Talk:Jair Bolsonaro/Archive 1

Protected edit request on 9 June 2018
Change "Jair hired his wife as a secretary and over the next two years she received unusual promotions and her salary more than tripled." to "Jair hired his wife as a secretary.". Reason: That's not accurate and can't be confirmed. Kevin Eduardo Gonçalves (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the Article
The (Brazilian) Portuguese Wikipedia article on Bolsonaro is much longer than the English one; in many respects, this English article is still a "stub," and more of the Portuguese article should be translated into English (by people who have a strong command of both languages).

Two quick points, regarding the recent edit war:

1. If you feel that the English article is currently "unbalanced," in the sense that the "Controversy" section is relatively long, then please expand and build on the other sections of the article. DO NOT delete parts from the "Controversy" section. This is entirely against Wikipedia policy, and is not allowed; you cannot delete relevant and appropriately sourced parts because you feel like it. If you want more "balance," help us expand the rest of the article.

2. Bolsonaro is objectively an extremely controversial politician; largely for his public, well-documented statements to the media on a wide range of issued. The Portuguese Wikipedia article on him not only has a very long "Controversy" section, but also includes an internal link to a separate stand-alone Wikipedia article entitled "Controvérsias envolvendo Jair Bolsonaro" ("Controversies Involving Jair Bolsonaro"). Any credible entry on Bolsonaro has to include a large section on these controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaubert1965 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased opinion about poor
Bolsonaro defended a voluntary birth control. http://bahia.ba/politica/bolsonaro-defendeu-rigido-controle-de-natalidade-para-pobres/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrovalle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Biased opinion on the article
"Dilma Rousseff, along with other terrorists of the time, would have been tortured (even though her cell mate stated that she never truly was tortured, nor has ever proved through medical examinations)." Implying that she was de facto a terrorist, a terminology commonly used during the dictatorship to misinform the population so that people did not think that the government was limiting the right to exercise political opposition but rather ending with "terrorism" (citation to this are a lot of brazilian history books that I don't remember the name). Also, the "cell mate stated that she never truly was tortured" have no citation, and in my own reseaches I only found that this information is a lie created by non trustable media blogs, actually I found an entire interview with her cellmate stating that they were | tortured. I'm removing this section from the article.

PS, for some reason, compating the link through wikipedia '[ ]' is not working, so here is the interview: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2016/04/01/ela-jamais-entregaria-os-pontos-diz-ex-companheira-de-cela-de-dilma.htm -- 179.212.91.12 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

this article by her cellmate does not say whe was NOT tortured. At least not explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.238.188 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does not deserve vs. Not Worthy
On the notorious case of the discussion with Maria do Rosário. Bolsonaro's exact words in portuguese, widely available on video, were "você não merece", which translate to "you do not deserve", not "you are nor worthy" as reported by the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post article has an incorrect translation, either by incompetence or intenttional bias. Do not repeat that error in this article. Fbergo (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't remove content which is backed by reliable sources. That constitutes vandalism and, if you persist in this behaviour, sanctions (such as blocking) may be applied. Consider yourself warned. Pay attention to the sources. Regardless of your opinion on The Huffington Post, this site widely considered a reliable source in this wiki. Altering the content of the articles contradicting the sources for your own biasis is vandalism. I advise you to stop it.
 * And also, respect the wp:status quo of the article. Coltsfan (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on claiming that the Huffington Post is more reliable than the videos of his actual speech (at 0:12) and later mentioned in session  (at 0:36) and hundreds of articles in the mainstream brazilian media (such as the one that I added as a source and you repeatedly removed) in order to defend the mistranslated quote on the article. Fbergo (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is his speach in english? No. So we are talking about the translation of the word here. You are trying to change "worth" (which is what he was trying to say) for the word "deserve" because you believe this word is more soft (a classic case of 'push pov'). Do not use wikipedia to transmite your political bias, whatever they are. And no WP:POINT either. Coltsfan (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read this article from The Guardian, which I suggest be added as an english-language source alongside the Huffington one: . The whole matter started in a live TV interview in 2003, where his words translate directly to "does not deserve" (and the Guardian uses this as translation in the article body). Many years later, in december 2014, Bolsonaro gave an interview to a print newspaper, Zero Hora (the actual interview is this one, but may be behind a paywall depending on geolocation: ), where he expanded on the previous discussion. The compensation he had to pay is related to this 2014 print interview, not the 2003 one. It would be helpful to expand the paragraph to clarify and contextualize the matter (that spans over a decade). I will no longer edit the article about it, but do consider weighting in different sources. Huffington is knowingly a left-wing outlet, and it is expected to have a bias when reporting on a right-wing politician. Fbergo (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Depending on who you are asking, even The Guardian can be called left wing (or right wing). This doesn't say much. The thing is: you are trying to sugarcoat what he is saying. But fine, you are saying that The Huffington Post is too left wing? Great. How about The Telegraph? How about Time.com? even the freaking Guardian again? Are they all left wing? All of these sources say that Bolsonaro meant to say that that woman was not "worth" being raped. So there you go: multiple WP:RS backing what is said on the article. Coltsfan (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Você não merece" can be either, worthy or deserve, and can be interpreted both ways. Don't try to impose a lighter character to the sentence as this is a obvious case of language manipulation made by him. -- 179.212.91.210 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

he did actually worse because when asked why she did not deserve to be raped, bolsonaro stated "because she is ugly". hence "you are not wothy" is more accurate. https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/coluna-do-estadao/depoimento-de-bolsonaro-no-caso-maria-do-rosario-e-adiado/

Attack during campaign event undue?
I spinned it off to Attempted assassination of Jair Bolsonaro, but was reverted by. In my opinion, the attack is not that significant for his biography. The section about his campaign currently contains only a couple of sentences, and a lengthy paragraph and subsection about the attack seems WP:UNDUE to me. w umbolo  ^^^  13:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You just applied copy and paste to the text from one article to the other. Rewrite Attempted assassination of Jair Bolsonaro with other words and more content and it should be fine. Coltsfan (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If we only include a sentence or two on this article, then my article can be restored (per WP:SPINOFF). w umbolo   ^^^  13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:COPYWITHIN. Might enlighten things a bit. Coltsfan (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did exactly what the guideline said. What's the problem? w umbolo   ^^^  14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You said "In my opinion, the attack is not that significant for his biography". Really? The guy almost died, a candidate for the presidency of a country, and it's not significant? That's just plain wrong. Second, you just copy and paste the content. We'd have two articles with the same text. Better be in one place then. This is not a case of forking. Like i said, if you have wrote the other article with different words, or a different approach, that would be a different thing. Other than that, the attempt on the congressman's life is very relevant to his article here. Coltsfan (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The first edition of the article doesn't have to be more than a stub. --Pudeo (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The attack and its outcome is a current event. Spinning it off into a second article will only make it harder for both versions to agree with each other as new information becomes available. The historical importance of the attack will only be accurately perceived after the election cycle, and it is good practice in editing wikipedia to be cautions and avoid attempting to report events in real time like a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). For now, it seems appropriate to keep everything about the attack within this article. Fbergo (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Bolsonaro and the brazilian military dictatorship
Some editors in this article have been trying to whitewash Bolsonaro's support for the 1964–1985 military dictatorship or downright totally suppress the word "dictatorship". I'd like to address that.

A. "Was the brazilian 1964–85 military dictatorship an actual dictatorship?"
 * Yes. And that is not even up for debate. It is a consensus among historians, scholars and journalists that this period in time was a dictatorship. Basic characteristics of a democracy, such as the right to oppose the government, did not exist. Any political dissident was arrested, tortured or exiled, typical characteristics of a dictatorship. (source, source, source, source).

B. "Why is Bolsonaro's support for that regime so noteworthy and what does this have to do with its brutality?"
 * Simple. Bolsonaro doesn't support the 1964–85 military government despite it's brutality. No. Actually, it's one of the reasons why he supports it. In fact, he has made this one of his signature battle cries over the years. Let me give a few examples.


 * 1) He has voiced his admiration for Colonel Ustra, a notorious torturer and human rights abuser (source, source, source).
 * 2) Bolsonaro once said that the biggest mistake of the brazilian dictatorship was the fact that they "tortured [people] but did not killed [them]". (source)
 * 3) He has mocked the death of political dissidents of that regime and has also openly mocked some efforts to find their remains, claiming that "dogs look for bones" (source, source).
 * 4) A major part of his support comes exactly from the supposed "toughness" of that dictatorship (source, source, source, source, source, source).

So when users like removes the phrase "a dictatorship known for constant human rights violations", he is not only removing information backed by reliable sources, in violation of WP:V, he is trying to sugar coat it. What makes Bolsonaro's support for the 1964–1985 military dictatorship so peculiar, is the fact that he supports a regime that is best known for its brutality and was actually a model for other military regimes in the continent.

So, it's not a matter of "that information lacks RS". It's not a matter of "that content is up for debate". So, if it's not that, it must be something else. So, i'd ask people to stop with the WP:POINT. Bring your own sources, discuss it first, and then talk about removing valid information backed by reliable sources. Actually, as you can see, a lot of what i wrote here is not even on the article! So, who is doing the PUSHPOV here? I was the one who expanded his biography and added other information other than his controversies. But apparently some people are trying to either turn this article into a "Love letter" or into a "diss track". In my opinion, it has to be neither. But the truth must come first (when backed by WP:SOURCES). Coltsfan (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your accusation of "whitewashing" suggests that you have an agenda of mud-slinging. My deletions have been an attempt to retain a neutral point of view, but you are endeavoring to take a side in the "widespread contention" over the man's politics. —Dilidor (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not "mud-slinging". I'm stating the things as i see them. But look, look how this article was just 5 months ago. There were 3 lousy unreferenced paragraphs in the section "Political career". While the "Criticism" section was pretty beefy. I'm trying to help mantain an article that is both accurate and truthful. But i'm not gonna create a false balance, by saying that the guy's accomplishments have the same weight as his controversies, when the sources themselves don't swing that way. An article can be neutral and truthful at the same time, we don't have to sacrifice one to achieve the other.
 * The interpretation should be like this: 'the article says the man defends the 1964–85 military dictatorship. Why is this peculiar enough to be mentioned? Ah it's because of the nature of said dictatorship. Does it have reliable sources to back it up? It does, really, more than one, actually. Good'. Like i said, an article can be neutral and truthful at the same time. But if we have to "hide stuff", twist meanings and "play with words" in order to give an impression of neutrality, that means we're throwing WP:NEUTRAL out the window. If you take the time to read the sources i posted, you will see that not mentioning that fact would be a very neglectable move. Coltsfan (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan: "I'm not mud-slinging. I'm stating the things as i see them." So you say potato…. Stating things as you see them is putting forward an opinion and making a value judgment. Leaving out a value judgment ("the regime was characterized by human rights violations") is not "hiding" anything; it is merely avoiding stating one editor's opinions and value judgments "as I see them". That's why I keep deleting it. —Dilidor (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if that statement wasn't backed by multiple reliable sources or it was disputed by other sources, at the very least. But it's not the case. It's not my opinion, it's not 'anyone's' opinion. It's in the sources in the article and the ones i point it out for you here. If still, after all i said and these 18 different sources posted in the article and here, still you think it's just "the opinion of the editor who wrote it", then the "value judgment" that i don't think i'm doing is actually correct. Coltsfan (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan is clearly on a political activism track here. I'll reply to each point he raised:
 * "Yes. And that is not even up for debate. It is a consensus among historians, scholars and journalists..."
 * Actually, no. There's a strong debate and is about when it was a dictatorship. There's a reason why it's called "Brazilian military regime" and not "Brazilian military dictatorship." Generally, the agreement is that the period from 1964 until 1978 was authoritarian, with increasing and decreasing levels of authoritarianism. Historians make a differentiation between "authoritarian" and "dictatorship." The widespread accepted view is that 1964-1985 is better called "military regime," the 1964-1978 period as "authoritarian" and the 1968-1978 (when the IA-5 was active) as "dictatorship." Once the IA-5 was extinguished in 1978, no one considers Brazil a dictatorship. With the exception of the office of president, still held by a general, everything else went through clean elections (Brizola, who was João Goulart's political heir, even became governor of Rio de Janeiro).
 * "Simple. Bolsonaro doesn't support the 1964–85 military government despite it's brutality. No. Actually, it's one of the reasons why he supports it."
 * Wrong again. Bolsonaro has stated several times that the military regime was a necessary evil, or, the lesser of two evils (that is, either an authoritarian military regime or a communist dictatorship). He even acknowledges that the regime made mistakes and committed tortures (see his interview on GloboNews and for Jornal Nacional, recently).He also stated that present-day Brazil is very different and the military regime that happened in the past occurred due to specific causes related to that period, and is not something he wishes to occur again.
 * "He has voiced his admiration for Colonel Ustra, a notorious torturer and human rights abuser."
 * Ustra has been accused of having people tortured under his command, and despite several legal cases brought against him, he was never declared guilty. Maybe he allowed people to be tortured, I don't know, but Wikipedia cannot call him a torturer. It could, at best, point out accusations against him.
 * "Bolsonaro once said that the biggest mistake of the brazilian dictatorship was the fact that they 'tortured [people] but did not killed [them]'."
 * I believe you're talking about this specific moment. He was being heckled by a crowd and spoke that to annoy them. this interview, under a far different and calmer circumstance, Bolsonaro says "I do not support torturers" and explains his points of views regarding what happened in the military regime.
 * "A major part of his support comes exactly from the supposed "toughness" of that dictatorship."
 * Wrong again. Almost all Brazilians hardly care about the military regime. Bolsonaro's support comes mainly from his strong stance against crime and support for traditional family values. To a lesser stance, his commitment to lower taxes and to allow for lesser government interference in the economy.
 * You clearly have no understanding of what's going on in my country, and is trying to force a nonexistent perspective on real issues. Indeed, we can discuss whether Bolsonaro's views regarding the military regime and tortures as necessary evils, but to claim that he actually supports tortures or that people are willing to vote for him because they like dictatorships is outrageous. --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lecen, i know you probably think i'm dumb foreigner, but i actually know a lot about Brazilian history and i speak portuguese fluently since i grew up in a bilingual household.

So, let's see your points. Here goes nothing:
 * 1) No. It was a dictatorship, and the people who argue against it usually are the revisionists, the same people who say that the Nazy party was left-wing. But this is all not me, Coltsfan, that is saying this, it's the sources. I also recomend that you read the FAQ in the discussion for the portuguese page for the Brazilian Military Dictatorship (that's what is called on pt-Wiki, btw). In Wikipedia's portuguese version, your fellow braziliains have voted to change the name of the article to "Dictadorship", in order to, in their words, "reflect the reality of the events". Ps: and Brizola being elected as Governor as your exemple of political freedoms is misleading, to say the least. Brizola was elected in 1983, when the democratization process was already in full swing. Free election for offices of the executive (like governors) was held for the first time in 1982, just two years before the regime was officially ousted and when the military were already determined to leave power.
 * 2) Bolsonaro has stated several times that the military regime was a necessary evil? You could have fooled me when he stated: "I am in favor of a dictatorship," he bellowed in a speech that rattled a country that only left military rule behind in 1985. "We will never resolve serious national problems with this irresponsible democracy." In 1999, he said, in open session in the House of Representatives that he "favours torture" and called democracy "crap", and that he would close down Congress if he could. A section from his interview with NPR: "Bolsonaro's admiration for the army extends to the country's repressive military dictatorship that ruled from 1964-85. He describes this to NPR as "a very good" period". In a 2017 piece from Reuters it states: "Many others in the Catholic country, however, are outraged by misogynist comments and outspoken support for Brazil’s former military dictatorship, including its use of torture." He once called the 1964 Coup d'état a "democratic intervention". Don't look like someone who thinks that that regime was a necessary evil. He actually feels nostalgic about it. And again, it's not my opinion (read this).
 * 3) Your position on whether Ustra was a torturer or not is amusing. I don't know if you are aware of this, but he actually has talked about and was implicated in cases of torture and imprisonment of dissidents during the military government (more sources:, , , ). One of his colleagues have even confessed to do it. But hey, if he was a torturer, why was he never put in jail? Well, it's because of the 1979 amnesty law. Still, in 2008, a judge even condemned him for the crime of torture and kidnapping (source), but because of the amnesty law he didn't spend a day behind bars. But as you can see, Ustra  involvement with torture is well known.
 * 4) The thing about his opinions on torture is that he mantainted it for a long time. True, he kinda toned down a bit, but that only happened recently, when he was already in campaign mode. But in the year 2000, for instance, he said: "i support torture". Plain and simple. There was no heckling there, no one was cracking jokes. Was just a normal interview.
 * 5) "Almost all Brazilians hardly care about the military regime." Again, you could have fooled me. In a 2017 survey, 47% of brazilians said they would support the return of the military to power. And apparently this growing "nostalgia" for the dictatorship has not come out of the blue. So much for "people not caring". The fact that he is nostalgic and openly supports the dictatorship is not an opinion of mine either. It's well documented (source, source, source, source). And his new stances on taxes, privatizations and less government intervention in the economy is actually rather new. Throughout most of his political career, Bolsonaro supported developmentalists policies and other types of government intervention in the economy (something that the 1964-85 regime often did). Acording to sources (like this one) Bolsonaro was against privatization of state owned companies, the appropriation of natural resources by foreign companies, among other things. Yes, he is changing his opinions now, but only after decades of defending these old policies. In fact, he has voted together with the left-wing Workers' Party on economic issues on several different occasions over the past 20 years or so.

So, before you accused me of dishonesty and "not understanding of what's going on in the country", do your research first. Coltsfan (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018
I am requesting that the section on birth control for the poor be improved or removed. It states that Bolsonaro advocates the forceful sterilization of the poor then gives a quote from him that does not, to me, clearly state or even imply this. Clearly there are articles condemning him for such a stance, I fully accept that he may indeed have, or have had, such a belief, however, his quote ought to show clearly what his stance is, or else remove the quote and show why others believe him to hold these views. Forcible sterilization of the poor is obviously a subject that is important to have included, it is something that he is accused of, I do not wish to remove any mention of the matter. Merely to have the article clearer to readers such as myself who are ignorant of Brazilian politics. Regards Tapirium (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we have at least 3 sources (1, 2, and 3) that say otherwise. This source, for instance, says he tried in his career to put forward three laws that reduce the minimum age for clinic sterilization. WP:V says: "readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." How to be truthful to that if we're gonna ignore the sources in order to "manage the tone" or to get PC? Doesn't make much sense. Coltsfan (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether he holds the position or not, merely, suggesting that the following quote: "It is no good talking about education because most of these people are not prepared to receive education and will not educate themselves. Only birth control can save us from chaos," attributed to him does not really (at least not to me) show that his views are what is stated in the rest of the article. If he holds such views and is outspoken about them then isn't there a Portuguese speaker who could find us a better quote? He seems to have a reputation of being outspoken and opinionated on all sorts of controversial issues, this one in particular has received plenty of attention, so, I presume there are better quotes. Many journalists would have quizzed him on it, let's get a better response from him.Tapirium (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is better sources, someone can put it forward. But since we're not discussing meaning and interpretation but wording, the "sterilization" thing makes sense. At least, this word is backed by sources. And the word doesn't have to be explicitly said. If i say "i'll end his life" and someone transliterates as "i'll kill him", well, different words, same meaning, right? Coltsfan (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, I'm really worried about your misrepresentation of sources and I truly hope that is caused by lack of understanding of Portuguese. One of your sources says "Let's bring back Eugenics and save our race by removing ugly people from circulation. How wonderful." This is not journalistic work, it's a biased and unethical political activism. You have to provide reliable sources, do you understand this basic requirement to edit on Wikipedia? Now, back to Bolsonaro. I'm Brazilian from Ceará (one of the sources, O POVO, is actually owned by my first cousins), and I'll translate each of Bolsonaro's quotes (all sources provide the same quotes, but I'm using Folha de São Paulo, which is regarded as the most reliable among them):
 * 1) "I'm not allowed to say it, that I put forth, but I wish Brazil had a program of family planning. A man and woman with good education will hardly wish to have another son to be dependable on government aid."
 * 2) "Poor people are useful [in the eyes of politicians] for one thing only: to vote. Voting ID in one hand and a degree of ignorance in the pocket, to vote on whichever party is in power."
 * 3) "We must adopt a rigid birth control policy. We can no longer make demagogic speeches, asking for resources and means from the government to aid these miserable people that grow more and more throughout our country."
 * 4) "I'm in favor of death penalty and of rigid birth control, because I see violence [crime] and poverty growing more and more in our country. Who has no means to raise more children than is capable of, shouldn't have them [more children than can afford to raise]. This is what I'm in favor, I'm not worried about having votes for the next election."
 * 5) "It's pointless to talk about education, because the majority of the population is not prepared to be educated [due to the precarious situation of public schooling in Brazil] and wont be educated. Only birth control will save us."
 * 6) "It's about time we discuss a policy to contain the demographic explosion, otherwise we'll be wasting time voting government aid only." [he mentions government aid programs for the poor, such as "bolsa-família" and "vale-gás", which has no good translation without sounding awkward]
 * 7) "We have to provide the means for those who, unfortunately, lacks education and has no way of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Because we [people with better education and higher income] can, while the poor cannot."
 * Nowhere, Bolsonaro suggests any idea regarding "forced sterilization of the poor." It was an unethical title placed in the newspapers articles and it's even worse to see Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, to push forward. Even less a few editors who seem to be carried away by their own personal political opinions. What Bolsonaro seems to indicate from his words (nowhere he says exactly what he has in mind) is that the government should facilitate means for the poor in Brazil to have access to birth control measures, such as educational campaigns, birth control pills, government funded tubal ligation and/or vasectomy. --Lecen (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Would "extreme birth control measures" be a better wording then, in your opinion? – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FenixFeather, I believe that "extreme" would be stating an opinion on the matter. I, for example, see nothing wrong or "extreme" in having the government provide educational campaigns, birth control pills, condoms, or to finance medical procedures for free. This, however, is my opinion. Honestly? The entire section should be removed. I've been following the presidential campaign and I saw no one, neither the opposing candidates or anyone with credentials in the press, to have raised issues with Bolsonaro's opinions on birth control, which were clearly done years ago and he himself hasn't raised them again. What I've been seeing in the campaign, which could be regarded as controversial, are his ideas about firearm ownership and his views on the Brazilian military regime. Birth control? Nothing. This Wikipedia article is very biased against Bolsonaro. The man has discernible flaws, but it's not our purpose to deceive our readership. --Lecen (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be an opinion, because Bolsonaro says "rigid birth control", in his own words. At least in your translation above. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

, my portuguese is in on an acceptable level. But read this source. Bolsonaro states: "There is no use in talking about education, because the majority of the people is not prepared to get educated and they won't go for it. Only birth control can save us from chaos." (i confirmed this with google translator, which seems pretty accurate) That don't seem to feat in your argument of "he just wants educational campaign". He is talking about imposing birth control. Maybe we should find a better word for "sterilization", but to claim the word that the journalists used was 'completely wrong', well, i'd say no. They might have fancied it up, but they didn't put words in his mouth. And again, the source says that he tried, during his career, to put forward three laws that reduce the minimum age for sterilization. Don't seem like the wording is totaly out of left field. He clearly meant "forced birth control" here. It's obvious. What we can discuss is maybe the word "sterilization" might be inappropriate, andwe can choose another word, but still, the core meaning would be same. Coltsfan (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But just to make my opinion clear. I don't object removing the section entirely if there is no middle ground to be found (as long as it respect the sources). Coltsfan (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, you still haven't answered why you've been misrepresenting sources. He doesn't support "forced sterilization" and didn't imply it. Your "google translation" is wrong. As I said in a previous message, which you seem to have ignored, Bolsonaro meant: "It's pointless to talk about education, because the majority of the population is not prepared to be educated [due to the precarious situation of public schooling in Brazil] and wont be educated. Only birth control will save us." When you're translating something, you need to take in account the meaning and the best way to represent it in another language. I work with 18th-19th century Brazilian texts, which I need to carefully translate to English. When I see you making wrong translations, I start to be worried. Are you doing it for lack of understanding of my native language (Portuguese, language spoken by Brazilians)? --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question is the level of the portuguese spoken here, but simple interpretation of the text. This interpretation you have is valid, you are entitled to it. But, the tittle of the source article is: "Bolsonaro defends the sterilization of the poor as a way to tackle misery and crime". I'm not making assumptions, i'm reading what the source states. If you think the source is wrong, if you think the journalist was malicious while writing his piece, you can use WP:RSN to question the reliability of the source itself. Other than that, the source says "sterilization", then the word sterilization is being used as such in the article, in respects to WP:V. Who ever added that section (wasn't me), didn't made that up. They respected the source material. As everybody should. Coltsfan (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen sources often deemed reliable call Trump a fascist and Barack Obama a socialist, and nonetheless it would be wrong to state either opinion as fact in an encyclopedic article. Unless you can find a source in which Bolsonaro clearly sais that he believes that poor people should be forced to be sterilized, this section has to be removed. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a reliable source that calls Obama a socialist? I don't think the whole section needs to be removed, but the wording could be adjusted if it's not accurate. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * *Agree with Lecen. He has explained his position clearly and the logic of what he said - no matter how emotional or concerned an editor may be regarding Bolsonaro's politics - makes complete sense. The 'sterilisation of the poor' section is perhaps leaning towards a very good example of Fake news. I for one think the section needs deletion. Bolsonaro's opinions on 'rigid birth control' can be mentioned in another section. Reaper7 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So why the birth control section is still there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.223.131 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Brad  v  06:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's really a shame that the article includes an outright lie even though it gives a link with the Portuguese original wording. How disgusting to not correct this falsehood and mislead those who cannot read the original language. Coltsfan, you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia. You give the Wikipedia a bad name. That's the way dictatorships work - censorship instead of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.223.99 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite. What's wrong with the quote? The source says   which by all accounts translates directly to what we have in the article.  Brad  v  03:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Logo of Jair Bolsonaro's presidential campaign.png

Name of the subsection on his homophobia
I believe it is very misleading to name this section 'Accusations of homophobia' as it gives the reader the wrong impression there is ambiguity around whether Bolsonaro is homophobic, or that it is based on vague remarks, as opposed to contents of the section which explicitly quote him saying he would assault gay people, encouraging parents of gay children to beat them, and wishing that his children would die if they were gay. It is extremely wrong to use the word 'accusations' to describe these quotes, and due to the notable severity of these statements I believe the section should be titled 'Violent homophobia'. I can see editors might view this as against WP:NPOV, and although I disagree as it is only intended to describe the topic of the subsection, I would prefer this specific naming being disregarded and just going with 'Homophobia', than continue with the current name. Doeze (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are asking editors to describe the subject as homophobic in Wikipedia's voice. This is an extraordinary claim to make in a biography of a living person, and would require consensus among a significant number of reliable sources. Are those sources available? Brad  v  20:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is a significant change to be made, but I do think there is indeed strong consensus across the numerous articles cited, shown from the leading sentence's source of The Advocate, a very reliable source, followed with six different sources describing numerous comments about gay people, across which Bolsonaro says such things as 'we Brazilians do not like homosexuals', to 'If your child starts to become like that, a little gay, you take a whip and you change their behavior' even to Bolsonaro stating about his views on gay people that 'if that makes me prejudiced, then I'm prejudiced and very proud of it'. I believe it can be said without a doubt these comments are homophobic, this a not a point of view, it does not affect the article's neutrality, Bolsonaro has said in his own words that he is prejudiced against gay people and this is the definition of homophobia. Wikipedia should simply use the accurate vocabulary to describe the statements reliably recorded across many sources. Doeze (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Though Bolsonaro was condemned in a court of law for hate speech once, he was never charged with homophobia. Throwing accusations of someone being a "homophobic", "racist", "sexist", or whatever, is a very dangerous thing, particularly when talking about a living person. People call him a homophobe, sure, but he and his supporters deny it, so what should we do? Are we supposed to take sides? No. So, the section is not at all misleading, as, afterall, he has only been accused of homophobia, but such accusations were never held in a court of law. Nor the sources are unanimous regarding this. We can't take sides, per WP:NEUTRAL, neither with information nor tone of the language used here. Coltsfan (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not just rename the section to "Views on homosexuality"? It seems like the section covers his views more than just focusing on accusations. It would be a more accurate title as well as match the subsection above. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is an excellent suggestion. I also think we should merge the "Political views" section with the "Controversy" section, as presently the latter does a better job at covering his political views anyway. Brad  v  21:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
Replace the current main image (because its license is disputed) with File:Jair_Bolsonaro_(cropped).jpg 2402:8100:397F:304:75A8:A599:3855:282C (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The image used is from 11 February 2014 and has the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil License. This license is correct for photographs produced by Agência Brasil, a public Brazilian news agency. This license is not valid for content that was produced (i.e. date taken) by Agência Brasil after 23 February 2017. See this discussion.

If someone else would like to change the current image with the one you requested they can but it would be a moot point considering both of them are published by Agência Brasil. Its just one has the warning about post 2017 images and one doesn't (which it should).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  18:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Jair Bolsonaro has explicitly declared to be Roman Catholic today, and also pointed that his wife is Baptist. See this video at 1:28. Please, someone add this to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Place of Birth
The article currently claims that Bolsonaro was born in Glicério, based on an article published by brazilian newspaper "O Estado de S. Paulo" in April 2017

Jair Bolsonaro claims to have been born in Campinas on his campaign website (, under "Biografia", in Portuguese; This is a primary source, WP:PRIMARY).

A recent article on the Época weekly magazine about his early years in the city of Eldorado, São Paulo (, August 2018, in Portuguese) claims that he was born in Campinas. It claims that his father Percy moved from Glicério to Eldorado, that Jair was born in Campinas but grew in Eldorado until he was 18, when he moved to Campinas to attend to Escola Preparatória de Cadetes do Exército, a military school.

Any objection to changing the article to reflect Campinas as his birthplace, which appears to be the correct information ? Fbergo (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, he was born in Glicério but his parents registered him in Campinas (source). There are plenty of sources for each. I'd suggest leave it as it is, until we have something more concrete. Coltsfan (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In his official election propaganda, at 2:39, it says "Born in Glicério - Registered in Campinas" (source). BDMKK (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Use secondary sources, not primary ones. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 04:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Views on the environment and climate change
I think the article needs a new section to cover Bolsonaro's views on the environment, particularly his likely policies on removing protections to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, denial of climate change science, and his threat/intention to pull Brazil out of the Paris climate agreement. This Economist article, this Guardian article and this Business Insider article all cover this topic, though there are likely to be better/more sources in Portuguese. Jamoboggins (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There are articles like this in portuguese, but environmental issues are not a major concern in his campaign. In that article he claims he would consider pulling out of the Paris Agreement because it requires Brazil to severly restrict economic activity in the Amazon rainforest, and that would be a violation of brazilian sovereignity over its territory. He also mentions pulling off the Paris Agreement "if Trump does". These declarations may be just empty words trying to approximate himself to the Trump government and his election phenomenom. His official government plan, available from his official campaign website, does not have a single word about environmental issues. There is no actual promise on this, and adding it to the article before he takes office would be speculation. Fbergo (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Heavily biased article
I couldn’t read 1/4 of the article out of sheer embarrassment. It’s clearly written by someone who dislikes Bolsonaro and misrepresents information. --Lecen (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you be specific? This isn't worth for anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.183.36.250 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ”when he advocated the forcible sterilization of poor people”. NOWHERE, in the article, with the exception of the title, is there any quote from Bolsonaro in which he proposes that. --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This paragraph cites another article that describes this quote. Is it accurate? Jarble (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bolsonaro is famous for his "tough speech". He is a politician that uses controversy in order to get media attention (this is well documented by reliable sources inside the article). So what should we do? Pretend he is not controversial in order to give an impression of "fairness"? No. We that would be dishonest. Plus, all the information present in the article are backed by reliable sources. As for the "sterilization of the poor", the problem is not in the lack of sources. But the new tittle of the section should elucidate things better now. Coltsfan (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Modern far right figures are spawning legions of cult members who refuse to acknowledge anything that reflects poorly on their savior unfortunately.2601:140:8980:106F:DC7C:DB04:2C5D:652C (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Economics advisor investigation- how is this not relevant?
My edit adding information about Bolsonaro's main economic advisor being investigated seems to me entirely relevant to this article. Why it was removed I really can't understand- can you please explain yourself, Coltsfan? Thanks in advance. Tomabird (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. BDMKK (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018
Add Category:Jair Bolsonaro Uriahheep228 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jair Bolsonaro in 2015.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jair Bolsonaro and son Eduardo Bolsonaro.jpg

German great-grandfather
I removed the part about his great-grandfather being a veteran in World War II. His great-grandfather, Carl “Carlos” Hintze, was born in Hamburg in 1876 and immigrated to Brazil as early as 1883, five decades before World War II. He was over 60 years old during World War II. His genealogy can be checked here. Xuxo (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Terribly biased article
It is terrible that Wikipedia allow biased articles like this. I was a big fan until now. 192.107.156.198 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I ✅, it's a heavily biased article that misrepresents information, however could you please be more specific and point out which section of the article needs to be rewritten? BDMKK (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the informations in this article are backed by reliable sources. In fact, most of the data here (particularly the controversial ones) are backed by multiple sources. All articles in Wikipedia should be neutral. However, that doesn't mean there should be a false equivalence and make the article 50-50. Thats not what neutrality means. Bolsonaro is a politician that throughout most of his career has made headlines due to his controversial speeches. Should the article then be split in half praise and half criticism? NO! Again, thats not what neutrality means. The article should reflect reality and reality is, according to the sources, that Bolsonaros list of controversies far exceed his accomplishments. So, in short, all informations in this article are backed by RS and there is no undue weight. There is only facts that are backed by multiple reliable and independent sources. Coltsfan (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become largely unreliable when it comes to any moderately political topic. The editors tend to spin anyone or any idea that challenges left-wing ideology in a negative light. And the editors use mainstream news sources, which are largely biased toward left-leaning views, as justification for doing so. People should not use Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge.

What makes him far right exactly?
BBC and Guardian think he is - I am just confused to his actual far right agenda which I can't seem to find anywhere. I am not sure being against racial quotas and same sex marriage makes one far right - and yet the article indicates these are representative of his far right attributes. Reaper7 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In agreement, I have speedily changed that part to "right-wing populist" until further notice. This is a high-profile politician in the news, so we need to get it right. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 20:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources, not our personal judgement of what is "far-right" to decide who is far right. Since your change was not predicated on policy, but instead on your personal opinion of this guy, I'm reverting your change. Also, don't put WP:NPOV tags for no reason please. If you have a concrete explanation of what material is missing, that's backed up with sources, present them on the talk page, and then add the tag. Don't add the tag just because you don't like the article. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am not sure being against racial quotas and same sex marriage makes one far right" -- Being against gay marriage is a conservative positions--as is opposing racial quotas, in many contexts, for that matter. Additionally, many of the statements he has made on gay rights have been extremely incendiary, so that could account for him being on the far end of the spectrum rather than moderate right.
 * Editing "strikes me as" to "makes one" doesn't change what you're doing. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so it isn't for us to decide what constitutes far right in Brazil. And let me ask you what you try to accomplish by making Wikipedia a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Do you think labeling him as right rather than far-right will make him more palatable to the "leftists" you hate so much? I doubt it. Equivocating on the label because a few editors think he's not extreme enough to be far-right will only make Wikipedia viewed as less reliable a source. So I ask you to reconsider what you're trying to do when you push your anti-leftist agenda on Wikipedia. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There's already a discussion of this here, so let's discuss this instead of edit warring. It doesn't matter what Bolsonaro thinks of himself. Elon Musk said he's a "business magnet" and that doesn't make him a magnet no matter what he says. Likewise, reliable sources call Bolsonaro far-right, and him denying it doesn't make him any less so. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , The point is not what he thinks of himself or not, really. The sources that claim he is "far right" are journalistic ones, hence, ipso facto, we have the "described by the media as" [far-right]. Nobody is denying he is far right. HE IS. We are just telling where this information comes from. Coltsfan (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is unnecessary per Wikipedia policy. Otherwise we would have to say that for everything that we cite news articles for. The preponderance of sources acknowledge that Bolsonaro is far right, and therefore it would be undue to equivocate just because he denies it personally. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 17:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , again, you do not get the point. Bolsonaro is described as "far right". Ok, by whom? or who?. The media. The information becomes a bit empty without it, especially when talking political affiliation of living people. Coltsfan (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do get the point. Let's continue with the Elon Musk example and take a look at the opening sentences. By your logic, this is how the Elon Musk article should begin:


 * Elon Reeve Musk (born June 28, 1971) is described by the media as a business magnate and investor.   SpaceX describes Musk as holding  South African, Canadian, and U.S. citizenship an is the founder, CEO, and lead designer of SpaceX; co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc., according to Tesla Inc.,; co-founder and CEO of Neuralink; and co-founder of PayPal, according to the respective websites of those companies.


 * Do you see how it's undue to say "described by the media as"? He is far right according to reliable sources. That's implicit with the citations in that sentence and throughout. Stating it again is redundant and casts unnecessary doubt on the claim. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry dude, but you STILL not getting the point. The point is not how he sees himself (though that is important). It's important to establish that where this information comes from. Again, we are talking about a WP:BLP. As of now, we should then apply the Template:Who, because we must be as thorough and honest with the reader as possible. Coltsfan (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between Bolsonaro and Musk then? Why does Bolsonaro need to have "described by the media" for being far-right, but Elon Musk is just a business magnate? Arguably, Elon Musk being a "business magnate" is more contentious than Bolsonaro being far-right. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 20:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's apples and oranges, but i'll play along. Nobody questions Musk and what he is. Political views is a different thing. It's subjective. Although most people consider Bolsonaro as a "far-right", there are those who don't. And i believe, in order to maintain a level of honesty about where this information comes from. Coltsfan (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Business magnate" is far more subjective than a very broad political term like "far-right". Business magnate is an extremely positive term and implies Musk is good at his job, which he may not be given the recent SEC lawsuit. The point is, it's silly to unnecessarily use hedging language like that for clear-cut cases. For a more apples to apples comparison, consider Richard B. Spencer, whose initial Wikipedia sentence is "Richard Spencer is an American white supremacist". Spencer has denied being a white supremacist, yet that article doesn't feel the need to hedge. We don't need to hedge on something less controversial. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask one more time: what exactly makes Bolsonaro fall into the category of "far right"? --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources, overwhelming. Coltsfan (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean what are his policies that would define him as far right? Saying “sources, overwhelmingly” is not an answer. It’s very hard to even get near this page, because the editors seem to be the most incompetent people around. Does anyone here actually has any real world experience on writing, doing research, etc? --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bolsonaro's policies are based on nationalism, authoritarianism, sympathy to the mid-20th century dictatorship, and an appeal to "traditional values." He's textbook far-right. Skaalgard (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , i must remind you of WP:PERSONAL ("comments must be about the content, not on the contributor(s)"), so calling other editors as "incompetent" does not help your point. As for the arguments, "the sources says it, overwhelmingly" is more than enough. Any one who knows how wikipedia works will tell you as much. My opinion, or your opinion, don't matter. All that matters is what the sources say. I recomend you take a good look at WP:V: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." Coltsfan (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing politics. It doesn't matter what you think of Bolsonaro's policies, only what sources describe him as. It's not our job to be political scientists and analyze his policies. Wikipedia is also not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you think people are incorrect to describe him as far right, you may campaign elsewhere to reduce the labeling of him as such. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given Lecen's vast contributions to WP, I believe he is familiar with WP:RS. Even if one disagrees that Bolsonaro is far-right, reliable mainstream sources generally describe him as such. Articles are based on reliable sources, thus the far-right designation for the congressman. But WP is a collaborative project, obviously, so instead of complaining about the article you are free to edit, go ahead and find an RS that gives him a different description, make the changes, the works. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

His religion
Could someone please add that he is an evangelical christian.

Thankyou. 49.180.140.103 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Bolsonaro has been reported to be catholic by several previous sources, such as and . Many of his political allies in the chamber of deputies are evangelical christians, but that does not make him one. Fbergo (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Religious views in header
The header with all the info like his demographics should include his religious views. Would be very interesting fro or readers to know this where this right wjng populist with 18% support of women derived his divine inspiration. Is he Christian,Muslim, atheist? Not entirely sure nor am I advanced user to make the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satendresse (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Bolsonaro is openly Catholic . And you're wrong, he has an average support of 31% from women . BDMKK (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Biased article failed to prevent Bolsonaros victory
This article is one of the worst examples on wikipedia of POV pushing, and flat out smears. Not just of Mr. Bolsonaro, but also Brazil. (For example, by calling Mr. Ustra a 'torturer' despite the fact that no court has ever found him guilty.)

Well, your pov-pushing, well poisoning and relying on biased "reliable sources" didn't work. Brazilians see right through media smears, and with days left in the election, Mr. Bolsonaros lead in the polls are between 15 and 20%. He's virtually guaranteed to be the next president of Brazil.
 * It doesn't matter if he was elected president--Trump was also elected president. So was Hitler. The fact that someone is elected president doesn't mean they are right. Truth and morality aren't subject to a majority vote.
 * You say this article is "biased," but you cite no evidence. You are relying on feelings, not facts.
 * But so what if he was elected? That doesn't have any impact on the validity of the statements in the article. The article isn't even meant to sway the election. It's meant to inform people. You seem to have a misconception about the purpose of Wikipedia. And you also might be a bigot who is biased against conservatives and Brazilians. After all, you assume that all the true statements this Wikipedia article includes are negative and might sway people against Bolsonaro. It's just as possible that after reading about Bolsonaro, the Brazilian people could have decided he was the right choice. Why are you so sure that people knowing true facts about Bolsonaro--and make no mistake, this article includes the truth, as do most Wikipedia articles, and you haven't made any argument that it doesn't--would hurt him?

The question now is: Should this article be deleted and replaced with one thats more fair?
 * That's not a question for two reasons. 1.) No one has pointed to any evidence that this article is unfair. If anything, anti-Bolsonaro extremists are just reading this article and claiming that it's negative because they perceive the truth about Bolsonaro to be negative. 2.) The content of Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on electoral results. They should be based on the standards of truth and objectivity. The truth and the objective reality of Bolsonaro's life history and political positions didn't change on the basis of a vote.

Or should we let it stand like a monument to the fact that in the end, democracy and truth will prevail, like Mr. Bolsonaro did.

And all the pov-pushing and impotent rage that this article is full of, won't defeat truth and an informed electorate. 192.38.140.140 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a specific suggestion on changing the article, make a suggestion. Otherwise you're wasting your time. Closeclouds (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia is mostly edited by left-wing political activists who think it's their duty to spark a revolution.

Author
Hello I am unregistered so I cannot do it but please add the book he wrote, "Mito ou Verdade", to the article143.107.88.27 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction his son Flávio wrote it, it just has his name on the cover143.107.88.27 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sterilisation of the poor
To me the quote attributed to Bolsonaro sounds more like he is advocating people use condoms and the like rather than the poor being sterilised against their will. The quote is in English, fortunately, as I cannot read Portuguese, so I may be missing an implication or something in what he actually said. Anyway, is he actually saying something a bit dubious here or is it quite innocent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapirium (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He means birth control not in terms of condoms, but in terms of governmental birth control (think China's one child law). According to the article, currently Brazil bans any form of governmental birth control. Basically, he wants to stop the poor from reproducing via induced sterilization. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tapirium. He does not appear to be stating he wishes to sterilise the poor. Reaper7 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

China hasn't had a policy of sterilization though, as far as I know, advocating contraception or family planning does not mean sterilization, which is an extreme thing, especially if you have no choice in the matter.Tapirium (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article specifically says induced sterilization. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In the section: Birth control of the poor, it states that, 'Bolsonaro provoked considerable controversy for public remarks made in July 2008, when he advocated the forcible sterilization of poor people'. I suppose this qualifies as induced, forcible is a somewhat stronger term though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapirium (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in the articles at all to suggest that Bolsonaro is either for forced or induced sterilisation. By this I mean that it is the journalist and not Bolsonaro himself who points out that there might be an induced sterilisation agenda, but nothing in the words of the man himself. It is a serious accusation that could amount to difamation. I have edited the article until we reach further agreement. I understand written Portuguese fairly well so I can tell the difference between what journalists say and the actual quotations by the President-elect. Right, his words still don't sound "progressive," but the term "sterilisation" can't be found in his discourse. In the articles he refers to "family planning" without further clarification: Folha de Sao Paulo: "No último dia 23, ele afirmou na marcha dos prefeitos a Brasília que estuda colocar no seu plano uma proposta de planejamento familiar, mas nao a detalhou". English: "In the last 23rd (May) he affirmed in the parade of two prefects to Brasilia that he is considering to add to his program a family planning proposal, but he did not give any details (lit. "he did not detail it").

O Povo: "No último dia 23, ele afirmou na marcha dos prefeitos a Brasília que estuda colocar no seu plano uma proposta de planejamento familiar, mas nao a detalhou". English: "In the last 23rd (May) he affirmed in the parade of two prefects to Brasilia that he is considering to add to his program a family planning proposal, but he did not give any details" (lit. "he did not detail it"). Despite constituting a serious accusation, it is also an argumentum ad ignorantiam: "it must be induced sterilisation because he wouldn't say". Frasznik (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Arrest
The lead section says that Bolsonaro was jailed in 1986 for his interview to the Verja magazine. The "Military career" section, however, does not mention that; just that he made the interview and received praise. It says "Despite being reprimanded by his superiors", but being arrested sounds a bit more than a mere reprimand. If the lead is correct then the section should be expanded with that info. However, as the sources are in portuguese (he was not an international figure by then, after all), I can't do that myself. If some other user here is fluent in both languages, please check that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Source says he got 15 days of “military disciplinary detention”, which is the deprivation of freedom for the the military man who commits disciplinary transgression. BDMKK (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

German ancestry
I can't find this anymore. Who erased it?

According to Bolsonaro himself, his great-grandfather was German and was a soldier of Adolf Hitler: "He had no choice: either he was a soldier, or he would be killed", he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.244.133 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that was removed as it was unsourced (and factually inaccurate), per the thread above.  Brad  v  20:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Iran
It says in the article that "Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo has indicated that Brazil should sever ties with Iran and Nicolás Maduro's government in Venezuela and relocate Brazil's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem" but according to the cited article, he has indicated that brazil should distance itself from Iran -- a minor but important error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.148.70 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Coalition name
{{tq2|

2018 presidential campaign
On 22 July 2018, Bolsonaro was officially nominated by the Social Liberal Party (PSL) as its presidential candidate for the 2018 election. Bolsonaro was also endorsed by the Brazilian Labour Renewal Party. His coalition name was "God above all" (Deus acima de todos).}}

Bolsonaro's coalition name was actually "Brasil acima de tudo. Deus acima de todos." (source) which by all accounts translates to something like "Brazil above everything. God above all". However it can also be translated as "Brazil before everything. God above all.", "Brazil above everything. God above everyone." or even "Brazil above all. God above everything else."

Is there anyone who has fluency in both Portuguese and English that could help with a proper translation? BDMKK (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It means "Brazil above everything. God above all/everyone". Xuxo (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Portuguese is my native language. "Todos" can be translated as both "all" and "everyone", but the second one is less ambiguous as "todos" refers specifically to people, not things. The Economist article here correctly translated it as "Brazil above everything, God above everyone". You can add that to the article and mention the Economist article as source/reference. Fbergo (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Dictatorship
Given that he has repeatedly eulogized the dictatorship era and specific individuals involved, including those convicted of crimes such as murder and torture, and vomited up his desire to return to both those times and those illegal methods, it is very relevant and in the public good to mention as many details as possible about the dictatorship (and link to them) on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffblndng (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is a POV biased mess
I’m astonished by how some editors have placed themselves as owners of this article and have turned it into a page of misinformation. There is an entire section called “political views” that says absolutely nothing about Bolsonaro’s political views, and is no more than a compilation of biased and erroneous information about him, with the obvious purpose of making him look bad. The problem is that for the average reader, it doesn’t explain at all how he was able to become popular enough to win the presidential election. Most quotes are taken out of context or badly translated (I pointed out above and despite support to my arguments, ONE editor has prevented anyone from improving the aticle).

I’ll provide a sample of what’s wrong with this article: the famous (or infamous) Bolsonaro x Maria do Rosário debacle it’s not explained well at all here, and Bolsonaro’s angry words to Rosario have no context. On 2002, Maria do Rosário was and is well-known to claim to be an advocate of children and teenagers’ rights. She caught, along with the police, her brother-in-law with two children, with whom he intended to have sexual relations. She quickly put the whole affair under the rug. At the same time, Bolsonaro and she struggled in one of the chamber of deputies’ (the Brazilian Congress) commissions, because Bolsonaro was in favor of lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16, and Rosario opposed it. To make things worse, a 16 years old girl called Liana Friedbach was kidnapped, tortured and raped for four days, until being brutally murdered by a gang of teenagers. This was one of those crimes that shake the entire country. Thus, Bolsonaro argued with Rosario, pointing out her apparent hypocrisy of claiming to support children, but protecting her child molester brother-in-Law and Liana’s rapists. This was the moment in which Rosario called Bolsonaro a rapist, which outraged him and made him utter: “You call me a rapist?! I’d never rape you, because you don’t deserve it!” Notice that Bolsonaro didn’t say she deserved to be raped, but that she did NOT deserve to be raped (also, notice that he said “not deserve”, and not “unworthy” as some American newspapers have wrongly said). They stated yelling at each other and they were separated by the security. Bolsonaro has apologized several times for what he had said, although Rosario never apologized for calling him a rapist. Is any of this on this Wikipedia article? No. --Lecen (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is your second section that you open to complain about a supposed bias. Why can't you keep it in one place? At any rate, you talked a lot, but end up falling flat. I said this many times. Bolsonaro is a politician that made a lot of controversial speeches. He does it because he might believe in it or he wanted to get media attention, it's depends on how you look at it. You call this a "page of misinformation". All information here are backed by reliable sources. The political views section is based entirely on reliable sources. And the funny thing is, most of what's there, is actually direct quotes from him. When he said "If your child starts to become like that, a little gay, you take a whip and you change their behavior", it's the press spinning the story, is words that came straight from his mouth. We don't judge what he says or why he said it, we just 'reported it'. The other aspects of his life, until the election, were pretty uneventful. He hasn't approved many laws as a lawmaker and most of the time he was giving "incendiary" interviews.
 * But, as for the case of the "Bolsonaro x Maria do Rosário" debate, Bolsonaro said for all to hear in a interview that Rosario was "not worth raping, she is very ugly". How exactly is this bad translation? Anyway, regardless of what she said, if a guy who is now president elect of a nation has once threatened to rape someone, should we not cover that? So, take off your own bias goggles and realise that you are the one with a bias opinion on what it's on the article. There is a thing called "due weight". We cannot create a false equivalence by saying that the extent of his controversies are the same as his achievements because. That would be incredibly naive and indeed bias. Coltsfan (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ”A guy who is now president elect of a nation has once threatened to rape someone...” What is wrong with you? He never threatened to rape anyone. How can you misinterpret facts so easily? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, when someone says something like "i won't rape you because you are ugly", implies said person could do it, if said standard was met. At any rate, it's an interpretation. And that interpretation is not in the article. The article don't interpret what he says, it just reports it. That's the essence of neutral point of view. See? You are trying to see "bias" at everything. Coltsfan (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * His comments are in the article because news media have paid considerable attention to them, which is required by editorial policy. It could be that Bolsonaro is a fine person and the press have maligned him, but it is not something that we can correct here.
 * TFD (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, published sources, and there is a strong bias against Bolsonaro in the mainstream media. Right-wing media in Brazil is nearly non-existent, mostly small online-only websites that cannot be considered reliable by wikipedia standards; and foreign right-wing media lacks in-depth coverage and knowledge of minor brazilian politicians. Bolsonaro was brought to political notoriety for those weird and polemic episodes, around 2011. I agree with TFD above, there is little we can/should do for now. We can hope that the media will have a broader approach after he is sworn into office. Regarding the tone of this section, I would like to remind all editors that wikipedia discussions should not contain personal attacks towards editors. Argue about the content, not the contributor. Fbergo (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Homophobia
"Bolsonaro often rejects accusations made against him of misogyny and homophobia, and claims he is not a "far-right" politician, but simply a right-wing one." Is this statement valid? I can't read the source, but everything else in the article hints at him being proudly anti-gay. He has also apparently said "Yes, I am homophobic — and very proud of it." (see here). Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The far right typically portray themselves as moderates and the rest of the world as "far left" or part of a sinister conspiracy. TFD (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So basically you have decided that he is far right and if he denies he is far right then to you it constitutes as a further proof that he is a far right, is it? --Berzerker king (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, you took his remarks out of context. I'll translate what he said: "Do you think that a federal deputy must be free from prejudices in order to impartially assess the laws? Bolsonaro: The Congress is made up of people from all strands of society, and every congressman has the duty to defend their ideas that their voters entrusts to them. If fighting to prevent the distribution of the "Gay Kit" in elementary schools that has the intention of stimulating homosexuality, in true disrespect to the [traditional] family, means that I am homophobic, so I am indeed, with great pride.." BDMKK (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I merely quoted something from multiple reliable sources. I agree the context matters in that case though, so good point, but I'm still confused by him denying he is homophobic. He said (in the same source) that he would rather his son died in a car accident than that he told him he was gay. This seems less likely to be out of context. What I'm saying is: he often admits to being anti-gay, and partly built his platform on that. Does that still warrent such cautious language? How exactly is he denying it? Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * He is actually justifying homophobia. I suppose, like other prejudiced people, he resents the label because he believes that he is right. Generally in these case we say that someone has been described as homophobic but they deny it. Bear in mind that we are trying to tell readers about the subject, not to idolize or villainize him. TFD (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose I was wondering whether or not that generality still applied when the person in question may actually prefer being called such a thing, but I get your point. Prinsgezinde (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nothing referencing car accidents or anything similar in any of the two sources. The previously mentioned quote (that was taken out of context, as noted earlier) is from 2011 (many of his most controversial quotes are from the last decade or even the last century) - even the article itself describes how he has been moderating his discourse since 2016. He has also recently advocated for harsher sentences to hate-motivated crimes against the LGBT population after his election. (http://www.guiagaysaopaulo.com.br/noticias/cidadania/bolsonaro-defende-pena-maior-para-quem-discriminar-lgbt) 200.101.110.33 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Political views
I have noticed a problem with the "Political views" section. Most info is "he this and this", some context about the things he said, and people who condemned him. That would suggest that he has a very poor reputation. But, on the other hand, he has won the elections. His reputation can hardly be so poor as can be inferred from the article, then. Aren't there people or media that support him and his views? Are there polls on those topics, to measure how much public support do his ideas have in Brazil? Cambalachero (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The particular "reputation" inferred from the article is a perception of yours. It's up to you to decide if the prose reflects good or bad of him, as that moral judgement would come from your particular worldview. What you may consider a "condemnation" other may consider it a "high praise".--Asqueladd (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cambalachero, the problem is Bolsonaro kinda elevated himself in the public eye through "controversial" and "incendiary speeches". The reason why he won is worth a in depth analysis that i think would not fit well in the article (this is a biography, not an essay). But a lot of his support comes from his "extreme views" and the fact that he claims he will have zero tolerance for corruption and public violence. Yes, the media probably have a bias against him, that would be a decent point to make, but still those are reliable sources. And it's weird that in Brazil, both the Workers' Party and the PSL have accused the media of working against them. And, like i said many times, we cannot creat a false equivalence and say that the extend of his achievements draw the same amount of attention as his controversies. He is a controversial and polarizing figure. It's difficult enough to find, in cases such as this, something that resembles balance, particularly because most of the counterargument comes straight from his mouth. And again most of his controversies comes straight from his mouth also. And he only started to moderate his tone while on campaign mode recently, though he only backtracked on a few things he said in the past, but not on everything. So, how come a controversial guy like him was elected? To be honest, very few people know. People wanted change and Bolsonaro is deemed an "outsider". Politicians have won elections in more strange circumstances and the mood swings of the people and what drives them to the polls in elections is beyond the scope of this article. Coltsfan (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's because apparently some people think that by adding a certain amount of information against Bolsonaro, that is going to have some effect. As if they could destroy him. Seriously, the article in the portuguese wikipedia looks like a gossip magazine. Have you heard what Bolsonaro said? Ooohhh. That's bad! Holy Goo (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , everyone, can we please not speculate about all this? Talk pages aren't meant to be used like forums, let's stick to practical suggestions to improve the article. Doug Weller  talk 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For starters, I would remove the mentions to is ideas being far-right, and saying just that he's right-wing. Yes, the description is verifiable, but Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Far-right are basically people who are neonazis, and Bolsonaro is not. I'm sure that some sources with a left-wing bias would use the term to imply exactly that, and that some other sources may embrace the misconception simply because others do and don't gave it much thought, but we should take more care in the adjetives we use. Cambalachero (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cambalachero, i think this is a misconception on your part. Being "far-right" don't imply that some is a neonazi or a neofacist (just like being "far-left" don't imply that you are a communist). I struggle to find a source that don't categorize him as being "far-right". Even Fox News (a widely considered conservative news channel) calls him that. The WP:VNOTSUFF don't apply here because of that. It's not one source or even half a dozen sources that call him that. Multiple sources go that way. Sources in english, portuguese, spanish. Among the sources, there is no debate on which side of the political spectrum he is. So, you think we must soften up the language, tone down, or even change what the sources say just because a few people might get offended, or upset or something? To me that's neither here nor there. Coltsfan (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article should at least explain what is the political platform that Bolsonaro supported during the election, which allowed him to emerge victorious. A compilation of rude or politically incorrect quotes (most of which were) taken out of context doesn’t explain his appeal. On the contrary. I have to agree with Cambalachero (who’d have thought!) on this one. The way the article is written now, heavily biased against Bolsonaro, makes anyone wonder how a man portrayed as despicable as Bolsonaro has been portrayed in the article could have won a presidential election. I’d like to point out some of his policies (which can be found on his program of government online: 1) Anti-communism; 2) closer ties with democratic Latin American countries governed with similar minded presidents (Argentina, Chile, etc); 3) Closer ties with the US and Israel; 4) Distance from communist/dictatorial countries (Venezuela, Cuba, etc); 4) Free trade and fewer regulations; 5) Fewer taxes; 6) Fewer government expenditures; 7) Less bureaucracy; 8) zero tolerance with corruption and crime; 9) Lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16; 10) Lessen restrictions on firearm purchase; 11) permit that police may shoot an armed criminal (now the law says that only if the criminal shoots first, then the police can fire back); 12) End of divisions within Brazilians based on race, gender, sexuality, etc, including ending privileges based on that and its replacement with merit only. --Lecen (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lecen, think i finally understand you. You say the article is bias, because you haven't read it. I'm sorry, but that's the only explanation possible. And i'll show you why. Here are your points: (1) the article says, twice, that he oposeses left wing policies in general (that includes communism). (2), (3) & (4) it's in the section "Foreign policy" and it's in the intro. (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), all present in the intro of the article, in the section "2018 presidential campaign", and in the second, third and fourth paragraph of the intro part of the section "Political views", and (12) is also pretty well covered in the intro and, more thoroughly in the section "Political views" (second to fourth paragraph). So as you can see here, pretty much all the points that you say that makes this article "bias", well, they are already in freaking the article. In your mind, you've build this "straw man" and you think this is the version people are seeing. Remember that this is a biography, reflecting all the man's life, not a political pamphlet that shows his "baddies" and his "goodies". It's just a biography. Coltsfan (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There's an article by the Huffington Post here: What Exactly Do We Mean By 'Far Right'. Have in mind as well that this is a biography of a living person, so we have to be even more careful about the adjetives we use that may suggest that the man has a poor reputation. Cambalachero (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article gives the president-elect a "poor reputation". Much of the opening of the section in question is dedicated to Bolsonaro's rebukes of how the mainstream press describes him, and goes into detail in the composition of his electorate. In fact, the first paragraph states the fact that Bolsonaro's support among women jumped to 27% before the election. Needless to say, the article also mentions the fact that he won the election with 55% of the vote. Is this not indicative information of the support he has among people in Brazil, and that a significant part of the electorate agrees with his views?


 * As for his controversial quotes, I concede that one quote (about Maria do Rosario) is taken out of context, but all others are direct statements that make sense on their own. Besides, these controversial quotes are essentially why he won the election. His popularity grew largely from his provocative, politically-incorrect persona, as well as his opposition to the political establishment, which is also duly mentioned in the article several times. Sure, the article includes negative opinions of Bolsonaro in the international press, but these are mainstream news sources worthy of inclusion. In fact, most RS have either described his views as "far-right", or mentioned that he is often characterized as such. It would be undue to remove these mentions simply because of the perception it will give him a "bad reputation". This is Wikipedia, not his campaign website. If RS overwhelmingly describe him as far-right, we must at least mention this.


 * I would also like to address something I find very strange about Wikipedia: active contributors who go to talk pages to complain that the article is biased because it's missing information. Well then, be the change you want to see. If there's something left out and you have sources to back it up, go ahead and include it; no one's stopping you. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * NoMoreHeroes, the problem is, most of the people who are complaining that the article is bias haven't even read it. For instance, Lecen gave a list of things that, according to him, are "missing" in the article. But, like i showed here, every point he made is already in the article. As for the "Maria do Rosário thing", i fail to see how that was taken out of context. He was actually sentenced by a judge because of it. People think neutrality means "50/50". 50 good, 50 bad. Or it should be a pamphlet for the politician. It's a biography, people seem to forget. Coltsfan (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed we primarily compile what the best (reputable) sources say about him. If that ends up creating a negative impression overall, then that is mostly due to those reputable sources at large seeing him that way.
 * Neutrality here only means that we don't cherry pick those reputable sources (to make look him better, worse or create an artificial 50/50), but that our compilation reflects the (whole of the available) reputable sources about in an appropriate manner, that is in a representative fashion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Bolsonaro is not like Donald Trump, who has an extensive career in business and other aspects of his life. Bolsonaro's early years are very shady and he mostly grew in the public eye as "politically incorrect outsider". Sure, he has moderaded his tone a bit now, and he has backtracked on a lot of things he said in the past, but that only happened very recently. And the article reflects that. His old visions (which made him known) and his new ones are all there, with the reliable sources available, as they should. Coltsfan (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You all talk about so many reliable sources that describe his views as far-right. Fine! So why not instead of "(...) which have been described as far-right and conservative in nature" you guys refuse to put as "(...) which have been described by the mainstream media as far-right and conservative in nature"? And yes, I agree that the Maria do Rosário matter is totally out of context and written in a very uncyclopedia way (read these and and these comments). I would try to rewrite it, but I'm sure Coltsfan, the owner of the article, will refuse to change any word as he has been doing for the past few months. 103.214.223.127 (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it is not about mainstream media but reputables sources, the latter may contain some mainstream media as but are scholarly/academic sources/assessments.
 * Also if something is not just claimed or stated by an individual reputable, but is pretty much shared by the vast majority of reputable sources, then an intext attribution is not necessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This IP (103.214.223.127) was blocked his main account for EW, use of proxies and bias editing. He is in no position to make accusations against anyone. But just as an fyi: i was in favor of putting the "described by the media" before the "far right", and I tried to put that in the article, but i was overruled. But who wants to do research before making accusations, eh? Coltsfan (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you should know that we rely upon what sources say about the subject, not about general descriptions. The blog article you refer to has problems and is pretty unsophisticated. See for instance her comment that Libertarianism is the ideology between conservatism and political fascism.  Doug Weller  talk 13:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this Jair Bolsonaro’s wiki page is a joke. Even got me a few laughs and guffaws in some parts, especially in the part where he said that Pinochet should have killed more people, he was obviously not serious back than. It deminishes our head of state and it’s absurd that the page is protected. We ahould do a new one that respects the truth. This is full of lies. Rodrigofernandes11 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC) — Rodrigofernades11 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Bolsonaro is not far-right. That's communist rhetoric, the new politically correct speech of the world's Left says nowadays that any conservative person is a member of the extreme right. He is a conservative person who represents the moral and cultural values of Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world - as well as the conservative non-catholic Brazilian Christians and Jews. And it's pure BS to say the he hates gays and that he wants women to make less money than men. The Maria do Rosário thing is totally out of context and gives undue weight. Get real people, Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial. 144.48.165.249 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

How does it work to edit this article? I thought everyone could edit Wikipedia. There are some matters totally (and probably intentionally) bad translated or taken out of context as it has been said here. It’s clearly written by people who strongly oppose Bolsonaro’s views. Isn’t it supposed to be impartial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.226.226 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not supposed to be impartial to Bolsonaro, but to be impartial towards the sources reporting on him or what Bolsonaro calls trash. Here is a link to the relevant policy. You either have to get mainstream media to cover him in a more favorable light or get policy changed, but there is no point in arguing your case on this talk page. TFD (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has serious issues with quotes that are either taken out of context or badly translated. I noticed that a few editors have monopolized the article, preventing anyone from addressing these issues, going as far as to engange on edit war and to ERASE complaints on the talk page (see its history log). If you look close they seem to be involved on a tactic of harassement in order to shun away anyone who disagrees. I’m not familiar with all policies and guidelines however I noticed they do a lot of WP:POINTy and WP:WL, as well as editors being helped by others who pretend to be neutral in order to impose their biased views on the article. Is there any way to propose arbitration in order to resolve the matter? Look at how many complaints there are! 195.181.168.38 (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes used are routinely used in articles about Bolsonaro and this article uses translations by mainstream English language sources. No idea what you think is POINTy but it is not Wikilawyering to use mainstream sources rather than opinions of editors. Can you show where the presentation of Bolsonaro differs from what one would find in mainstream reliable sources? Because that is what policy requires the article do. English Wikipedia is not going to send a team of editors out to Brazil to investigate the subject, but instead will present what mainstream media report. TFD (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What about a person using multiple IPs to push POV and in order to fake a discussion and outrage here? All of the quotes in this article are not translated by the users themselves, rather it's already done by the journalistic sources themselves cited in the article. The article have multiple sources in english from BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, Foreign Affairs Magazine, ABC News, etc. And in portuguese, multile sources from all major brazilian news sources. The article has over 160 sources, some passages (especially on the controversial parts) have multiple references attached to it. Still, the same people (using different IPs and socks, despite being blocked by different adms, continue to try to push pov, accusing anyone who is trying to do some serious work in the article as "left-wing" and other nonsense, calling names, questioning their integrity, all of that, while trying to engage in very dishonest WP:GAMING. Luckly, very few people are falling for this charade. This article WILL NOT be used for political ends, will not be used as a forum or political pamphlet. This article can be better? Sure. But it's way better written and better source than most of the articles on politicians in this wiki. Coltsfan (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has been discussed on a Brazilian Liberal page, that’s why many IPs are showing up so please focus on improving content instead of ad hominem WP:PA. Besides, please indicate which policy states that unregistered editors can’t give opinions. Wikipedia is not censored and most importantly, you do not own it so please accept opinions that challenges yours. WP:DBN 46.229.172.149 (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IPs are more than welcome to give opinions, but when it's just the same person, using differente IPs to give a fake impression that there are different people in order to fool others, well, that's dishonesty at it's best. And in the "Brazilian Liberal page" [sic], the answer there are the same as here: everything in this article is based and supported by multiple reliable sources and the people who question that usually don't work hard to hide their own bias. Coltsfan (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Coltsfan, please let go of your persecutory delusion. I don't have any relation to the other IPs except the 46.229.x.x range. But anyway, I agree that despite the fact most of the sources here have a strong bias against Bolsonaro, it is still based on reliable, published sources. They are verifiable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I will give you an example of a biased section: Before: "Birth control for the poor Bolsonaro provoked considerable controversy for public remarks made in July 2008, when he appeared to advocate the sterilization of poor people, who he suggested might be too uneducated to understand family planning education: 'It is no good talking about education because most of these people are not prepared to receive education and will not educate themselves. Only birth control can save us from chaos,' he said." After: "Birth control for the poor Bolsonaro provoked considerable controversy for public remarks made in July 2008, when he proposed to provide poor people with birth control methods, who he suggested might be too uneducated to understand family planning education. Bolsonaro said: I wish Brazil had a family planning program. It’s not even worthy to talk about education when most of these [poor] people are not prepared to receive education, therefore won’t educate themselves. Only a rigid birth control can save us from chaos. An educated man and woman will hardly desire an extra child with the sole purpose of engaging in a social welfare assistance program [as it is nowadays]. We need to adopt a rigid birth control policy. We can’t make demagogic speeches any longer, proposing bills and means of government to support these poor people that are increasingly proliferating throughout the country. [...] People who aren’t prepared to have children, shouldn’t have them. This is what I stand for and I’m not worried about getting votes in the future. It’s past time to discuss about a policy to contain this demographic explosion, otherwise we’ll keep voting in this Chamber only matters such as Bolsa Família, loans for the poor, gas vouchers etc. Methods [of birth control] have to be provided for those who, unfortunately, are ignorant and have no means to control their offspring. Because we [as upper middle class] are able to control ours. Poor people don’t control [theirs]." Can you spot the huge undue weight before the improvement? Can you see that the most recent version is more balanced and neutral? His whole speech was translated in order to give the reader the opportunity to understand the context. And best of all: sources were not removed or replaced! So this is basically what people are complaining about: biased sources, matters out of context and speeches badly translated. 46.229.173.248 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. Click the link WP:UNDUE and read it. It does not say that Wikipedia articles should correct the strong bias of reliable sources, it says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A subsection of WP:UNDUE says that we should provide the same weight to content. You are also misreading WP:BIASED: mainstream reliable news media are not considered biased and provide a model for what content should be presented and how it should be presented. In other words, this article should read very much like any article about Bolsonaro in mainstream media, or what he refers to as trash. If you don't like that policy, get it changed or get mainstream media to change their tone. But please stop making suggestions against Wikipedia policy. TFD (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of ideology
It is incorrect to portray a politician as far-right unless and until there is a huge consensus. A president who won just a few days ago, the majority of votes in a democratic election, cannot be called a far right unless and until the same accusation is laid at the entire country.

People are using their own personal leftist prejudice and inserting them into encyclopedia articles. It is extremely dangerous to allow people coming from the leftist ideology to control encyclopedia entries to call their political opponents as "far right". This is kind of like allowing an authoritarian ideology to rewrite history as in 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker king (talk • contribs) 01:18, October 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * I have posted links to policy and guidelines on your talk page. Mainstream sources routinely call Bolsonaro far right. Since Wikipedia is guided by what reliable sources say, policy requires that we use that description. TFD (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is a news source's classification of a political figure be justified in this manner? By that manner, Donald Trump is a nazi because CNN which is considered a mainstream news source, routinely publishes such articles. If there are different mainstream news which classify Trump as both a nazi and as a centrist / nationalist, what would you agree with? Newspapers can be used to establish that an event occurred or not. They cannot be used as a proof for subjective opinions / classifications like "Trump is a nazi" or "Borsalano is a far right". User:Berzerker_king —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm interested in your claim that CNN says that Trump is a Nazi. For CNN to have said this it would have had to be said in some sort of editorial. Newspapers do editorials, does CNN? Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the CNN report that Trump Jr compared the Democrats with Nazis? Doug Weller  talk 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge consensus among reliable published sources that Bolsonaro is far-right. There is no consensus at all among U.S. mainstream sources that Donald Trump is a Nazi; in fact, I have yet to see a CNN article claiming that. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Bolsonaro's ideology
It is incorrect to portray Jair Bolsonaro as far-right unless and until there is a huge consensus, specially after he assumes office. If more than half of a country has voted for him, then at the very least, either the entire country must be labelled as far-right, or he should not be labelled as one. And as per WP:LABEL, articles should not use contentious labels unless the subject self-identify with the given label.

I noticed that people are using their own personal political prejudice and subjective opinions and inserting them into this article. It is extremely dangerous to allow people coming from the leftist ideology to control encyclopedia entries to call their political opponents as "far-right". This is kind of allowing an authoritarian ideology to rewrite and manipulate history.

So given the expressive number of complaints regarding this matter, I would like to raise the following concerns:


 * "A polarizing and controversial politician, his views and comments, which have been described as far-right and conservative in nature" – As per Template:By whom, this passage mentions a vague claim with no named specific example of identifiable individuals or groups who could be used to verify the statement. It must be clear to the reader who exactly describes Bolsonaro's views as far-right, which in this case, it is the media outlets which of course we can cite them to say that "the author said this", but we cannot claim that this is a fact. We are free to claim that the mainstream media claims that Bolsonaro is far-right, but we cannot claim that this is a fact. This a serious case where the subjective political ideology of the editors is being entered into encyclopedia entry. The citations are news articles, which are good enough to say "event x happened" or that "according to person/source x, so and so is the case", but not to state in Wikipedia voice that he is a far-right politician. Altogether, I reckon adding the tag Controversial is fair and reasonable until we reach a consensus. Or even better, just say that his views and comments have been described as conservative.


 * "Bolsonaro's political views have been described as nationalist and populist in nature, and as an advocate of far-right policies" – Again by whom? And most importantly why? It definitely needs clarification.


 * "Bolsonaro has, during his long political career, expressed views that many regard as being far-right" – This is a clear case of WP:WEASEL. Besides that, as per WP:NPOV, why not simply use a neutral and balanced term like "as being controversial" or even "as being offensive"?


 * "Category: Far-right politics in Brazil" – According to WP:CAT, categorizations must be uncontroversial and adhere to a neutral point of view, which I think categorize him as far-right is neither neutral nor constructive.

Another thing that worries me is that it is highly improper that editors are using biased sources to malign Bolsonaro. These people, sometimes intolerant of political opposition and who wish to use Wikipedia as a propaganda wing of their political ideology, are inserting baseless and borderline abusive misinformation about him. Yes, these sources are verifiable but as it has been said previously, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Editorial articles cannot be used so lightly as a "source". If one were to consult the CNN then Trump is evil and if one consults Fox News then Trump is a good man. News reports can and must be used as a source that some event happened, but not as a proof of some ideological conclusion/categorization due to the fact that news themselves carry huge bias and many sources behave as ideological propaganda arms of their respective political ideologies. Moreover, none of the sources actually discusses/analyzes how the classification of far-right was done. They merely use it casually and editors simply cite them because they are convenient to their political ideology's.

My point is that a presidential that has just recently won a democratic election in his country should not be called a far-right just because the subjective left political ideologues are intolerant of his views. If there is a proper academic discussion on this subject, please cite it and freely stamp Bolsonaro according to that. But using arbitrary and biased sources are highly uncalled for, and it shows intellectual bankruptcy and academic dishonesty at the service of left leaning ideologues to use Wikipedia for their political narrative.

Finally, as a newcomer myself, I would like to ask that all editors assume my good faith and do not bite me making personal attacks as I have been seeing here. Instead, please show me how and why Bolsonaro is a far-right politician and if you can convince me using your arguments, I will concede the point. Rather than citing articles with suspicious motives, please state facts. GiordanoOrion (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, another "newcomer" who shows a abnormal knowledge of the rules and throws out a lot of guidelines (mostly incorrectly, btw), making the exact same points, with the exact same wording of the "others". That's not strange, like at all, right?At any rate, everything here has been discussed previously to exhaustion. Nothing new under the sun. Coltsfan (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Coltsfan, I don't understand your sarcasm and why you're being rude towards me. I took a very long time reading the rules and guidelines in order to create this section, which by the way you recklessly merged into another one (was it an accident by any chance?). I didn't mean to throw out a lot of guidelines, I actually just tried to be argumentative while being bold. Also, could you please clarify why newcomers shouldn't read and apply the rules and most importantly, why did you say they are "mostly incorrectly"? I really want to understand and learn. And for you information, newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia, so please let's have a productive discussion and let go of personal attacks. We can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives and ideas if we focus on content, not on editor conduct. I ask you to please be respectful and keep a minimum level of Wikiquette. GiordanoOrion (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not being rude. This is very suspicious that a "new guy", that knows a lot, using the same points, talking the same way and editing the same way. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then... I'll ask checkusers to take a look at this. Anyway, this discussion is the same the one above. No need for multiple topics when is the same thing being discussed. Coltsfan (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really thrive on getting knowledge. But you're once again not focusing on content. And what do you exactly mean by "using the same points, talking the same way and editing the same way"? It seems that you think I have multiple accounts, so go ask for a check up on me. And please do not merge this section with the previous one because it's a new topic not being discussed there. GiordanoOrion (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, CNN amd Fox Mews do not differ that much. CNN does not call Trump evil, Fox Mews does not call him good. But both call Bolsonaro "far right." (Of course most Fox News coverage is taken from AP.) Left-wing sources frequently call Bolsonaro fascist, and this article avoids that description because there is no consensus for it. TFD (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, TFD. That was just an example to illustrate my point. So you're saying that there is a consensus by the Wikipedia community in regards to Bolsonaro being far-right? Could you please point out that to me?
 * And folks, I'm not here to defend Bolsonaro, and as a Brazilian myself I actually didn't even vote for him. I'm happy with him being far-right or even fascist, considering there is a clear and huge consensus about it and, above all else, that Wikipedia shows it an impartial way.
 * Any thoughts on the possible specific violations of guidelines that I mentioned? GiordanoOrion (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this has been discussed till the point of exhaustion. Most of the sources (in portuguese, english and spanish) calls him "far-right". It's not a couple of sources, it's not "left leaning sources", it's all of 'em. Fox News calls him "far-right". The Guardian calls him "far-right". The New York Times calls him "far-right". El País calls him "far-right". O Globo calls him "far-right". The amount of rliable sources is overwelming. Unless you start regurgitating that "they are all in George Soros pocket", the onus is on your side to prove otherwise. Coltsfan (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get your point but it doesn't explain the possible violations of guidelines that I pointed out. GiordanoOrion (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * GiordanoOrion, I am not saying there is a consensus on Wikipedia that Bolsonaro is right-wing because that is not something that Wikipedia editors do. Instead, as per policy, they ensure that articles accurately reflect the sources. See for example the AP article, "A look at offensive comments by Brazil candidate Bolsonaro", picked up by Fox News. It begins, "Far right congressman Jair Bolsonaro...." That is how mainstream media routinely describe him. Maybe as you say they are factually incorrect. But we are obligated to rely on the facts presented in mainstream sources. Some editors believe that the moonlanding was faked, Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy and 0/11 was an inside job. Maybe they are right. But until the assumed facts are challenged in mainstream sources, we are forced to accept the facts as currently understood
 * No guidelines are being violated.
 * TFD (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * GiordanoOrion is a sockpuppet for BDMKK. It has been confirmed (see here) and he was blocked for it. Another attempt by the user to fool other editors, while accusing other of bias. Shame. Coltsfan (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When exactly does Bolsonaro become President?
Does Bolsonaro becomes the 38th President at midnight January 1, 2019 or latter in the day, when he's sworn in. The article at List of Presidents of Brazil seems to suggest the former. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I already explained to you. That article is wrong. The president-elect doesn’t sleep on December 31 and wakes up president on January 1. It’s not automatic. The ceremony is not merely symbolic, it has to occur in order for the candidate to become president, which is why the constitution establishes a maximum amount of 10 days from January 1 for him to take office. Thus, Michel Temer is president until January 1, not December 31. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize that you already explained it to me. However, there's some editors out there who disagree with you. I just wish I could find a forum where I could get a consensus for this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is the significance of that detail for this article, anyway? Seems better suited for the President of Brazil one. Cambalachero (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true, this topic doesn't really effect this bio article until Bolsonaro leaves office after one or two full terms. But, this article is getting the most attention right now. There's little to no attention at the President & Vice President articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain this is a case similar to U.S. presidential inaugurations. Donald Trump wasn't POTUS at 9 am January 20, 2017. He was POTUS at noon of that day. There will be an inauguration ceremony on January 1, 2019, in which the outgoing president will transfer the office to the new president. As such, Bolsonaro will become president on January 1, and Michel Temer will also leave the presidency that day. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If only you could persuade the folks, over at List of presidents of Brazil, who insist on the mid-night exchange. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

, you may be interested in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In Brazil, unlike the United States, there is no mention of the time within a date (e.g. noon) when a term of office starts. The only mention in the Constitution and in laws is of the date when the term starts (January 1st, in the case of the President and Vice-President, and other Executive officeholders), and that the term lasts four years. As such, the official interpretation is that the term of office begins together with the date, at midnight, and that the former President's term ends with the expiration of the date 31 December, at midnight. One has to distinguish between the start of the term and the moment the new President takes possession of the office. The term starts at midnight, but the new President enters the office only when he takes the oath of office. Tancredo Neves's term started on March 15, 1985, but he was in hospital (and would go on to die without ever appearing before Congress to take the constitutional oath). A vice-president suceeds to the Presidency when his predecessor dies or resigns, but although his term of office then starts he still needs to take the constitutional oath and in 1954 several days elapsed between the death of Vargas and the oath of Café Filho. Café Filho could take office at any time from 24 August 1954, but he remained as acting president until 3 September 1954, when he took the oath of office. Similary, a new President's term starts at midnight on January 1st but he can take office at the time of his choosing. Indeed, some State Governors have opted to have inaugurations in the early hours of January 1st, very soon after midgnight, so that they could later travel to Brasília to be present at the presidential inaguration on the same date (see: https://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/governador-do-acre-toma-posse-na-hora-da-virada/). According to that official line of interpretation (that terms of office run from January 1st to December 31 four years later), the official investiture documents and de declarative announcement made by the President of Congress (or of a Legislative Assembly of a State, in the case of a gubernatorial inauguration, or of a City Council, in the case of a mayoral inauguration) specifies that the person is invested for a term of office "from January 1st 2011 to December 31 2014" (the years stated are examples). In Brazil, unlike in the US, there is a written investiture document that the new officeholder needs to sign: for instance the President-elect takes the oath of office before Congress; then he is declared by the President of Congress to be invested "for the term of office from January 1st 20XX to December 31 20XY", and then an instrument of investiture is read out and signed. The instruments of investiture also mention the dates of the beggining and end of the presidential term (see the image of the instrument of investiture for Lula's second term: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_do_presidente_do_Brasil#/media/File:Compromisso_constitucional_e_termo_de_posse_presidencial_Brasil_1jan2007.jpg). The official investiture document shows that Lula, in his second term, was invested for a four-year period that would end on 31 December 2010 ("trinta e um de dezembro de dois mil e dez", literally, Trirty First of December Two Thousand and Ten). So, the end of term on December 31 is explcitly recorded in the official congressional investiture document. Thus, always, on inauguration day, for a few hours (from midnight until the time the President takes the oath), the former President is no longer President and the incoming President is already within his presidential term, but hasn't taken office yet. Also, one has to note that the former President is allowed to use the presidential palace and the presidential sash until the point in the investiture ceremonies when he passes the sash to his successor and leaves Planalto Palace as a matter of ceremony and protocol only: in reality, legally, the term of office ends on 31 December, and the successor's term then begins together with the date of January 1st, and the President-elect then enters into office by taking the constitutional oath before Congress. Also, the ceremony for the transfer of the presidential sash takes place in the Planalto Palace, the seat of the Executive Branch, usually more than one hour after the Congressional ceremony during which the new President took the oath, signed the investiture document and delivered his inaugural address. Yet the former President is allowed to keep using the sash until its solemn delivery to the new president precisely because the sash transfer ceremony is only a symbolic act of the peaceful sucesssion of governments, when in reality the term of the former President has already concluded and the new President was already sworn in before Congress. No outgoing President of Brazil has ever attempted to sign any kind of order, decree or presidential act in the early hours of January 1st before the swearing in of the new President, precisely because it is known that the term of office expires on 31 December. So Brazilian Presidents issue their last minute actions on 31 December, and those actions are usually published in an extra edition of the official journal in the late hours of 31 December (unlike outgoing U.S. Presidents who can sign presidential actions in the morning of inauguration day because they are still Presidents until noon). Each country has its laws and customs, and in Brazil the official documentation clearly points to the end of term on 31 December. Antonio Basto (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Further to the above message, and more to the specific point on the moment when one becomes President: the Constitution is clear on three separate facts: a) the presidential term lasts for four years and begins on January 1st of the year following the election (article 82); b) the President takes possession of the office by taking the constitutional oath before a joint session of Congress (article 78); c) the office of the President or of the Vice-President is declared vacant if any of them fail to assume the office after ten days of the start of the presidential term, except if they were prevented from taking possession of the office due to a justified cause of vis maior, force majeure (art. 78, sole paragraph). Thus, the inauguration ceremony before Congress is necessary and substantive. It is not only symbolic. The President-elect needs to take the constitutional oath to take posession of the presidential office. Before that he cannot execute any of the powers of that office. And there is the question of the 10-day deadline to take the oath, counting from the start of the new presidential term. But the finished presidential term ends on December 31 regardless. What happens if a President-elect fails to take the oath on January 1st is that his Vice-President is sworn in as Vice-President, and then immediately becomes Acting President (that is what happened in 1985 when Tancredo Neves, for good cause, failed to make it to his inauguration). If ten days pass, then: a) Congress will continue to wait, if there is just cause; b) Congress will declare the office vacant and the Vice-President will succeed as President, if the delay is not due to a just cause. But in no case the former President continues in office after 31 December. There is no question of the former President continuing in office beyond his four year term because the successor has failed to take the oath. That is impossible. The term expires at the end of four years, on 31 December. If a President-elect fails to be inaugurated on January 1st, his running mate will be inaugurated as Vice-President and will become Acting President at once. If both the President elect and his running mate were to fail to take office, then the other officers in the line of succession (the President of the Chamber of Deputies, etc), would step in as Acting President. But in no case the outgoing President and Vice-President would continue in office beyond 31 December. Those rules also make clear the distinction between two things: one is the start of a new Presidential term, that happens on 1 January on midnight, the other is the moment when a new President takes posession of the office (which happens when, at a ceremony before Congress, the President-elect takes the constitutional oath and enters into the office. This, of course, in normal circumnstances also takes place on January 1st, but can happen at 10 a.m., at 14 p.m, at 16 p.m., or whatever). In any case, the former president and the former vice-president have their mandates expired at the end of the date of 31 December. Also, the only part of the complex inauguration ceremonies that is substantive is the taking of the oath before Congress. The transfer of the presidential sash, and several other ceremonies are not substantive. As such, in non planned inaugurations due to death, impeachment or resignation of a President, only the essential taking of the oath before Congress takes place, with the declaration of investiture and the signing of the investiture document, but without the assumption of the presidential sash, without military ceremonies, etc. Antonio Basto (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a moot discussion. Bolsonaro will be sworn in January 1. Whether he becomes president automatically or only after he is sworn in, the date his presidency begins is the same. Unless this information affects what the article should say, I suggest we end it. There is no issue about it in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There was a slightly different discussion about the end of term date (if terms end on December 31 or on January 1st when the new president is sworn in), but: a) this discussion was more relevant for the article List of Presidents of Brazil than for this article about Jair Bolsonaro (becuase the discussion affected all end of term dates in the list of Presidents) and b) there is official proof, in the language of the actual investiture document that Presidents sign, that the term ends on December 31. As for the question of when one becomes President, I agree that, per the Constitution, one only becomes President when the oath is taken (the automatic start of the four year presidential term at midnight is one thing, and the assumption of office, by taking the oath before Congress, is another). But I agree that the point is of little importance, since both facts (the start of the presidential term and the swearing-in of the President-elect as President, will in all likelihood both happen on January 1st 2019. Antonio Basto (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, there continues to be a dispute. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is this source here that says when the president actually becomes president. He will officially take office at 3 pm (15:00). So, as you can see, the president elect does not become immidiatly "president in office" at midnight. There is a whole cerimony, before congress, and then before the people (where the old president gives the new one the presidential sash. It's worth noticing user GoodDay, that nobody here (expect me) presented reliable sources to back what they were saying (see WP:V). If there is a reliable source that says otherwise, please show it. Coltsfan (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So every 4 years, the presidency is vacant for over half a day? GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. The old president is still president until the other one takes the office formally. He is sworn in and takes the oath of office at 3 pm, according to the source, and that's when he officially becomes president. Again, if there is a source to the contrary, please, show it. This website of the Brazilian Senate confirms what i said. See here. Absolutely no source says he is already president (with full powers) before he takes the oath of office. Coltsfan (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You got your work cut out for you then. Every article related to the Brazilian presidency & vice presidency use midnight as the office changing date. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That list in this wiki is actually wrong. The one in the portuguese wikipedia is more correct. As you can see there, the former presidents leaves office the day the new president steps in. Coltsfan (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly all related articles use midnight. So, you got a lot of changes to make on hundreds of articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what's your point? 100 mistakes makes a right? No wiki, aside for the english one, uses 'midnight' as the term limit. And i presented reliable sources, and that is always a plus per WP:V. Coltsfan (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is, all the bios of the Brazil presidents & vice presidents, go by the 'midnight' change, including all related articles. If you want consistency? then you got some work to do. Best you start an Rfc on the whole matter, at the appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This dispute will only continue for a few hours, every four years, because people like to ignore the evidence contained in the instruments of investiture (termos de posse) themselves, official documents signed by the Congressional officers and the President. The reality is explained above in full. Others get their technically wrong information from many other sources. The other day, Globo TV was talking about presidential inaugurations and stated wrongly that the first one was in 1889. Of course not: there was no inauguration when Deodoro da Fonseca became Head of the Provisional Government in the military coup that proclaimed Brazil a Republic in 1889. The office of the President was only created in February 1891, the first presidential inauguration was in February 1891 and that is the first instrument of investiture in the first volume of the book containing all presidential instruments of investiture. There is actual image of a signed presidential investiture document above confirming the end of term date as 31 December. Michel Temer's last Decrees were dated 31 December, dismissing his entire Cabinet. Also, when midnight passed without a decree raising the minimum wage as authorized by law, internet articles rightly commented that Temer had failed to raise the wage and had left this decision for the incoming Bolsonaro govenrment. Antonio Basto (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny how this argument don't fly on portuguese wikipedia, of all places. Funny that you say that, without presenting sources and everyone accepts it. Meanwhile, i showed a source from the freaking brazilian senate itself, still, not enough. It' simple: without sources, this is original research. Plain and simple. Coltsfan (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny how you're not making changes to the other Brazilian presidents & vice presents bios articles. For example: You've yet to change December 31, 2018 to January 1, 2019 at Michel Temer. -- GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's hilarious. But still, do you got any source? By the way, is it still necessary in wikipedia, when you change something in a article, to present sources about the matter or we're past that and you can write anything you want as long as it appears to "make sense"? i genuinely want to know. Coltsfan (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Turning once again to the question of sources: 1) Here is a link to President Lula's instrument of investiture for his second term, mentioning Thirty First December Twenty Ten as the end of term date: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_do_presidente_do_Brasil#/media/File:Compromisso_constitucional_e_termo_de_posse_presidencial_Brasil_1jan2007.jpg ; 2) Here you can browse the Diary of the National Congress of 1 September 2016, containing the full transcript of the joint session of 31 August 2016, and you will see that the President of Congress declared, after Michel Temer's oath: "Declaro empossado no cargo de Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil o Excelentíssimo Senhor Presidente Michel Temer, para o período de 31 de agosto de 2016 a 31 de dezembro de 2018." (I declare invested in the office of President of the Federative Republic of Brazil the Most Excellent Mr. Michel Temer, for the period from 31 August 2016 to 31 December 2018) - http://legis.senado.leg.br/diarios/PublicacoesOficiais ; 3) here you can watch the video of the Congressional Joint session, and witness the President of Congress saying the same thing at 7 minutes 20 seconds until 7 minutes 44 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piNNdXnHYkg Antonio Basto (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * EXPAND your argument to all the Brazilian presidents & all the Brazilian vice presidents. Instead of singling out this 'one' article. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't find a source, can you? Yeah, thats quite a pickle. Unfortunately for you, no source equals WP:OR. Per WP:V: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Coltsfan (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I get through to you? DO THEM ALL or DON'T DO ANY OF THEM. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm easy to get through. Look:


 * Content added with source? Reliable.
 * Content added with NO source? WP:OR.
 * Like i said, if you are right, and i'm wrong, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding sources disproving me. Coltsfan (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's NOT what I'm talking about, NOW. I give up. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the love of God... i'm not asking for you to find Bolsonaro and ask him. All i'm asking is: you are making a change in the article. Great. Where did you get this information from? A news website? The man himself? A drunken guy from the street? Your dog? Where? Where are the sources? Can we write anything we want now in Wikipedia without sources? Did i miss the memo? Coltsfan (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonna try this again. I NO LONGER DISAGREE WITH YOUR EDITS. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO IMPLEMENT THEM ON ALL THE BRAZIL PRESIDENTS & VICE PRESIDENTS ARTICLES, where required. GoodDay (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changes will be made, in good time. But this article is about Jair Bolsonaro. We are discussin him, not the others. Coltsfan (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well then, don't make changes to Michel Temer. -- GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The information I provided is verifiable and meets wikipedia's verifiability standards. I provided links to official documents even. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in English but its sources can be in other languages, and that's not against the verifiability policy. Now, this is an article about a Brazilian politician, and the article on the list of Presidents of Brazil is an article about the Brazilian Presidency. The Portuguese language is the official language of Brazil. The official documents are in Portuguese. There are editors here who are bilingual, and for those who aren't, and who can only understand English, they can simply copy and paste passages from the links in Portuguese to a translator such as Google Translate. That said, wikipedia in Portuguese is a terrible encyclopedia, filled with erroneous data, and with a standard of quality much lower than the English language wikipedia, and that is why I, in particular, choose to only contribute to the English language wikipedia. There is hope for the English language wikipedia, whereas I personnaly regard the Portuguese language wikipedia as unsalvable. Now, turning once again to the question of sources: 1) Here is a link to President Lula's instrument of investiture for his second term, mentioning Thirty First December Twenty Ten as the end of term date: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_do_presidente_do_Brasil#/media/File:Compromisso_constitucional_e_termo_de_posse_presidencial_Brasil_1jan2007.jpg ; 2) Here you can browse the Diary of the National Congress of 1 September 2016, containing the full transcript of the joint session of 31 August 2016, and you will see that the President of Congress declared, after Michel Temer's oath: "Declaro empossado no cargo de Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil o Excelentíssimo Senhor Presidente Michel Temer, para o período de 31 de agosto de 2016 a 31 de dezembro de 2018." (I declare invested in the office of President of the Federative Republic of Brazil the Most Excellent Mr. Michel Temer, for the period from 31 August 2016 to 31 December 2018) - http://legis.senado.leg.br/diarios/PublicacoesOficiais ; 3) here you can watch the video of the Congressional Joint session, and witness the President of Congress saying the same thing at 7 minutes 20 seconds until 7 minutes 44 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piNNdXnHYkg Antonio Basto (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Your "sources" kinda miss the mark. The official webpage of the Brazilian Senate said (like i already mentioned) that the president is only president after he takes the oath of office. I read your sources, and they are, at the very least, inconclusive. The Senate's site is unequivocally. Coltsfan (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the end of term dates of Brazilian Presidents: ok. This is the link to the official record of the Congressional Joint Sitting of 1 January 2019, held for the inauguration of President Bolsonaro and Vice-President Mourão: http://www.camara.leg.br/internet/escriba/escriba.asp?codSileg=54479 . This comes directly from the website of the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil. It is the official transcript of the Joint Congressional sitting held for the presidential swearing-in. It is recorded that the President of Congress said: "Com os poderes que me são outorgados pela Constituição Federal, declaro empossados nos cargos de Presidente e Vice-Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil o Exmo. Sr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro e o Exmo. Sr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectivamente, para o período de 1º de janeiro de 2019 a 31 de dezembro de 2022." You guys can copy paste this to Google Translate and see that in English it will read (with the usual Google Translate imperfections) "With the powers granted to me by the Federal Constitution, I hereby declare that the President and Vice-President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and his Exmo. Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectively, for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022." A more correct translation would be "With the powers granted to me by the Federal Constitution, I hereby declare invested as President and Vice-President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Most Excellent Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and the Most Excellent Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectively, for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022." Antonio Basto (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, the official transcript of yesterday's Joint Congressional sitting, in the link provided above (http://www.camara.leg.br/internet/escriba/escriba.asp?codSileg=54479), contains the transcript of the moment when the First Secretary of Congress read out the instrument of investiture that was signed by Mr. Bolsonaro and by the other authorities. The instrument of investiture has the following text: Às 15 horas dia 1º de janeiro de 2019, perante o Congresso Nacional, reunido em sessão conjunta de suas Casas, no plenário da Câmara dos Deputados, nesta cidade de Brasília, Capital da República Federativa do Brasil, sob a direção da Mesa do Congresso Nacional, presidida pelo Sr. Senador Eunício Oliveira e secretariada pelo Sr. Primeiro-Secretário, Deputado Giacobo, integrando ainda a Mesa o Presidente da Câmara dos Deputados, Deputado Rodrigo Maia, o Sr. Presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ministro Dias Toffoli, a Procuradora-Geral da República, Raquel Dodge, e o Primeiro-Vice-Presidente da Mesa do Congresso Nacional, Deputado Fábio Ramalho, compareceram o Sr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro e o Sr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, que, nos termos do art. 78 da Constituição Federal, foram solenemente empossados nos cargos de Presidente e Vice-Presidente da República, respectivamente, para os quais foram eleitos no dia 28 de outubro de 2018, e diplomados pelo Tribunal Superior Eleitoral no dia 10 de dezembro do mesmo ano, para o período de 1º de janeiro de 2019 a 31 de dezembro de 2022. Os empossados proferiram, na forma do citado artigo da Constituição, o seguinte compromisso: “Prometo manter, defender e cumprir a Constituição, observar as leis, promover o bem geral do povo brasileiro, sustentar a união, a integridade e a independência do Brasil.” E, de conformidade com o disposto no art. 65 do Regimento Comum do Congresso Nacional, Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello Filho, Secretário-Geral da Mesa do Senado Federal, lavrou o presente termo, que é assinado pelos empossados e pelos membros da Mesa que dirigiu os trabalhos da sessão. Just copy paste that to Google Translate, and you will confirm the following English Translation, CONFIRMING THAT THE END OF TERM DATE IS 31 DECEMBER 2022, NOT 1 JANUARY 2023: At 3:00 pm on January 1, 2019, before the National Congress, gathered in a joint session of their Houses, in the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies, in this city of Brasília, Capital of the Federative Republic of Brazil, under the direction of the National Congress Bureau, chaired by Mr. Senator Eunice Oliveira and secretary of the First Secretary, Deputy Giacobo, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Deputy Rodrigo Maia, the President of the Federal Supreme Court, Minister Dias Toffoli, the Prosecutor -Gerald of the Republic, Raquel Dodge, and the First Vice-President of the Bureau of the National Congress, Deputy Fábio Ramalho, attended Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, who, according to art. 78 of the Federal Constitution, were solemnly sworn in as President and Vice President of the Republic, respectively, for which they were elected on October 28, 2018, and graduated by the Higher Electoral Court on December 10, the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022. The nominees issued, in the form of the aforementioned article of the Constitution, the following commitment: "I promise to maintain, defend and comply with the Constitution, observe the laws, promote the general good of the Brazilian people, sustain the union, integrity and independence of Brazil." And, in accordance with the provisions of art. 65 of the Common Regiment of the National Congress, Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello Filho, Secretary General of the Bureau of the Federal Senate, drafted the present term, which is signed by the delegates and members of the Bureau who directed the work of the session. Antonio Basto (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)