Talk:2015–2016 protests in Brazil

Neutrality concerns

Since a neutrality tag was placed, I started a section for concerns with neutrality in the article. Since information with this article is fairly new, the article may evolve into neutrality over a period of time. Please share any concerns below.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First, ZiaLater this article had to be at WikiNews, as you said this "is fairly new", and we don't even know the future impact, and if this will be a thing, you and others starting this article here is not neutral, as this could be not encyclopaedic, as this is not a thing: Boston Marathon bombings, is historical for no one, this would not resist time, this could be a graceful news at the moment, nothing more than that... Second, advertising text is not even close to be neutral, I fixed, and you and Teles summarily removed my version as nothing... this is Wikipedia not a propaganda to the demonstration; so "On 15 March, millions peacefully protested across Brazil, with hundreds of thousands to over a million demonstrators in São Paulo" should not be even close to Wikipedia, specially because we have data that contest this numbers, and if we take all numbers, around Brazil, this protests is virtually nothing... And this is not peaceful, not even in hell! A lot of hatred was spread on this demonstration, so don't came here using rose-tinted glasses to write this text, a lot of speeches there horrified democratic people.

I will not change, and I will not waste more of my time trying to improve the article, cos Teles keep haunting and hunting me, as he, apparently, have nothing better to do in his life. So is up to you be a Wikipedian and do a reputable job, or keep as it is now. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you for sharing your concerns on the talk page. Second, I only share what the sources say, so when The Wall Street Journal states that the protests were peaceful, then it might have been placed. Of course everything might have not been peaceful since it is a lot of people expressing outrage against an entity, The Wall Street Journal even notes that there were about 20 arrests as well. But for the most part, protests appeared peaceful to the sources and I feel fine with my work as a Wikipedian, and I am pretty sure that demonstrations consisting of millions of people according to multiple reliable sources is notable for its own article.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We ask to readers check their sources, but we would not do?

"million of peaceful people" is not "events with small amount of arrests", or something like that. And, yep, you preferred the bad text, just sad, just sad... Nothing more to addRodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

While this article was created way too quickly, that's not a neutrality issue. I also watched some of the videos in that link and didn't see any violence. What the protestors were saying, though, I have no idea. Either way, I see no serious neutrality issues in the article right now.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the pro-government manifestations?

The article's header states that "In March 2015, a series of protests occurred in Brazil against corruption and denouncing the government of President Dilma Rousseff.". It should be changed in order to also contemplate the many pro-government manifestations that occurred on March 13 in various Brazilian cities, as well as smaller ones that happened on the same day of the protests (March 15), such as the pro-government "Coxinhaço" that took place in Porto Alegre. —capmo (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I took care of some of it. They were not really protests against the government but they were a demonstration showing support.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Protestor #s

Zia, you removed reliably sourced content from Reuters with the rationale that the 1,000,000 number is from one city. That is not true, as the 1st sentence of the article says, "Close to a million demonstrators marched in cities and towns across Brazil on Sunday." Then again it says "Estimates for the size of the crowds differed, but most calculations suggested roughly a million protesters nationwide." The Sao Paulo reference is just an acknowledgement of the state police's individual claim, not an endorsement of it, as is made obvious by the two quotes passages, especially the second one which indicates a consensus.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I wrote "Zia" as "ZIA" in my edit summary. It looks like I'm yelling it, which is unintentional.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 12:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand Mbinebri. In the Reuters article, it states about 1,000,000 but in the other by the polling organization is about São Paul, specifically calculations surrounding certain neighborhoods and such. A more accurate consensus would be the 1,000,000 to 3,000,000.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the polling firm's number—I overlooked that it was for one city. That said, that's your only legit point here. A reliable source puts the consensus at one million, not one to three million. Three million is still just one estimate. I'll leave the infobox stats as you left them, but the rest goes back in because it's still sourced.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The 3 million estimate is from the organizers I believe and the 2 million were police estimates. Grupo Globo is also a reliable source.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Globo didn't publish their own estimate but the ones from police (2.4 million) and the organizer's (3 million). The range should be the more reliable one taken from Reuter and the police and the protest organizer's separate and attributed since organizer's numbers are never considered reliable, but due weight to include. If we can agree on that, someone please make the change since I'm out of here for a while.--TMCk (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the info. However, I don't know what your idea is for the infobox or whether it needs to be changed at all, so I left it alone.

On another point, why are we giving prominent mention to this guy Farid Junior? He seems like a fringe wacko and the Wall Street Journal is the only source I can find that mentions him. He doesn't seem even worth including, let alone being given a paragraph.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I placed it there since I figured there might be more to come from him but I guess we could remove it. If anything more develops like he plans, we could add more.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone can just say they're going to do something, like this guy has. WP:CRYSTAL says to include info only if the event is highly likely to take place.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it a color revolution?

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=color+revolution+in+brazil&oq=color+revolution&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59l2j69i60l3.2870j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.177.198 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)