Talk:Caesar DePaço

FC Porto

This passage strikes me as classic guilt by association:

"an amateur football club connected to FC Porto supporters and known for their violence in the field and inclusion of hooligans"

It is referenced to this video.[1] The text accompanying the video reads as follows:

"A brutal agressão de Marco “Orelhas” Gonçalves ao árbitro do jogo Sport Rio Tinto-Canelas 2010, no passado domingo, foi “só” o último passo do clube da pequena freguesia de Vila Nova de Gaia rumo à fama internacional, citado em jornais e sites de todo o mundo, de Espanha aos Estados Unidos, passando por Itália e Inglaterra."

That is, one player from the team is alleged to have attacked a referee. But the passage as it stands is clearly meant to suggest that Caesar DePaço, who is not mentioned in the reference as quoted, somehow directed this and other unspecified acts of violence by the football club's fans. Gustav Benedictis (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I can add 1000 sources, from mainstream portuguese media, showing that this football club is known for violence. Please stop "sanitizing" pages to your preference. Kranke133 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1,000 sources would make no difference if none of them mention Caesar DePaço. The article you'd linked, which isn't really even an article but a video, doesn't even mention him. This material then would seem to belong, if at all, on the articles about the football club and those of the particular players who are alleged to have attacked referees etc. I read the editorial policy on biographies and it seems to prohibit exactly what are are doing, namely guilt by association.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since your cursory response did not address the objections put forth, and over two entire months you’ve not bothered to rejoin the discussion, I’m going ahead and re-removing your unjustified additions.Gustav Benedictis (talk)

I am unable to babysit wikipedia constantly, however you have removed sources from both this article and the main article improperly. I will ask for moderation to avoid another edit war. Kranke133 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Kranke133, I double checked the FC Canelas violence source you had been using. It is from April 2017 and predates de Paço’s takeover of the club, which would be why it doesn't mention him.[2] I did find this, though, which quotes de Paço as stating that he wants to change its reputation for violence so I added it.[3] Maybe there is something more recent which specifically says that he has not fulfilled his pledge? If so, that would probably be usable assuming that it’s from a decent source. I admit I don’t follow football too closely so I don’t personally know if anything has changed.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

General bias problems

i see in the discussion above that there was some contention surrounding the material about dePaço's ties to Chega and his removal (resignation?) as Honorary Consul of Cabo Verde. Looking through the sources, it's obvious that this episode deserves to be covered. However, it is currently the main focus of the article, and the language is very obviously stacked against dePaço in violation of the spirit of dispassionate neutral coverage.

I'm going to be thinking about how to fix this without papering over the key points. For now, I have two quick comments about what strike me as among the most obvious lapses:

• It seems strange to use an editorial as a source for potentially controversial facts.[4]

• One of the statements here, "According to "an unknown diplomatic source" this could be considered a case of "influence peddling and corruption," while extremely prejudicial, isn't attributed and isn't accompanied by any evidence to support it.[5] Maybe it's an accurate assessment, maybe not. It seems to me that it should be removed unless there is a stronger basis for it than an anonymous quote.

I'll probable go ahead and remove them, but feedback on the broader point is definitely appreciated. It shouldn't be either an attack piece or a whitewash and we need to find the right balance and tone.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 09:40, 13 September 20a21 (UTC)

According to himself

"According to himself, his childhood was spent in Azores until he was 11, when he accompanied his father immigrating to the United States."

The source referenced here seems to contradict itself, saying that he emigrated to the United States with his father when he was eleven years old but later than this was in 1994:[6] Anyone have more information about this? This article is long on controversy and short on basic biographical details, which are all very murky. In the meantime I've blanked the sentence as the facts seem to be disputed. I did find a source for his birthplace though. It also mentions FC Porto and violence, which should make Kranke133 happy (he is quoted saying that he intends to reform the club).Gustav Benedictis (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rui Barreira

I found several articles which quote de Paço's attorney Rui Barreira discussing his various lawsuits.[7][8] I think these would make interesting additions to the Chega section but I see that people have been blocked for legal threats so I thought I'd ask: Are we allowed to mention these lawsuits in the context of what third-party sources quote Barreira as saying? He is mostly talking about suing various journalists not Wikipedia contributors but he complains about his Wikipedia article too for example claiming that de Paço resigned rather than being dismissed.Gustav Benedictis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)