I would advise you to concentrate, for instance, on Francis' commentary reproduced at footnote 29 to the article (about the "dirty presence" - in Portuguese , presença suja - of Afro-Brazilians) and then to think if being highly critical of such a commentary can be considered as biased Well, if you want to discuss technicalities and nit-picky semantics, yes, it is biased, but this isn't the particular issue I'm addressing.

This article seems to be moved by an active lack of confidence in the reader's own judgment. The sentence is elusively racist and it stands by itself. How was it received overall? Positively? Negatively? Was there, as you said, a character behind it? Was that seen as a sorry excuse by many people? Let the reader know both sides, you won't build his opinion by concealing information - e.g. Francis was indeed slapped by Tonia Carrero's husband, but later apologised. The reader will see this, and decide whether the apology was enough.

The documentary by Hoineff mentioned by you in the link above received a critique in O Globo last Sunday for limiting itself to the usual line of saying how great Francis was and that his "mistakes" (his bigot commentaries) were only "jokes", "playing a character". At least sources more critical of Francis have the merit of taking him seriously" It is on Wikipedia's POV policies that you have to represent the magnitude of each side properly. For instance, you see little merit in not taking him seriously. I too think sarcasm is sometimes an easy scapegoat, but the page isn't about my opinion or yours, it's about him and about the entirety of opinions available on him (e.g. something like "supporters claim he was often misinterpreted through his sarcastic persona, yet critics think said persona is used as an excuse for ignorant statements" could be helpful). People themselves shall judge which position is more valid, no?

Also, the Estadao article serves as an example of a supporter. Yours, of the Globo, remains as the example of a detractor - they both are biased in their own ways, they both represent a significant fraction of popular opinion on him. I am defending that you and others actively  "give each side its due weight", and be confident enough in your own position that you let the overall repercussion of his work speak for itself.

Anyhow, thanks for keeping the Neutrality tag.