are short for Aliança pelo Brasil, they're just different kinds of abbreviation.
187.74.168.156, I realize the English here may be difficult for you, and I don't want you to be at a disadvantage. How about if I just make some changes to the article along the lines of a compromise, which will list the official abbreviation in the way I suggested above, and then you can have a look and see if you're satisfied with it? That may be easier for you, than trying to discuss your point of view here in the abstract, without having something concrete to look at. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, Agreed, points taken. I wrote abbreviation but meant acronym in my previous reply. Fbergo (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, now you're starting up again, at the disambig page, under a new IP address, 187.26.213.14 (talk · contribs)? I undid this edit of yours at APB. Knock it off; discuss instead. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there guys. Some examples of parties in Brazil that officialy use a word as "abbreviation" are "Podemos", "Republicanos", "Cidadania" etc, as you can see here Brazilian Existing Political Parties. They changed their official abbreviation to complete words, once the TSE started to accept it. If you search for the List of parties in process of creation, Click in "Listar partidos em formação" here, you will see that they are listed as "Abbreviation - Full Party Name". So, officialy, they are asking for "ALIANÇA" as abbreviation. Also, we use "Sigla" not "Abreviação", portuguese for "abbreviation", a "Sigla" can be some letters, but also one single word. So, I ask to let us change to the official registered "ALIANÇA" instead of "APB". Paladinum2 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source you gave don't say "abbreviation". It just say "Partido" (meaning "Party") at the top. Looks more like you are making an assumption here. Coltsfan (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's because here in Brazil it's how it works. You can browse by the parties in formation, see ones like "UDN - NOVA UNIÃO DEMOCRÁTICA NACIONAL", "ARENA - ALIANÇA RENOVADORA NACIONAL", and it's common sense that the name of the party is not ARENA - ALIANÇA RENOVADORA NACIONAL, it's ALIANÇA RENOVADORA NACIONAL, with ARENA being the abbreviation. It's the same for all the parties in formation. Most parties are called by their "sigla", some kind of Abbreviation, that can also be a word. In it's official website, in it's official "Estatuto", the Art.2º uses "A ALIANÇA PELO BRASIL – ALIANÇA [...]", in Brazilian portuguese normal use, it stands for "Aliança" being the 'sigla' (or abbreviation) to be used. It's not used "APB" anywhere in the party's statute. Paladinum2 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colour of the party[edit]

The main colours of alliance for Brazil is green and gold, not blue. Blue letters is sometimes used because it contrasts better in a white background than green or gold and vice-versa, but main colours, even in the rings which are the symbol of the party, are green and gold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.232.112 (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/992980277/993002583[edit]

This revert is not good because the revision before had valid corrections. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliance_for_Brazil&oldid=1204735451"