User talk:179.191.107.226

Jair Bolsonaro
Although, some of the cases against him have been dismissed, the article still must state some traits that he are often associated with him. The information is backed by reliable sources. Removing those informations based on your own bias makes the article unbalanced and is a kind of censorship. So, be aware of that. Coltsfan (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm only removing the racist part of this wiki. It seems you are trying to put your own biased information about him. The source you used only tells the history about one comment Bolsomare made in a TV show, which later the show failed to prove that the questions weren't switched. Bolsonaro already stated that his comments were regarding if his son would have a relationship with a gay person. If you fail to provide the complete history it make the article biased and poorly written. User:Shadow_rf
 * First of all, not so. These traits are attributed to him across the political spectrum. And i'm adding more sources to it. To remove these informations, that are backed by reliable sources, would be extremely inappropriate as an attempt to remove criticism of him in the article. Coltsfan (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm not talking about all his traits, my problem is imputing the racist trait with completely biased and outdated sources. Although you have updated it with recent information, it's still don't tell the whole history. I will improve it when I have time. Zortrax rf (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

, the 'racist trait' is not biased. The media, political analists and others (as listed in the sources) claim that many of his remarks are consedered racist. Done. This is a fact. I know you are trying to sugarcoat it, but it doesn't matter. The brazilian Supreme Federal Court acquitted him of one of the charges of 'rate speech' made against him, but, like i said, it doesn't change the fact that the perception that some people have of him. But, above all, the article is not saying that he is a racist. Pay attention to this. If you have read the article (i don't believe you did), you'll see this is how is portrayed: "expressing statements that some people consider insulting.. racist...". See? The article is not saying Bolsonaro is a racist. The article is simple stating that some people consider his remarks to be "racist". If you try to "improve it", as you said, you will be only sugar coating it, because you like the guy and you don't want him to be called a "racist". I get that. Everybody have their personal biases. However, Wikipedia has a neutral stance. And if the guys perception is that a lot of his remarks are considered racist, ommiting it would be an act of intelectual dishonesty. Coltsfan (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely ok with people calling him racist, homophobic etc, everyone can have their opinions, but when you try to come to Wikipedia and just tell half the story to justify what you think (or what you want other people to think) it's a problem. By improving it I mean to use better references (or expand the subject), the one you used were outdated and biased, this isn't sugar coating. Also I read all the articles you post in your edit, two talk generally about racism remarks and one tell half the story, this one should be removed.

Just for you to know, I see a lot of bad and good points on him, just like Lula, Dilma, Alckmin and several other brazilians politicians. Zortrax rf (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , the thing is, if you wanna put the one case that dismisses the accusation of "racism", you gonna have to put the other ones that the has still pending in the judiciary. And the other cases, where he has being convicted (like this one, or this one), are not fully developed in the article too, but i don't see you making a case for those changes, am i wrong? If you wanna do some changes, because you "want him to look better" is the definition of bias edditing. It's like in the Donald Trump article. It has all his affairs and other sortied things there. Was any of those proven? No. Are they in the article? Yes. Why? Why? Simple: because omitting them, or 'sugar coating, would be a dishonest behaviour, particularly in articles of politicians, and particularly of those who are always involved in controversies. I'm away from brazil from a long time, so i only know what sources tell me. Bolsonaro being called a racist for more since the beggining of his political career and dismiss that on the account of only one acquitted case is, in my opinion, a way to try to mislead the readers. Coltsfan (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand what I'm trying to say. Using a reference with is extremely biased and outdated doesn't make a service to anyone. That's why I removed the racist part, because it had a horrible reference. Why I didn't removed all the other bad traits? Because mostly had decent references. Anyway, I don't think any article have a very good quality when we use "people say he is this or that", because some people say he is a God other say he is a devil. As you know people have a lot of different opinions about several subjects.

When I have time to edit this article, I will put everything I can, the good and the bad. Even if I support Bolsonaro I don't think I help anyone by creating a dishonest article.

It's obvious this article has been written by people that doesn't like Bolsonaro, you can create a monster out of everyone if you only talk about the "bad" and controversial stuff.

I'm curious about something you said, do you have any evidence he is called racist since the beginning of his career? He is on office since the 90's. Zortrax rf (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , well, he was convited and forced to pay a fine for a speech of his that was considered by Brazil's Public Prosecutor's Office as been "abusive, prejudiced and discriminatory" (see here), but you "conveniently" ignored that. And you keep mentioning "extremely biased and outdated" when you also completely ignored new sources with new data that are already in the article. i'm sure you are not familiar with WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia must be neutral, but we also must not create a "false equivalency" situation. As i's common for controversial public figures we must not pretend that all is well, or all is bad. And i know you are lying when you say "I will put everything I can, the good and the bad" because you removed information that was backed by WP:RS just because you didn't like what the content said and even when new updated sources were brought to light, you continually refuse to acknowledge the situation. So, as i can clearly see, the problem for you is not that the article is bias, is the fact that you claim the article is "biased in the wrong way". And yes, he has been called a racist and a lot of other stuff for a long time now (source). This is a guy who,in his curriculum has been condemned twice to pay fines for discriminatory speech by the country's justice system, and still you say it's all "biased and incorrect information". When you keep saying stuff like that, regards of what side of the political spectrum you are in, it doesn't help your case and it makes it sound like you are the making the bias accusations. Coltsfan (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the past, about why I removed the racist part and you accused me of trying to omit information. After you updated it I didn't removed again. If any information about something is backed by bad references, it need to be removed until is updated. Providing false and mislead information is worse than providing none. I'm not ignoring the fact he was convicted of hate speech/racism, this is the reference that should be used, not the one who tells half the story. Why it's so hard for you to understand that?? Again, the racist part was (read it again, WAS)backed by a biased and outdated reference. We should avoid to use this kind of information that mislead the wiki user. If he will be judged for being racist, that should be done by something he really did (like the quilombola stuff), not by a TV show that changed the question after he have answered it. This tv show happened in 2011, it was right there when people used to call him racist. You are being intellectually dishonest, also you didn't provided any prof he was being called racist before 2011. It seems you are just a left wing and biased person who want to only show your own truth. Zortrax rf (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ... It's funny, that you just called "left wing and biased person" when i'm the only one providing WP:RS here while you are just stating your opinion out of nothing. It's not funny, actually. It's sad. Even when i showed you a actual reliable source (which states exactly what you asked for, saying: "his regular homophobic, sexist, and racist comments"), you didn't bother to dig it up and still accuses me of bias? Really? It's a bit pathetic, really. If i was talking sh*t out of my a** i'd understand your position, but you keep saying "show me the sources", and i'm like "ok, here are the sources", and them... nothing. You say nothing, no questioning. Who is biased again? lol Like i said, it would be laughable, if it wasn't sad, really. Coltsfan (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I know my english is far from perfect, but it's not possible that you don't understand what I'm writing. Lets analyse the situation:, Here is a part of your reference you sent me that talk about racism:

"Bolsonaro has long been well-known for his ultra-conservative views, of which support for torture is just one. He also expresses nostalgia for the military government and demonstrates total disregard for the offense caused by his regular homophobic, sexist, and racist comments."

So, it say he is long been well-know for ultra-conservative views, while ultra-conservative doesn't mean racist. Further in the text, he talks about racist comments, but doesn't provide any time period. You could argue the first sentence already say "long". Even if I could agree with that text interpretation (I don't) how "long" that is? 5 Years? Remember the interview for the tv show was in 2011 and this article is from 2016.

By evidence, I was waiting for a evidence about something he said, not a generic thing. This isn't evidence.

You said he is know for racist comments since the beginning of his political career, with has begun in 1989. If he said so many racist comments, where the hell they are? I was truly curious about it, but it seems it was for nothing.

Zortrax rf (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ... "Regular" is a adjective that means, according to the dictionary: "arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances. something done or happening frequently". So, i'm providing just in this discussion, 3 different sources were provided. In the particle there is 4 more available. If you are not bias, as you claim, freaking 7 (SEVEN!) reliable sources should make you stop and think "yeah, maybe i should rethink this". But, that shows i could throwing more sources here, it wouldn't make a difference. So, if your english is not so good to understand, you should know that portuguese wikipedia has an entire article about it with over ONE HUNDRED sourcers. Lets see if the problem still is "where are the references". Next time you accuse someone of being bias, get a good look in the mirror. Coltsfan (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Our discussion here is about something you said:

"Bolsonaro being called a racist for more since the beggining of his political career..."

You didn't objectively answered my question.

Bolsonaro is on office since 1989, you said he is called racist since the beginning of his political career. I read the entire article you put, I was waiting to see something from 95, maybe 2000, but I don't find anything before 2011 regarding racism. It's time for you to admit you don't have evidences of that statement. Zortrax rf (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pure interpretation of the text, 9th grade stuff. If i say "i'm a regular drinker" you can assume, i've been drinking for a while. Pick up the dictionary. So if you say a politician is know for saying the same thing on a 'regular basis', it means that said politician saying these things is a habit of his. Even though this is english one-on-one, i'll throw you a bone and i won't assume bad faith on your part for not understanding (or pretending not to understand). And here, we don't have to assume anything, since there is SEVEN (7) sources on the matter (counting the ones in the article and the ones here). So, you can claim ignorance in your english, but to claim "lack of sources" i'd have to assume bad faith on your part. Coltsfan (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)