User talk:Coltsfan/Archive 3

Jair Bolsonaro
OK, let's be rational here. Is there any question that Flavio or Jair said what they said about militias and militiamen, that Flavio worked to commend those men? No, there isn't. These are public records, made publicly by public men -- what's worse: they defended and commended militiamen many times during almost 20 years! Is there any question that Flavio employed relatives from militiamen? No, there isn't. Show me the source saying that Flavio denied that he employed those individuals. Flavio conceded that he did! It's on the sources I used to write the passage you deleted. Is there any question that Queiroz, the person that according to Flavio Bolsonaro himself linked him militiamen, is also very close to Jair Bolsonaro? No, there isn't. I really don't get it, Coltsfan. I'm not saying that the Bolsonaros are part of the militia, am I? Or that they get money from the militia. I'm just saying -- there are abundant, open, public, repeated, explicit links between Jair Bolsonaro and his sons and individuals who are militiamen. I appreciate your effort to ensure that the article is balanced. But these are central, crucial facts about the presidente of the country, which have generated a major scandal, covered by all major newsmedia. As difficult as it is to say it bluntly, the reality is that the Brazilian president has links with the organized crime. I do think we can find a middle ground here. Maybe not a section, but a well written, sourced and hedged mention?

Also: why did you delete the passage on hate speech? This is a crucial aspect oh his political persona, recognized by virtually all sources.

→"Well, you said it yourself. It's not a crime. Thus far, is just a story. A curiosity, perhaps." There is no dichotomy between being a "crime" and being a "curiosity". Since when Wikipedia requires a fact to be criminal to be mentioned? A "scandal" is not a "story", much less a "curiosity". For one, think about the amount of attention this "story" has received. This has already changed the history of Bolsonaro's administration: for the first time in the history of Brazil, you have media, major politicians and the people publicly associating the president with organized crime. What else is needed?!? Whether he is or not *part of* of any militia is beyond the point, since so much people are already considering the possibility that he, *somehow*, is. These understandings have very concrete ramifications. This is as much a "story" as the Stormy Daniels one. In fact, Bolsonaros' links with the militia are even more concrete -- since, in the Daniel's scandal the very basic facts are still under investigation, when in the case of Bolsonaro the basic facts are *not* in dispute. And, of course, paying hush money does not really compare with protecting and helping gangsters who murder/torture innocent people and traffic weapons and drugs. So, your argument that the case does not merit even a mention here, that it would be "irresponsible" to do it so, is hard to understand. It would entail that a large amount of the biographies of living "controversial" politicians should not be in Wikipedia. Indeed, following your argument, not even Bolsonaro's "controversial" speeches should be mentioned -- why should we say that he talked about raping a Congresswoman? Or talked about race in hateful ways? If these elements are well-described in the article, why not his explicit, open, public defense of individuals who are criminals?

→"it's not that simple, it's not so black and white, particuraly because things are still being figured out." To be clear: in the terms I described their relationship, it *is* indeed black and white: all those relations are objective, factual, public and recorded. What's more: the Bolsonaros *do not* deny them. What's debatable is the nature of these relations -- why, after all, these politicians would act to defend and help members of the organized crime.

→"To know a criminal, or to even employ one for not nefarious reasons, is no crime or scandalous." Again: they not only "know" some militiamen. They have defended, hired and helped these individuals, and have done so consistently for almost 20 years. And, as the milita scholar said in the interview I sent to you, these relations between politicians and militiamen are not new and most likely point to deeper relationships. It is not up to us to define what is or not "scandalous" -- the case is a scandal because it has been transformed by political actors (media, politicians etc) into one. See The Guardians' headline: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/22/jair-bolsonaro-flavio-brazil-davos-scandal-gangs

→"But yeah, might be a scandal, but so far, it has had no political ramification, no legal ramification, no national uproar. It's a story without a buzz and so far, not worthy of footnote, unless it has ramification." You're contradicting yourself here. Is it a "scandal" (by definition, a story with a *lot* of buzz) or a story "without a buzz"? Is national-wide criticism and talking "buzzy" enough? Also: What does count as a "political ramification"? Political scientists and media scholars are unanimous in that a "scandal", at least at this scale, is in itself "a ramification", and a very important if not central one in fact. As hundreds of examples demonstrate, politicians are forced to resign even when no legal action is taken, even when no "criminal" fact is unearthed. Many of them have to abandon their careers altogether. As the Stormy Daniels story shows (which, again, is in fact even minor if compared with Bolsonaro's links with the organized crime), the scandal does not need to have a final legal solution to merit Wikipedia mention. As you know, the Stormy Daniels case has an Wikipedia page for itself!

→"We have to think about WP:NEUTRAL and WP:WEIGHT. The article is already focused a lot on controversy as it is." Completely agree. But "neutral" does not mean that the articule should be 50% positive, 50% negative. It means that we editors should be vigilant regarding our own biases. Bolsonaro is a politician that has thrived in controversy, hate speech and demagoguery, and this is not me saying -- literally, all analysts, from different parts of the ideological spectrum, agree with this assertion. This article should reflect who he *is*, instead of sugar-coating his biography with the aim of constructing some form of artificially enforced "neutrality". He has been in the public arena for almost 30 years, and he has incessantly used "controversy" to boost his profile. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia (and general common sense, of course) to deny that. Look at Donald Trump's page. It is dominated by controversy. There's a reason for that: this is who Donald Trump IS. The same thing applies to Bolsonaro, except Bolsonaro has also talked about murdering, torturing, raping, and purging rivals, and made lewd and racist comments many many times.

My suggestion, before we have to take this discussion somewhere else: construct a section named "Scandals", encompassing all of his "controversial" and hateful speech and actions, as well as his relations with the militia, accusations of corruptions, in which we also give voice to Bolsonaro's own vision of these accusations and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

→First off, please act in good faith and stop saying that this is a matter of "knowing a few" militiamen. There is unquestionable and public evidence that Bolsonaros' relationship with militiamen involves much more than "knowing" them. The clan acted to protect and help these individuals, repeatedly. Can we agree on this or we are going to deny what not even the Bolsonaros deny?

→Second, you keep changing your argument. Before, the problem was that it was not a "crime". Now, you accept that cases with "media attention" merits Wikipedia mention, since "media attention" is indeed a "ramification" ("All the other controversial things had ramifications, a lot of media attention", you said). The problem, for you, is that his links with militiamen do not "stand out", they haven't had enough "notoriety". Well, this case has received TONS of media attention. Tell me, is there an official metric of notoriety? Is there an objective threshold above which something merits a mention on Wikipedia? I've read WP:BLP and I defy you to point which part of it allows you to say that the case we are discussing does not count as "notorious". Days-long coverage in the most important TV journalistic show (Jornal Nacional), the cover of all major press, a turmoil on social media -- is this enough to you? Let's compare: did his speech about gay people got a similar amount of attention? No. Yet, there is a mention to it in the article (correctly, in my view).

→"In this case, however, about Bolsonaro, most of the invastigation has been put on hold": Which investigations are you talking about? No investigation was put on hold, to my knowledge.

→"the media is loosing interest" -- Where's the evidence for this? Even is there's less interest *at the moment*, so what? With Trump, the Daniel's case has also received much less interest recently. Whether the media are or not talking about this issue *at the moment* is not, and cannot be, a criterion to decide on whether to mention it on Wikipedia, of course. The case is so explosive that every time something happens, there's a lot of attention. That's how the media work, btw (hence the term "news cycle").

→"not even Bolsonaro's popularity took a hit." Again, this is marginally important here. However, the only evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite. The CNT survey indicated that the Bolsonaro administration has one of the lowest initial approval ratings in recent Brazilian history: 39%(https://www.valor.com.br/politica/6139719/pesquisa-mostra-aprovacao-de-39-para-governo-bolsonaro); two months before, Datafolha asked a somewhat similar question, and learnt that 65% of the population was "optimistic" with the new administration (https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2019/01/01/para-65-governo-bolsonaro-sera-otimo-ou-bom-diz-datafolha.ghtml). So, there's been a huge disappointment in the population about his work, it seems. Given the high visibility the case got in the news media, it is very likely that it's contributed to the apparent decrease of the administration approval ratings. How it contributed, however, is unclear (so far, at least).

→implicated him directly: Well, Bolsonaro is fully implicated in the case. First, because he personally defended, in the Brazilian Congress and multiple times, militiamen. Those words came out of his mouth. Second, because his family works like a political clan (and the recent events of his presidency show that). They act together under the guidance of the father, and it is highly unlikely that Flavio forged these relations alone, despite his father's knowledge (particularly because these links date back from 2003, when Flavio was very young). There is more: Queiroz, the guy who is apparently the concrete link between the Bolsonaros and the militiamen, is widely described as, in fact, a FAMILY aide (not a personal aide to Flavio -- see Bolsonaro's picture fishing, in the Ibama fee case). Even in the remote hypothesis that Jair had no idea about Flavio's favours to militiamen, the scandal is not about Flavio alone. Put another way: were not Flavio the son of the President, there would be no such a major scandal.

→"Wikipedia is not a news agency, with the recent all the recent developments in real time". Agreed. But two points: first, their links with militiamen data back from 2003, thus 16 years ago! And even in 2007, Flavio's actions were already scandalous enough to receive media attention (https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/deputado-quer-legalizar-milicias-no-rio,f2fe24d51491139f856ce9e94d4a88bc1m7unakr.html). Second, Wikipedia is not CNN, but it neither is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And this is why Wikipedia is great! It retains the "encyclopaedic" criterion, but it is much more open to what is going on right now. This hardly needs explanation -- millions of articles are amended everyday to reflect new developments. Example: accusations regarding the MeToo movement, which have generated new sections and mentions.

I mean when I say that I appreciate your efforts to not transform this article into an anti-Bolsonaro manifesto, and share your preoccupations. But this is no vandalism, I'm no sockpuppet. These are concrete, serious and highly consequential facts that certainly deserve at the very least a mention in the article. I invite you to leave your pride aside and bow to the facts here, Coltsfan. But, of course, if you remain unconvinced, let's take this problem to another editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

One possibility of doing it: treat Jair's declarations about militiamen as part of his "controversial" speeches. One example of what he said, some ten years ago:""As long as the state does not have the courage to adopt the death penalty, the crime of extermination, in my opinion, will be very welcome. If there is no space for him in Bahia, you can go to Rio de Janeiro. If you depend on me, you will have my full support, because in my state only innocent people are decimated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Pay attention to your edits, that in the article about Bolsonaro is below average. A lot of changes not in accordance to the sources, a lot not respecting WP:MOS and WP:NEUTRAL, the language used is not encyclopedic, and the overall quality of the content is also ify. I don't know if english is your mother tongue, but the grammar and phrase constructions leaves much to be desired. Again: this is a controversial topic, about a controversial politician and the content of that article is already under dispute. There is also a massive investigation involving that article. I suggest you reconsider your modus operandi. You were already blocked previously because of edit warring and disruptive editing. Pay attention to that. Good luck. Coltsfan (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)"

→Tks for the heads-up, re language and formatting.

→When you say I'm not respecting WP:NEUTRAL, I take this seriously. Please say in which edit exactly you think I didn't act with neutrality and we can discuss. General criticisms are hard to respond to.

→I saw your edits and disagree with some of them. Your point on my edits not in accordance to sources... which one you're talking about? To my knowledge, they are all factually accurate. Can you pls be more specific before I undo some of your edits on the grounds that they are poorly justified?

→I also thank you for the reminder re blocking. I made the mistake of edit warring, but always acted with good faith. I'm no sock, I'm just a new user.

→I'd also like to politely remind you that you have been accused many times of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:POV re Bolsonaro's page. Please be more careful when deleting others' edits and do not forget to justify them. Otherwise, it gets hard to understand your motivations. As you have a tendency to erase negative elements of Bolsonaro's biography, folks might get the impression that you have a pro-Bolsonaro bias -- but please note that I'm *not* accusing you of anything. It might be that this sort of protective and conservative stance is in fact beneficial.

→For the record, you didn't answer my proposal on how to treat the 16 years of facts linking Bolsonaro with militiamen and his hate speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One last point on neutrality, which you seem to take to be a 50/50 thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. Bolsonaro built an entire career with "controversial" statements about minorities and straightforward hate speech. There's a reason why so many people who spend their lives studying fascism thinks that he talks like a fascist. Of course, if he is or not a fascist is beyond the point and the article should by no means say that he is/isn't. But if the article is to be faithful to this guy's history, it is important to describe who he is. And, mostly, Bolsonaro is objectively offensive to democratic norms. If he now transforms himself into a brilliant democrat, great. But to demonstrate his past undemocratic practices is not to act in a "biased" or non-neutral manner. Is to be accurate. Again: this is who Bolsonaro is. It is very hard to sugarcoat his life without lying about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

France
The flag call "Flag of France 1795-1815, 1830-1958" never existed, it's in reality the "Pavilion national" (uses by French Navy and merchant ships), we have the seem flag since 1794 (except in 1815-1830), it's a big error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion-blacksuit (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

History of France flag
It's false, before 1958, France never had officialy a flag write in the constitution. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic, published in 1958, provides for Article 2 : "the national emblem is the tricolor flag : blue, white, red", without any precision of color tint. Before that France adopted officially this flag in 1812 and in 1848 (but like in 1958, without color tint mentionned and it was never write directly in the constiution). The dark tint is used on city halls and barracks and the light tint is used the rest of time, the light tint exist since 1794. During the period of colonization, the territories (future countries) had flag with the french flag and the blue was often light and not dark.Orion-blacksuit (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In reality, the story of color of Paris + white of king is true but very simplistically, this is the official version but the reality is that the birth of our flag is poorly studied and controversial topic (for exemple the story of blood (red) and bourgeoisie (blue) or the Americain flag, as well blue, red and white were colours used in french territories before the revolution), what is shocking on the english wikipedia is that the evolution of flag made thought that the 1958's constitution changed the colours but it's wrong because it were never write the color tint of our flag (that's what mean when I said "never existed" = the color change). The blue and red clearer were popularize in the 1970's (by the president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing) but they existed before and very used since the start of 19th (we found the current blue in many flag of the end 19th/start 20th century). The dark blue were used essentially by militaries and ships. Faithfully yours Orion-blacksuit (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

curiosity
what did this IP say that was so incredibly bad? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jair_Bolsonaro&curid=46603496&diff=895478896&oldid=895478835 --Bageense(disc.) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , now u got me, i forgot. But was nothing that bad, just common vandalism. Gotta ask the one thatwho suppressed the editing. Coltsfan (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you know how this works?
Or have you also contacted the other users who reverted the "Racism in Brazil" category for Jair Bolsonaro with the same warnings? If you apply a rule, you need to apply it to everyone equally. Otherwise you're not fit to be an admin. Hope it's clear now. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, apparently you don't
This is precisely where you prove your partiality:

''' "By using the category "Racism in Brazil" it's implied that Bolsonaro is a convicted racist or is connected to racism movements, something of the sort." '''

You can be a racist without being a) convicted or b) connected to any movement. Most of the self-confessed racists I've met were law-abiding and had no connection to any political milieu other than the Independent Republic of their own Toilet.

''' "The sources in the article do indicate that a lot of people consider him to be a racist. But here is the thing, some people don't." '''

Here's the thing, those people who don't are either demographically underrepresented or a figment of your imagination. Either way, no references for such viewpoint (namely that he's not a racist) are given. Whereas several are given for the opposite viewpoint.

Hope none of this is too challenging for you to understand. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So how would you label these, regardless of what supporters say?
'''Preta, I’m not going to discuss promiscuity with anyone. I don't run that risk because my children are well educated and they don't live in a promiscuous environment such as is, unfortunately, yours.''' The scum of the world is arriving in Brazil, as if we didn’t have enough problems to solve.
 * Responding to the singer Preta Gil after asked about what he would do if his son fell in love with a black woman on 28 March 2011 at an interview to the program CQC on Band. Brazil presidential candidate Bolsonaro's most controversial quotes. Yahoo!, 29 September 2018.
 * About Senegalese, Haitians, Iranians, Bolivians and Syrians at an interview to Jornal Opção on 17 September 2015. Conservative’s Star Rises in Brazil as Polarizing Views Tap Into Discontent. The New York Times (7 May 2016).

'''I was at a quilombo. The slightest afrodescendant weighed 7 arrobas [230 pounds]. They don't do anything. I don't think they even serve for procreation anymore.''' There will not be a centimeter demarcated for indigenous or quilombo reservations. '''Has anyone ever seen any Japanese begging? It's a race that has self-respect.'''
 * Talk at Clube Hebraica in Rio de Janeiro, on 3 April 2017. Bolsonaro: “Quilombola não serve nem para procriar”. Congresso em Foco (5 April 2017).
 * Same talk where he spoke about quilombos.
 * Same talk where he spoke about quilombos.

Is it short there? '''I see stupid people saying: "Look at France, what a beautiful thing, a multiracial [soccer] team". Let's put here [in Brazil] 10 million people from Venezuela or from North Africa to be champions, maybe in 2022 or 2026. Cool, huh? Let's put 20 million in here, like they fiiled with Haitians here in São Paulo. In the plenary, a Workers' Party supporter shouted: 'If they were from Sweden, you wouldn't be criticizing'. Hey, stupid, do you think people from Sweden would want [to come to] this garbage?'''
 * To an Asian man at the Manaus International Airport on 15 May 2019. Bolsonaro faz piada com oriental: 'Tudo pequenininho aí?'; veja vídeo. Extra (15 May 2019).
 * About immigrants. Bolsonaro levou aos Estados Unidos uma agenda de traição à Pátria, não de soberania. Por Joaquim de Carvalho. Diário do Centro do Mundo (17 March 2019).

And bear in mind that David Duke and Jared Taylor are also adamant they're not racist. People saying they or someone else isn't racist means diddly.

Again, hope you don't struggle to understand this. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it here
Understood. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC) But... Eppur si muove. You also erased the category Far-right politics. And Bolsonaro defined himself as far-right per the quotes you added. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC) You're right, my mistake. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Research Interview Request
Etchubykalo (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. An IP reported you at ANI, but of course didn't let you know, so here I am. -- Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Alliance for Brazil
Hi, Coltsfan! About the Alliance for Brazil article, some advice: When you find yourself in that kind of situation, where you are reverting someone multiple times, you need to make it clear to anyone evaluating the case what is going on. You do that by explaining your reasoning on the talk page. Not in edit summaries. Explain clearly, once, on the talk page, what the sources say, with links, and why your position is right. Do it no later than your second revert; don't get to 3RR without using the talk page. (And for heavens sake do it now, while the article is locked; that's what full protection is for. When the protection expires, it will be clear that you tried to talk and he didn't.) Comments in the edit summary are not very helpful, especially when it’s things like “repeated source”; how is an evaluating administrator supposed to know what that means? Things like "didn't you read the source?" are equally unhelpful. Warnings on his talk page are not helpful either, especially if they are just "don't vandalize" or "stop edit warring," when you are doing just as many reverts as he is. The talk page is everything; that's what it's there for. If you have used the talk page and the other person hasn’t, that goes a long way toward indicating that you are the one who is trying to do the right thing. If you haven’t, it just looks like BOTH of you are edit warring, and you could wind up getting an EW block as well as the other person. Just a word to the wise. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Restored your 23 November report of Factsinwiki to the archive of WP:AN3
Hello Coltsfan. You have recently opened a new report about Factsinwiki. After some frustration, I've restored to the archive the 23 November report which I think you should have left in place to be processed by administrators. Usually it is enough to add a comment saying you have withdrawn the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Olavo de Carvalho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Olavo_de_Carvalho check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Olavo_de_Carvalho?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from 2020 Hanau shootings
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)