Talk:Damares Alves

Serious issues
BLP vios, cut-and-paste copyvio, lack of balance, and cherrypicking. I hope someone cleans this up quickly. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, none of this content is included, and yet Telesur was used as a source (Telesur is deprecated on Wikipedia, not suitable for anything much less a BLP). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific please if you have concerns about BLP, copyvio or lack of balance. Add what material you want (provided it's well sourced) but avoid taking material away just because you think it casts her in a bad light. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken away material that was copyvio or a BLP vio (you cannot source a BLP to a deprecated source). The material that should be included for balance is clearly indicated in the link just above your post.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio
I think some editors are using the excuse of copy violation to keep unfavoured material out. Please be very specific about what aspect of the guidance has been violated if concerns continue and suggest alterative wording to illustrate. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "some editors"? That would be me.  I am not going to rewrite someone else's copyvio; feel free to reinsert any text that you can paraphrase correctly, if it is a reliable source.  Oh, and WP:CHERRY was a big problem in the copyvio text.  Going through a source to cherrypick only negative information is POV editing.  I'll be watching.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think there is an issue with WP:CHERRY then please refer it to the right forum for an opinion. And in an article that discusses how people fear that "human rights will be downgraded under the incoming [Bolsanaro]government", it would be difficult not to be somewhat negative in terms of the conclusions we draw. Whether this violates NPOV is a different matter. I have also made clear that the statements in quotation marks are verbatim, hence the quotation marks. I think they are notable and so left the phrasing in as it was rather than distort what the speaker has said. The source is also provided. The rest of the context material is - as you say - "paraphrase" and not word for word. This is not copy violation. If, however, you still think there is a problem then I would ask you to reference the relevant piece of wiki guidance that supports your argument. Reverting the material again, or refer the issue for a third opinion. I rather we avoid edit warring but you seem to have been quite adamant in pushing your own viewpoint without supporting evidence. And your threats of "I'll be watching" hasn't endeared you. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will help you: Let's get serious about plagiarism. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

, please note:
 * Source (The Guardian)


 * 2016, she told an evangelical congregation: “It is time for the church to tell the nation that we have come … It is time for the church to govern.”
 * Your text:

Can you see that regardless of the quotes, you took the entire sentence from the source? That is a Cut-and-paste sentence. Plagiarism. Fix it. Otherwise, the article can be tagged COPYVIO and all of the copyvio you had inserted all the way back will have to be scrubbed. You did not vary the wording outside of the quote marks at all. When I happened upon this bio because of backlinks to a deprecated source, it was clearly an attack bio. I'm watching. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2016, she told an evangelical congregation that “It is time for the church to tell the nation that we have come ... It is time for the church to govern."
 * "I'm watching". Please, do me a favour. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)