Talk:Supporters of ex-President Bolsonaro storm Brazil's Congress, Supreme Court
Add topicSources...
[edit]...checked.--Bddpaux (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4703505 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4703505 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4703505 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Thank you, glad you’re back. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Far-right in terms of NPOV
[edit]Hi all. Right and left make sense to me as neutral factual descriptions, but I've observed that the terms "far" left and "far" right are almost exclusively in persuasive political writing. Nobody describes themselves, or political ideas with which they sympathize, as "far". It's an example of loaded language. It's a term only used by those who dislike the subject. In popular media and colloquial use, the tone and subtext is one of dismissal, a shorthand way of saying "I don't like this person/group, and I think their ideas are outside the realm of acceptable public discourse. The term also doesn't add any new information compared to simply calling the subject "right-wing". If I'm told someone is right-wing, I at least have some general idea of what they might think. But if you tell me they're "far right", that doesn't give me any new information, other than the fact that the author dislikes the subject being described.
Has anyone else made this observation about the use of "far left" and "far right"? Do you think they're compatible with NPOV? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- 'Far-right' is a widely-used, categorical term used by reputable, avowedly- and respectably-unbiased sources in media, academia and government.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] By describing Mr Bolsonaro's government as 'far-right', Wikinews are taking no ideological stance, but rather describing policies pursued by his administration, which have been frequently described as far-right, including by the source cited from Reuters.[8] Moreover, there is precedent for this categorisation on Wikinews viz. Macron defeats Le Pen in French presidential runoff election (26 Apr 2022) "strongest performance ever by the far-right National Rally party"; Clashes in France after anti-condom speech by Pope (23 Mar 2009) "Far-right and far-left activists clashed Sunday, when the far-left were protesting Pope Benedict XVI's opposition to condoms". JJLiu112 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, how is "far" any less "biased" than "-wing"? At that point we'd have to stop describing political positions. As a matter of fact, not reporting on someone's "far-" position would be POV self-censorship. Heavy Water (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't wish to turn this into a protracted argument. But I do feel like it would be much easier to "avoid taking a stance" by simply attributing the "far right" opinion to the reliable sources that have expressed it, rather than stating the opinion as fact in Wikivoice.
- Here's a self-published essay by an academic that is a thoughtful meditation on this problem. Food for thought. And with that, I'll leave it be, since I think this is a way bigger problem in Wikipedia than it is on Wikinews. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. The concept of a "political center" itself is indeed nebulous and without it is hard to graduate the left or the right. It is not difficult to classify Bolsonaro as more "right" than average. At least it is not "extreme right". SVTCobra 02:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, how is "far" any less "biased" than "-wing"? At that point we'd have to stop describing political positions. As a matter of fact, not reporting on someone's "far-" position would be POV self-censorship. Heavy Water (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)