User talk:Shakula34
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Shakula34, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)- You are also blocked for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny; see WP:IPSOCK and WP:SCRUTINY. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Shakula34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
At no point I vandalised any page. All edits were properly sourced, accurate and respected Wikipedia guidelines for relevance. If I engaged in some warring was because those pages were fiercely guarded by malicious editors whose sole concern was to protect conservative Brazilian figures from their own biographical facts
Decline reason:
That indicates you would continue edit-warring if the block was lifted. Therefore, we have to leave the block in place and should consider extending it indefinitely, until you understand WP:EW. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request once you've reviewed WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Answer[edit]
It's an ongoing thing, alright. His sons' connection to militia men is just alleged, at best, so far. There is no case going on about it on the justice circles, a lot of speculation. It's a controversial topic about a controversial politician. If we put every single bit of controversy bolsonaro and his associates get themselves into, the article will be huge and not neutral. I recomend that you read WP:BLP. Coltsfan (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that what you said is not true. But it's just a story within a helm of stories about Bolsonaro and his family. And right now is just a story with no ramification (political or legal).
- "As difficult as it is to say it bluntly, the reality is that the Brazilian president has links with the organized crime." Wait, has his association with organized crime confirmed by the authorities? Because knowing someone from organized is not the same thing as "being associated". It's a huge accusation to be made, specially for a politician and a controversial person, whose article is already subject to content dispute on multiple topics. If he was not tried or something, to say he has conections with organized crime goes beyond just "speculation". It's irresponsible. Nobody is guilty of a crime, unless the justice system says so. It's like that in the USA and i'm 100% sure is like that in Brazil too. Coltsfan (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we are approaching the core of our disagreement here: the *meaning* of the term "relation" between Bolsonaro and militiamen. The question is not whether Bolsonaro "knowns" someone in the militias -- this, as you say correctly, means nothing. The problem is that Bolsonaro and his sons have (i) used their power as politicians to protect militiamen (by either making the state endow militiamen with official recognitions or saying, in the Congress, that they are actually "good") (ii) used their services (as security guards) and (iii) employed relatives of militiamen (this is of course no coincidence: those individuals got their jobs precisely because of their condition as relative of militiamen, as Queiroz himself admitted: if you read Portuguese, I recommend you to read this interview, with a scholar who studies militias, who says that his is a common practice: "Segundo José Cláudio, é comum familiares de milicianos serem empregados em gabinetes de deputados e vereadores. “Isso é muito comum. Esse vínculo lhe dá poder naquela comunidade. Ele vai ser chamado agora na comunidade: ‘Olha é o cara que tem um poder junto lá ao Deputado, qualquer coisa a gente resolve, fala com ele, que ele fala com a mãe e com a esposa e elas falam diretamente com o Flávio e isso é resolvido’”.[1]).
°"Wait, has his association with organized crime confirmed by the authorities? Because knowing someone from organized is not the same thing as "being associated". They not only *know* someone in those militias. As the sources I used make it clear, there is NO DISPUTE over whether they are *associated* with militias in the terms I put in that passage you deleted. Is there any evidences that Bolsonaro is himself part of a militia? No. Is there any evidence that Bolsonaro got money from the militia? No. Is there evidence that Bolsonaro has acted to protect and help militiamen? Yes, absolutely, no question about it.
°" If he was not tried or something, to say he has conections with organized crime goes beyond just "speculation"". Wikipedia does not only publish things that have received a legal stamp, of course. The page on biographies of living people is clear that what matters is Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, which completely apply to this case.
°"And right now is just a story with no ramification (political or legal)". Here I have to disagree with you. This is a *major* scandal in Brazil, as you probably know. Some examples: Folha de S.Paulo cover after news broke that Flavio Bolsonaro had employed militiamen: http://www.muvucapopular.com.br/politica/folha-da-manchete-sobre-ligacao-da-familia-bolsonaro-com-milicias/24022 (not the original website, but the cover is accurate). Here's Epoca Magazine: https://epoca.globo.com/ta-ok-nao-23417530. Here's Jornal Nacional: https://www.revistaforum.com.br/jornal-nacional-vincula-flavio-bolsonaro-as-milicias-do-rj/. The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/22/jair-bolsonaro-flavio-brazil-davos-scandal-gangs. The relations between the Bolsonaros and militia are not "just a story". This is a scandal, and scandals have very concrete and damaging "ramifications".
°"Nobody is guilty of a crime, unless the justice system says so. It's like that in the USA and i'm 100% sure is like that in Brazil too."
Agreed. But who's talking of a crime here? There are many ways whereby someone may be linked with organized crime that is not a crime in itself. That the president of a country protected and employed member of the organized crime is grave enough, I believe.
My proposal: let's work out a way of making it clear in the article that these links exist. You're right: it might not deserve a whole section. But I truly cannot see how this does not merit at least a paragraph.
- Well, you said it yourself. It's not a crime. Thus far, is just a story. A curiosity, perhaps. You are trying to say that there is a link (not necessarily illegal) between Bolsonaro and Rio's Militia, however it's not that simple, it's not so black and white, particuraly because things are still being figured out. It's a story in development and not all is figured it out. To top it all, the sources you posted they talk more about the president's son than about himself. And again, it's all still speculation. To know a criminal, or to even employ one for not nefarious reasons, is no crime or scandalous. But yeah, might be a scandal, but so far, it has had no political ramification, no legal ramification, no national uproar. All i'm saying is that is too early. I suggest we "wait and see". This is not a Stormy Daniels kinda thing. It's a story without a buzz and so far, not worthy of footnote, unless it has ramification. We have to think about WP:NEUTRAL and WP:WEIGHT. The article is already focused a lot on controversy as it is. Coltsfan (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"following your argument, not even Bolsonaro's "controversial" speeches should be mentioned -- why should we say that he talked about raping a Congresswoman?" Another case of criticizing an article without reading it? Because if you had read the article, in the case of the raping thing, he was actualing sentenced and fined for that. All the other controversial things had ramifications, a lot of media attention, and above all, implicated him directly. This militia story is still just a bunch of "maybe" "allegedly" and has more to do with his son than with himself. Create a section named "Scandals"? Through the idea has merit, Wikipedia is not a news agency, with the recent all the recent developments in real time. Things must be noteworthy. It has to stand out. Look at former president Lula's article (both in english and portuguese). That guy has been involved in tons of corruption cases, scandals, etc etc. But only things that actually matter are there. And again, for Stormy Daniels, you are still missing the point. No, it's not necessary to have legal ramifications, but it helps with the notoriety argument. And the Stormy Daniels case, went beyond "and he knew a few militiamen". Because of Daniels people are talking about impeachment, it could cost Trump's reelection, that woman was in the front page (so to speak) of every major newspaper. See? Ramification, notoriety. In this case, however, about Bolsonaro, most of the invastigation has been put on hold, the media is loosing interest, not even Bolsonaro's popularity took a hit. Again, read WP:BLP. It will helps. Coltsfan (talk) 13:09, 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)
- Yeah, i have been acused of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:POV. But the fun thing is, the people who have accused me of that are now blocked because they themselves wanted to put their bias in the article (see here). Funny how things work out.
→Not everyone, it seems -- the Giordano guy hasn't, for instance. But I see your point. Again: I'm just a good intentioned new user.
- Second, "folks might get the impression that you have a pro-Bolsonaro bias". Again, funny, cuz people have accused me of being a "far left militant". And more and more people also accused me of having a "right wing bias". If i'm being able to irritate both sides, i think i'm doing something right.
→This is a good sign! My comments refer to this page, only.
- And that proposal still didn't make any sense. Again, we're talking about a small story that is more of a curiosity than anything else. And again, the main focus of that story is his son, not himself directly.
→Ok, should we ask for WP:3?
Coltsfan (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC) I'd agree with you, but you are debarking from the false assumption that the article is already 50/50. It's not. The article gives way more attention to his controversies than ot his political career, for instance. And it's not the article's fault if the guy made a political career on top of saying controversial stuff, however that doesn't mean that any sort of controversy must be there, especially if one is not directly related to him, as this one. Coltsfan (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC) →"The article gives way more attention to his controversies than to his political career, for instance." You have a good point here! The problem is that, to a large extent, his political career *is* the controversies he intentionally created. Seriously. He never did anything important as a politician. No major law was passed because of him, he never managed to shape any important public policy. Bolsonaro always was a niche politician and a loner in Congress. He just shouted, people paid attention and, due to a peculiar political context, he eventually got elected president. So, I don't know how to solve this problem regarding the page (and this problem goes way beyond the militia thing). The page *is* indeed very negative. But what there is of "positive" or non-negative about him? Very little, and mostly post-elections. I'm open to help you with a solution, though.
- Yeah, i agree. But as you can see, things are not so black and white. There is a lot of controversy going on, an era of fake news, people using the term "fake news" to dismiss criticism, and lack of objectivity. Wikipedia is not here to change the world, neither is here to be a news agency with "the latest on Bolsonaro and his family". The article must be objective and fair, but not disingenuous to say that it's all 50-50, like you said. However the line between the article being a love letter and a political pamphlet is obscure. That's why i tell you to be cautious. Notice that i'm not reversing everything that you edit. Above all, i'm calling cautious. Think like you writing a biography of someone who is over 100 years old. You can't write everything this person did, good or bad. You have to trim down. But in this case, we're talking about a politician who is barally out of his 60s and we have no foresight to say what will become relevant in his biography or not. That's why when editing articles like this, always think about a major enciclopedia and think "would that be there?". "Is This relevant enough?". Always think twice, or trice, before doing such thing. Coltsfan (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)