Talk:Tabata Amaral

The current section dealing with the controversy over the employment of Amaral's boyfriend in her congressional campaign is almost entirely based on sources in Portuguese (quite understandably). But some of the translation is just straight Google, and I have tried to improve that. Corrections or better versions welcome. One phrase in Veja is, I think, not very clear in the original: "A equipe da deputada, entretanto, não apresentou os resultados do serviço prestado por Martínez, a quarta pessoa física que mais recebeu dinheiro da campanha da então candidata", which was here as "Martínez, the fourth individual to receive the most money from the campaign" - I have added what I think is meant: "Martínez received the fourth highest amount paid to an individual from the campaign." Davidships (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Later - clear from the TSE ref that the latter is right (tweaked to remove ambiguity "...in her campaign". Davidships (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The translation is not "straight Google" as you claim. I wrote that, and having spent half of my life in the USA, I believe I do speak some English. Your edit just made the article more verbose. But let's talk about how this part is constantly being edited to remove any mention of conflict of interest or public ethics, or how it constantly tries to portray the facts as mere speculation - most recently by using the verb "to claim" in "Veja noted...and claimed that Martínez received the fourth highest amount paid to an individual in her campaign."

to claim: "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." And yes, I got that from Google.

This is a fact, just check the source. Veja didn't claim anything, this information is available on the Electoral Court's website, as per law.

Also, what is the point of stating: "Amaral's lawyers said that the TSE had approved the campaign revenues and expenses." We all know that what she did is (unfortunately) not illegal, but that's not the point is it? This is an obvious red herring. What she did was anti-ethical and raises all kinds of flags concerning public ethics and conflict of interest and this needs to be pointed out if we're to have the full picture, particularly when talking about someone who presents herself as the harbinger of a new era in Brazilian politics.

Why was "Veja and Exame magazines..." changed to only "Veja..."? Is this an attempt to portray the case as mere political persecution by a single media outlet?

I particularly enjoy the addition of "1.8% of the total spent, to pay for these services" as if to show how meager a sum Mr. Martinez received in the great scheme of things. This only goes to show the mental gymnastics behind the editor's thought process. And, let's face it, that was also quite low. 23.000 reais is not a percentage so small it could be a rounding error, no. It is a small fortune for 2 out of 3 Brazilians, a country torn asunder by the misuse of public funds and the toxic political discussion that resulted from it.

The Portuguese (which I also speak) version of the article reads like sheer adulation and it shocked me to see the biased way that the controversy was portrayed. And I'm not alone here, the discussion page is full of remarks about how the article reads like pure self-promotion. One user even said it looks like her curriculum vitae. After suggesting some edits, I quickly learned that the page was brigaded by Ms. Amaral's partisans. I was even banned by an editor who claimed that pointing out her obvious misstep is outright "vandalism". Funny how the same didn't happen with the English and French versions, which are both my edits, too.

I was about to send an e-mail to Wikimedia warning about this blatant abuse of their platform to push watered-down, biased versions of facts but maybe this discussion will bring the issue to light. Dear editors, I've been on this website for 14 years and I've never seen anything like this. I've created an account just to try and set the record straight but the article has now been locked and stripped of several properly sourced arguments. Granted, the Portuguese version was always a step below the others in terms of quality of content, but to see it being used as a political platform is just sad. Jonrosamonte (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, why does this part keep getting deleted? "Nevertheless, this practice has generated numerous criticisms from journalists and citizens[28], who questioned Amaral's commitment towards public integrity and the renewal of Brazilian politics." I'm sorry about using Facebook of all things as a source, but in this case I believe it's quite relevant to see the backlash that the controversy caused in the real world.Jonrosamonte (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with Mr. Davidships's remark. The meaning of the mentioned sentence seems clear: Mr. Martínez was the fourth highest-paid natural person of the campaign, as opposed to legal persons. For instance, Ms. Amaral paid a higher sum to Facebook, namely 43,000 reais. If editors want to add that Mr. Martínez salary represented "1.8% of the total spent", I think it would be important to remind non-Brazilian readers that the minimum wage in Brazil is 1.039 reais. Mr. Martinez received 23,000 reais for less than two-months work. BanTheBomb (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonrosamonte: for the reason why facebook is not acceptend / not a valid source, see here:[1] and [2].--LH7605 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LH7605: Thank for you answer, and I understand, but I also believe the source is still relevant in this case as it meets all the criteria (it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.). The Facebook page in question is Ms. Amaral's own Facebook page. This is the channel she chose to publish her justification and to defend her actions. It's a sad state of affairs when politicians use Facebook to communicate with the civil society, but that's how it is. I'd gladly use any other source (open to suggestions here), but nowhere else are we able to see all the backlash that her attitude brought about, and that recent edits have been trying so hard to hide.Jonrosamonte (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

What other sources do you have on that matter? Could you post them here so we can discuss them? --LH7605 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well that rather clumsily unleashed quite some diatribe. I happily apologise for any aspersions on how fellow editors translate text - it just happened to come out the same. I am afraid, however, that "Martínez, the fourth individual to receive the most money" doesn't make sense in English - only one person received the most money, and it wasn't Martinez - but it is true, and the references confirm it, that he received "the fourth highest amount paid to an individual".

You can see above that I did indeed find the figures in the TSE reference, but forgot to go back and re-edit accordingly. I am not particularly bothered about the 1.8%. For enWiki readers it might be better to have "23,000 reais (US$6,000)".

However I don't understand why there is this determination to include material without it being supported by WP:RS. The assertion that Exame had an article on this subject is without reference (nor is it revealed what facts it reported). Solution: add a reference - including useful factual information - perhaps cite Exame itself. Why not?

I too have opinions about the way politicians use Facebook and other social media, but that it irrelevant to this article (and to this talk page). Again, if this controversy has "generated numerous criticisms from journalists", it would be expected to find that reported by those journalists in reliable news sources. Davidships (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that User:Davidships is exactly right, and indeed the biggest problem with the Controversies section of this article and with most of the discussion above is that Veja is well known to be a hard-right tabloid. This is not my opinion: our own article Veja (magazine) says so right in the lead of the article, with plenty of references! And Exame, the only other source cited here, is published by the same group as Veja. To really write a WP:NPOV article we also need to be aware of the fact that the popular right-wing media bludgeon for the past few years in Brasil has been exactly to plaster anyone who is ascendant on the left with attacks of corruption, from the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff to the jailing of Lula. The reason that this is seriously risky NPOV territory for us is that the political tactic used here is exactly to put allegations like this in outlets that look like really solid WP:RS, like periodicals with colossal circulations. This makes POV-pushing really easy, because the apparent quality of the references looks good to most experienced and sophisticated good faith Wiki editors who just don't know much about Brasil. This is especially bad because discussions/lists like WP:RSP have basically zero coverage of Brasil, so you need a fairly nuanced picture of the Brasilian media landscape to figure out that a magazine like Veja or Exame is much closer to The Sun (UK) than it is to the Wall Street Journal. All of this makes me think that I should try to get an RfC on a source like Folha de S.Paulo so that we can finally have something to fall back on in discussions that involve Brasilian politics that isn't The Intercept or the New York Times World section ... - Astrophobe (talk)

In order to clarify, I just wanted to state that I deleated the phrase / wording "Martínez, the fourth individual to receive the most money" untill commonly agreed solution is found. I saw that someone posted "the fourth highest amount paid to an individual" as a possible option. What are your opinions about using this wording? --LH7605 (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC) N.B. please use :, ::, etc in order to structure your answer --LH7605 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LH7605: Fair enough, both versions make sense. To be frank, the current version reads great without any mention of Mr. Martinez being the 4th highest paid. It's getting distracting at this point. I couldn't make it past Mr. Davidship's claptrap but here are just a couple of English-speaking media outlets using the phrase "received the most money" just for the record: ^[1] and ^[2]. I don't get why this particular phrasing is an issue, but alas, this is an international platform and we have to make openings to all levels of English.

About the FB source, perhaps we can add this one ^[3] since we're talking about both journalists and the civil society. It would serve to reinforce the point made and lend some credibility to it. What do you think? I can't find any good sources in English, I guess the matter is simply not relevant enough. Thanks. Jonrosamonte (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would also be fine with leaving the remark on his ranking on the list of highest paid persons involved in the campaign completly out.

My french is not that great but the lemonde.fr-source seems valid and good to me. any other opinions? --LH7605 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply