Talk:Sergio Moro

Translation of portuguese version to remove biased information
The Portuguese text is extensive and with less bias. Currently this english text only shows "questioning" of Moro's actions on the Career part and not a single word on his achievements. We should start copying the Portuguese version for this and translating unless there is a better suggestion. Someone so important in the recent Brazilian history should have accurate and unbiased information on its wiki page. The only issue is that most of the linked page are not in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.210.87.161 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Blatant political bias
I am not the kind who makes shallow critics, but this article is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rethoric (which is a minority in Brazil) and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from political supporters of people who are in jail for corruption. This article as it stands is pathetic and completely misleads the reader who is not duely informed about the character (which is the case of British and American readers, who use this site).

I urge any sensible user of Wikipedia to clean up this article quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: still need to translate content from the Portuguese article. SacredGeometry333 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not biased.
Part of the article contains critiques on Moro, but article itself is not biased as it contains no subjective matter, only well-sourced facts. For balancing, needs more content on so-called achievements instead of deleting sourced content. Critiques on article, on the other hand, are biased as they state sources aren't reliable when they're established media outlets serving as source for numerous articles in Wikipedia. We can't start judjing sources as unreliable based only on their political leanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:D700:9C8B:F0A4:44C8:9324:4436 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ConJur is a WP:PARTISAN source. CartaCapital links are dead and together with CartaCampinas both are declared left-wing publication that doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V. Rede Brasil Atual is a WP:QUESTIONABLE editoral.


 * The controversy section ignores Moro's highly popular and praised merits and only focuses on leftist rhetoric. The Portuguese article don't even have those criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.121.29 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources present are major jornalistic ones, such as Folha de São Paulo and Universo Online. All other sources are also well accepted and are currently in use in other articles. And in the article in portuguese Wiki, actually, the "criticism section" is twice as big. So, this is neither here nor there. Coltsfan (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is also a huge section talking about his career, praises and merits, so a controversy section is welcome as long as it is neutral, balanced and gives its due weight, and most importantly, backed by reliable sources instead of CartaCapital, CartaCampinas, ConJur and "Rede Brasil Atual"(what is it? a blog?). Is Wikipedia a leftist newspaper now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.121.29 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * These sources are well used in other articles. And if every argument you have comes down to "left wing blah blah blah", maybe you could use a change of scenery. Coltsfan (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe if article on Portuguese has no criticism the article in Portugese should be deleted then, for balance's sake and to avoid biased articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:D700:9C8B:6CC8:8DB6:DB7F:955E (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, sorry to break it out to you, but every media outlet in the world is biased. There's no such a thing as unbiased news, article or paper. If that's your criteria for establishing what's reliable source, all of Wikipedia should be erased, then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.10.145.229 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Judge who jailed President Lula Appointed Justice Minister by President Bolsanaro
I have no interest in Brazilian politics, know no Brazilians and have never set foot in that country, but I'm shocked that the judge who jailed President da Silva was appointed Justice Minister by President Bolsanaro - it seems so blatantly corrupt (and far more so that the alleged and unproven bribe that led to da Silva's arrest and conviction). This section of the article needs improvement.Paulhummerman (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Coltsfan (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

trimmed source
Moving here a source used to support some redundant content: "He is of Italian descent, with origins in the region of Veneto, ..."

86.186.155.217 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The only mistake here is actually that you removed a reliable source and altered the text without a reasonable explanation. Per WP:VERIFY, you can't do that, plain and simple, so i restored the version that is backed by a WP:RS. Coltsfan (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Per wikipedia rules, if you add or change information in an article you must use reliable sources. That's a non negotiable point. Coltsfan (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Coltsfan: I see I made a mistake (" /source ") in my edit summary here. Please note that the text, as I found it (here), contained redundancies, and needed rejigging. Since that was straightforward for me to do (having lived in Italy over several decades) I did that. Given that I didn't want to remove a redundant RS altogether, I moved it here to the talk page (per good practice, afaik). Hope that helps, 86.169.96.44 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Coltsfan: I did not alter the *meaning* of the text in any way. I have explained that the content trimmed above was *redundant*. FYI, He is of Italian descent, with origins in the region of Veneto is already explained in some detail the sentence above: His Italian ancestors, Giuseppe Moro and Margherita Novello, immigrated from Breganze in the Province of Vicenza. [Note: Breganze *is* in Veneto!] Fwiw, these details appear to have been imported from Sergio Moro, and I have nogood reason to doubt them, even though they are unsourced both here and on the Italian-language page (so my understanding is that there is no compelling reason to remove the potentially useful information). The only information provided by the RS I moved here is that his Italian ancestors came from the wider Region of Veneto. I have now tried to rejig the content to avoid redundancy (but frankly, I'm not prepared to continue this somewhat confrontational dialogue). 86.169.96.44 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, the change was intended to be a completely uncontroversial copyedit to improve this Wikipedia page (in a similar spirit, I think, to this recent copyedit by Larry Hockett). Absolutely no content information was cut. Having initially moved an RS supporting the inappropriately located content to the talk page here for possible discussion (rather than trimming it altogether), I've now found a way of reinstating it in a way that avoids the pre-existing redundancy and confusion. Should I have thought of that particular solution from the start? Well, yes, perhaps. But, hey I'm only human, and just another WP:VOLUNTEER here. One who believes that gf editors should be encouraged in their efforts to contribute to Wikipedia by engaging in constructive dialogue (rather than the other way round). 86.169.96.44 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, your help is more than welcome. But, per wikipedia rules, any information that is altered without mentioning sources or any material that is backed by reliable sources that is removed without a reasonable explanation must be reverted on the spot. And your explanation here was a bit confusing. But now all is cleared. So far so good, for now. Coltsfan (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the conversation, but I think we might be interpreting WP guidelines incorrectly, Coltsfan. Information is altered all the time without mentioning sources (think of all the grammar and spelling fixes and what would happen if we started reverting those made without sources). The lack of an explanation is usually not grounds for a revert. And even on BLPs, there is a difference in how we handle contentious and non-contentious material without sources. Per WP:V: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article."
 * It sounds like everything worked out here, but it's a good opportunity to appreciate that few things are 100% black and white. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, he removed a source and altered the content of the article. That is an auto revert under any scenario. If the information and/or the source that was there was wrong, the explanation must be presented clearly, which was not the case. And there is also the extra care when it comes to WP:BLP. Coltsfan (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even taking into account the extra care we take with BLPs, that is simply incorrect. Removing a source does not amount to an auto-revert. Altering content does not amount to an auto-revert. Failure to leave an edit summary does not amount to an auto-revert. We can help you if you let us, but you have to be willing to read the guidelines you are citing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically you are saying that anyone can change anything they want and don't have to show sources and it's fine? Ok then. Coltsfan (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. Just saying that you wouldn't automatically revert in the situations you are describing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Thank you for kindly helping out, and also thanks to Coltsfan for engaging here. Fwiw, I do understand that strict rules-based adherence feels particularly important to some Wikipedia editors (and also there's a learning curve to everything, including Wikipedia editing :). I also acknowledge, per Coltsfan's observation above, that my initial edit summary was inaccurate and confusing; perhaps I could have made a blank edit to correct and clarify it, but at the time that felt like overkill. With the benefit of hindsight, trimming the RS was another clear-cut mistake (though when an editor moves content/sourcing to the article talk page for future reference and possible discussion, that's generally an indication of constructive gf engagement at least). So, yes, what initially felt to me like a fairly straightforward piece of copyediting was a bit more complicated than I thought, due to my hasty mistakes. While Coltsfan was absolutely right to question aspects of the initial edit (specifically the unwarranted removal of reliable sourcing), I don't think reverting the entire edit without any explanation or talk-page interaction was the best approach: in similar circumstances, partial reversion (and perhaps a brief talk-page comment) can be more constructive and far less confrontational (it's well known that editors tend to dislike being reverted unconstructively, especially without any explanation). Fwiw (unless I've messed up again somehow :), this edit is an example of a copyedit with no real change to the content of the actual text in terms of the originally intended meaning (whereas here there is an actual change to the content, based on new sourcing). Hope that helps, 86.186.120.200 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)