Talk:List of political parties in Brazil

Deletion

I am following the discussion on this page for a long time, and I don't have any hope that it will become something different then a extension of the political battlefield. The proposed classification is opinative and not factual, and therefore completely out of the WP policies. Unless information stated in this article may be properly sourced, I intend to propose the article for deletion due to the lack of compliance with WP:NOR. M.Campos (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

- Sorry, I see I exagerated in my position above. Instead of proposing the article for deletion, I am chalinging whole information stated in the "Ideology" columns. I understand the unsourced content must be removed.M.Campos (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The parties's ideologies put here are those discussed and included in the articles of the single parties, so I ask you not to do such changes. --Checco (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note the agreement achieved between some contributors and the fact that the same policy breach was spread through other articles does not cancel the need to comply with WP policies. The extension of the talk page already proves the ideology classification is oppinative in its nature. No reliable source is stated to support the information and there are no even clear criteria to classify the parties.

The current state carries a major misconception of the Wikipedia nature. WP is not the place where the truth is to be established. It is the repository of concepts already generally accepted as the current state of knowledge.

The article breaches WP:NOR and WP:V, two out of three WP core content policies (the third is WP:NPOV, but I am not complaining on any particular bias) . If the subject is controversial, WP must limit itself to state the controversy exists. So I think I have very valid point here.

I still think deletion of the ideology classification is the right thing to do (and I feel authorized by WP:V to proceed with it). But as a compromise solution (what is bad but better then edit war I am not willing to enter) I propose the article to include a statement that clearly shows the ideology classification is controversial and most of parties hardly behave coherently in line with their supposed ideological alignment. That would turn the aticle less misleading. Do you think that is a workable way to set the issue?M.Campos (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For me it's OK, but I would like to know the opinion of the Brazilian users who edited the article. Anyway, the intro already states that "The ideologies of the different parties should be taken with a grain of salt, as many of them are in fact loose coalitions of local and individual leaderships". --Checco (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all such claims on ideology should be sourced. Currently, the only two references mentioned in the article are clearly partisan.Giorgioz (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

After taking a look at other "party list" articles, I think a better compromise would be to remove the 'ideology' columns from the table and leave the discussion of such matters to the individual pages on the parties. As far as I know, no other article intended to merely list a country's political parties includes information on ideology.Giorgioz (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact actually the ideology columns in the party list are filled out with what was inserted, decided or discussed in the individual articles on the parties, so I don't see the problem and I would prefer to leave things as they are now. --Checco (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Representation

The "Summary of parliamentary Parties" section is out of date, and by the nature of things this is likely to happen again quite soon even if someone take the trouble to update it. Since it does no more than duplicate information in Federal Senate and Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) I suggest this section is deleted (perhaps with a reference out to these other two pages). Bagunceiro (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New National Renewal Alliance

The party "New National Renewal Alliance" isn´t National Renewal Alliance (this was dissolved in 1979, and is listed on table "Historical"). Party "New National Renewal Alliance" (listed on table "Non-registered"), was founded in 2012, per Movimento de Recriação da Aliança Renovadora Nacional (Recreation Movement of National Renewal Alliance), as a new party, renamed to "new", still awaiting registration. See also Partidos em estabelecimento (Parties in establishing) and Lista de partidos políticos brasileiros extintos (List of extinct Brazilian political parties) PauloMSimoes (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideology column is important, actually

I think that the ideology column in the currently-registered parties is important because it gives a quick snapshot of what each party stands for. This makes it more convenient for laymen when analyzing Brazil's political situation at a glance, even if a bit of accuracy must be traded off in order to achieve this.

If someone knows how to automatically extract a pre-defined segment of one article (the party's page) and transpose it to another (the table of political parties in Brazil) it would streamline the editing process, ensuring accuracy across all documents. CorruptSnowflake (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Party Numbers?

Is there any particular reason that the current revisions removed Party Numbers from the active parties sections? This is vital information.

Tim Wochomurka (talk) Tim Wochomurka (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)