Talk:Chega (political party)

Rodrigospascoal (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideology and spectrum
We already cleared that up in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Also, you can't simply delete a reference, ignore it and change the article to match your views. Remember Wikipedia is for everyone and you're changing what people may think of something when you edit. So there's no reason to misinformate those people, otherwise, you're disrespecting Wikipedia's purpose. Rodrigospascoal (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Far Right
So the arguments you have for Chega to be far-right is that Mario Machado supported and backed up Chega and some of the members had weak ties with neo-nazi groups. In that case PS, BE, PCP and Verdes are all extreme left, because they have ties with Communism. This is why it's impossible to take Wikipedia seriously. Wikipedia unfortunately became disingenuous and politically biased. Unit73e (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

About the ideologies and political positions
All the references point out to opinion articles, no scientific secondary sources, the party's manifesto tells us that it is a "national, conservative, liberal and personalist/popular party", that is as far as we should go when it comes to categorizing the party, until we get secondary sources of course. We should use it as the main reference for now. So we should consider it a right wing party with "nationalism", "conservativism" and Liberalism ideologies. Ygglow (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

not neutral
The Sentence "Being a strong proponent of Western Civilization, the party also positions itself against radical Islamism and proposes stronger border control and a decrease of mass and illegal immigration." is not neutral in my opinion. You dont have to be for a stronger border control and a decrease of "mass and illegal" immigration to be a "strong proponent of western civilization. Thats a right-wing argument and not a neutral description. It honestly sounds like party advertisement. I tried to take away the "Being a strong proponent of Western Civilization," and it got reverted. Virtroxiam (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because no explanation had been provided. I don't think the sentence is biased: it merely links the cause (defending Western Civilisation) to the consequence (opposing Islamism and immigration and proposing border controls) according to the party's reasoning, not necessarily supporting it. But I'm open to reformulation ideas (not a removal of the clause, which is true and sourced). Would you prefer something like: "Being a strong proponent of Western Civilization, the party also positions itself against radical Islamism, which it sees as a threat that should be fought by strengthening stronger border control and decreasing mass and illegal immigration"? Do you have any other ideas? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Welfare chauvinism" not neutral
It`s a straw man as well because Chega does not claim that welfare benefits should be limited to Portuguese people only, foreigners who already worked have such a right, too but the welfare state should be excluded for people such as illegal immigrants who claim asylum and have not worked a single day. 2003:DA:C715:4900:784D:C74F:6A13:A8FC (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @2003:DA:C715:4900:784D:C74F:6A13:A8FC you are correct, Chega's proposal is for everyone to have access to welfare benefits, including legal immigrants and confirmed refugees. Excluded are illegal immigrants. SupportLGBT (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong characterization of chega regarding black community
There has been a recent edit in critical response section, criticizing Chega for "the ghettoization of some black communities living in problematic neighbourhoods associated with high crime rate that he described as bandits." SupportLGBT (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * However the links do not support the claims made, because:
 * - Andre Ventura is not the Chega party, but only 1 person. We have to look at the party's policies, decisions and official communications
 * - Ventura criticised only 1 family, not the entire community
 * - the family that was criticised by ventura, was because Ventura claimed they attacked the police, no mention of race.
 * - there's no proof given that the community was predominantely black.
 * - No proof given that chega party was criticized for being against ghettoization. In fact, the ruling government (which opposes Chega) is demolishing the "Bairro da Jamaica". SupportLGBT (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please @A. Landmesser, let's discuss the changes here in the talk page, rather than going back and forth on edit. SupportLGBT (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The article is probably being whitewashed by editors paid to edit Wikipedia.


 * The deletion of well-referenced content is proof that this is the case.


 * Deleted content:


 * "" Chega has been the target of its critics who underline the party's extreme views on various subjects, some of which include the negative comments regarding immigration and minorities, namely the Romani and the ghettoization of some black communities living in problematic neighborhoods associated with high crime rates that its founder described at one time as bandits,  ""


 * Take care. A. Landmesser (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A. Landmesser the claim "the negative comments regarding immigration and minorities ... the ghettoization of some black communities living in problematic neighborhoods associated with high crime rates that its founder described at one time as bandits" has no proof from the articles provided.
 * The derogatory comments made by Ventura targetted specifically 1 family, not the entire black community. Plus I don't see in any of the articles criticism towards Chega party related to the ghettoization. SupportLGBT (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whateva. A. Landmesser (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SupportLGBT clarification: "" Chega has been the target of its critics who underline the party's extreme views on various subjects, some of which include the negative comments regarding immigration and minorities, namely the Romani and some black communities subjected to ghettoization living in problematic neighborhoods associated with high crime rates that its founder described at one time as bandits,  ""


 * Ventura has toned down his discourse more recently but he was convicted by first-instance court decision and again by an appeal. Black people living in problematic neighborhoods, many of them fully-fledged Portuguese citizens by law and with a clean criminal record, felt outraged by this reckless discursive behaviour. A. Landmesser (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A. Landmesser but Chega is not Ventura. Again, he was convicted by derogatory comments for one family, not the black community. He was not convicted of racism. And I think it makes sense to add this in Ventura's page, not Chega.
 * https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/andre-ventura-foi-condenado-com-transito-em-julgado-por-racismo-como-disse-catarina-martins SupportLGBT (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the reference you provided, "Ventura was convicted in a court of law for offenses against the right to honor and the right to image of several members of the Coxi family. These offences were recognized by the courts as having a discriminatory nature based on the skin color and socio-economic situation of the complainants.". In addition, Ventura was at the time, and still is by the way, the founder and only leader in the history of the party and made the offensive statements in that capacity. A. Landmesser (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A. Landmesser Ventura is but one person from the Chega party. There's no proof of policy or official communication from the party that is discriminatory in terms of racism. Furthermire, there is a different law for hate crimes, of which Ventura was not accused, and hence cannot be labeled that he was convicted of racism. I think your reasoning can be added to Ventura's page, but not Chega. SupportLGBT (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, your point of view about this issue contradicts the sources, is tendentious and is intellectually dishonest in the sense that it works as a whitewashing technique, but ok, let’s move on. A. Landmesser (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A. Landmesser Let's agree to disagree. Besides your whitewashing is not credoble as I stated that I agree your clains should be (if only partially) added to wikipedia, but on Andre Ventura's page, not Chega. Besides, the portuguese law is clear on what constitutes racism. SupportLGBT (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Streamlining the Infobox
Ideally, right-wing populism and national conservatism (in whichever order) is all that is needed to be listed – social conservatism and nationalism are redundant, with national conservatism already indicating a socially conservative, nationalist ideological position.-- Autospark (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)