Talk:Jair Bolsonaro/Archive 2

Needs rewrite: "throwing a wild variety"
The article states:

He also mentioned he would work to diminish the size and bureaucracy of the federal government by throwing a wild variety of deregulation measures.

This looks incorrect. I think it should read:

" ... by throwing out a wide variety of deregulation measures."

Karl gregory jones (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done! Thanks for the heads up. Coltsfan (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2019 (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) 03:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Foto Oficial Presidente Jair Bolsonaro.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) 12:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bolsonaro em março de 1990 (Acervo Globo).jpg

Article is still serious flawed
Again, I’m here to point out that the article is serious flawed. In fact, it became increasingly worse since the election, with several quotes taken out of context, and several events described without proper background. Obviously, noting can be done here, since user Coltsfan has assumed ownership of the article and allows no one else to even attempt to improve it. --Lecen (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , But Bolsonaro really said all of that dumb crap. How is it flawed? He said those things, and he did mean all of that! Why not help improve the article? Write about neutral things then Bageense (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolsonaro and Netanyahu in Rio de Janeiro in December 28, 2018.jpg (discussion)
 * Official portrait of Jair Bolsonaro.jpg (discussion)
 * crap, not htat again Bageense (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * well it turns out that both images don't matter. the second one was already known not to be allowed and in the first one bolsonaro is barely visible Bageense (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is a perfect microcosm if Wikipedia.
Dozens of posts on the talk page about an inane detail (Does Bolsonaro. Evoke president at midnight or at noon? A riveting matter of great importance!)

And the article itself tries to smear the subject while sounding “encyclopedic”, since it has mostly been taken over by folks pushing their own political agenda. (While hiding behind selective quoting of “policy”, quotemining and using whatever rules that come in handy.)

Ah yes, there’s a reason why college professors tend to laugh, when students try to quote Wikipedia. And why Wikipedia hardly ever attracts new editors, outside the overwhelmingly white and middleclass male club. Who’ve spent years learning the art of wiki-politics and selective enforcement.

185.107.12.99 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Brazil's Bolsonaro praises late Paraguay dictator Stroessner
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/brazils-bolsonaro-praises-late-paraguay-dictator-stroessner-61336016 RBL2000 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS? Coltsfan (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems better suited for the article about the dam, if we have it. But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday Cambalachero (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm letting the editors here know that RBL2000 has an open incident report regarding WP:POLEMIC in Venezuelan articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And so what? --Bageense(disc.) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Official Presidential Portrait
There was already published the official presidential portrait of the 38th President of Brazil: It would be great if someone with special powers substituted the principal photograph of this article. Igor Dalmy (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The official portrait of presidents is no longer free licence, if i'm not mistaken. Coltsfan (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify: The contents of the Planalto web page are distributed under a Creative Commons BY ND license. Most CC licenses are acceptable in commons, but not that one, as derivative works must be allowed. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The official photo (see here) is under this license, which says we can re-use it, if I'm not mistaken. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already saw that, and that's exactly what I said before. One of the terms say "NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes". Commoncs requires that commercial reuse is allowed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nazi soldier great-grandfather
So, Coltsfan raised the issue re Bolsonaro's alleged Nazi soldier great-grandfather. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * See here Cambalachero (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * He bragged that his great-grandfather was a Nazi, but it turns out that is not true. I do not see any reason to mention the claim unless it attracts attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * He never bragged about it, on the contrary. During a homage to Brazilian WW2 veterans in the parliament, Bolsonaro said that his grandfather had been forced to fight in the German army (or he’d be executed) during the conflict and that, thankfully (his words), the Nazi lost. When I see an editor like you, purposefully misinterpreting something about Bolsonaro, is why I understand the reason that this has become a highly biased and awful article. --Lecen (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not his exact words. Speaking of misinterpretation, it is pretty unusual that someone would lie and claim their great-grandfather was a Nazi soldier. TFD (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ”To brag: say something in a boastful manner.” Nowhere Bolsonaro praises the idea of having a grandfather who fought on the German side and he never stated that his grandfather was a nazi (not every German was a Nazi, nor every Russian was a communist). Why Bolsonaro believed that his ancestor fought in WW2 is a mystery and it’s not up to this article to discuss it. I’d suggest that you try to remain away from it until you’re able to work in a productive manner, without being motivated by your personal opinions. --Lecen (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Note the bias in your comment that Bolsonaro "believed' his great-grandfather had been a German soldier and your misstatement that Bolsonaro said he would be executed if he did not join. How do you know what Bolsonaro believed? It is not credible that is what he believed since his great-grandfather was born in 1876 and came to Brazil in 1883 when he was 6 or 7 years old. You assume that Bolsonaro spoke as if apologetic about his great-grandfather's service record, but it takes on a different context when you consider his far right politics. The audience might have it different take. TFD (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My view: this is Wikipedia, not the Britannica, and does allow for this sort of minor, curious fact. I happen to believe that this is relevant. While ordinary people might like to make up stories about an inexistent Nazi past, Bolsonaro is not an ordinary person. If he has or not a Nazi great-grandfather is less important than his decision to come forward in the Congress and boast about having one. It is telling of his persona and maybe was an attempt to please Brazil's tiny neonazi community -- in which he is widely celebrated, as you probably know. Sure, this is only a detail, a sentence on the page. But I wonder -- if Trump had said the same thing, wouldn't the Trump page have at least a mention about it? It would surely do. Shakula34 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Note the bias in your comment that Bolsonaro "believed' his great-grandfather had been a German soldier and your misstatement that Bolsonaro said he would be executed if he did not join. How do you know what Bolsonaro believed? It is not credible that is what he believed since his great-grandfather was born in 1876 and came to Brazil in 1883 when he was 6 or 7 years old." Because he said it himself. This whole "grandpa nazi" story came from his own mouth, during a speech he gave in the parliament. I see now that you clearly have little to no knowledge of Bolsonaro. I took my time to translate what he said, something that no one has bothered to with any of the quotes presented in this awful article:
 * ""I want to salute, obviously, our Brazilian Expeditionary Force, in the person of lieutenant Camilo Cola, who has a truly beautiful story, to share with us of that moment, [since] he took part in the takeover of Monte Castelo; fortunate is this parliament to have this person here. He is an example for all of us. The history of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force is undeniable; it guaranteed, away from Brazil, our democracy. And I also thank the American army, so criticized by sectors of the left throughout the world and, especially, in our country. I thank the American people for [I] not speaking German today, although my great-grandfather was German and being a soldier of Hitler [i.e. a German soldier in WWII]. He didn't have an option: it was either be a soldier or face the paredón [i.e. be executed]. He became a soldier. Thank God he lost the war. But, he told several stories that I won't talk about it now, because, if all of you, living or relatives of heroes of those times, fought against Nazism, in 1964, other living heroes fought against Communism, next to women in the streets and all the Brazilian press, except for the Zero Hora newspaper, entrepreneurs, all of the Catholic Church, the respected OAB, all of which demanded that the country remain in the opposite field of the Soviet Union..." (Translation up to 1:32)"
 * As can be seen, nowhere Bolsonaro says that his great-grandfather was a Nazi nor he praises Nazism, on the contrary. Many editos have acted in this article driven by political bias, which has prevented it from portraying a fair assessment of Bolsonaro, with his flaws and qualities. It's embarrassing. --Lecen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, he does not say that he was a Nazi, in the sense that he believed in Nazism, but that he was forced to fight in the Nazi army.Shakula34 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lecen, please do not assume that because I did not interpret Bolsonaro's speech in the same way as you that I have little or no knowledge. Not everyone who does not share your views is misinformed. What you may see as a straightforward appeal for sympathy and opposition to fascism may be seen by someone else as dog whistle politics, particularly considering that the facts he presented were false. In any case, my conclusion was "I do not see any reason to mention the claim unless it attracts attention in reliable sources." If you agree with that we can close this discussion thread. Otherwise, this discussion isn't helping to improve the page. If you think that this article presents a view of Bolsonaro inconsistent with how he is portrayed in mainstream media, then of course we can discuss that. However, he has been portrayed in a very negative light and this is not the place to correct that. TFD (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Using official sources
"Bolsonaro has, during his long political career, expressed views regarded as being far-right.[115] He has made statements that some people considered insulting, homophobic,[116] violence-inciting,[117][118][119] misogynistic, sexist,[120][118][119] racist[121][118][119] or anti-refugee.[122]"

I recommend the mention that the accusation of racism of Quilombolas was rejected by the judiciary, as noted in link. This can bring more neutrality to the page.

Court Order: INQ 4694

I can't find anything about Preta Gil.

(Lage2 (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

As the text says, it is about people's perceptions of Bolsonaro ("some people considered"), not whether he is or not a racist (to what the Supreme Court ruling could be interpreted as important). Bolsonaro has been called a racist/bigot etc multiple times (e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/homophobic-mismogynist-racist-brazil-jair-bolsonaro). On Preta Gil, just Google it.Shakula34 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I has searching for primary source, secondary sources are less reliable.

Court Order: INQ 3706

I recommend using this source also.

Yes, I know that some people considered that he is racist, but to maintain neutrality, counterpoints are made.

(Lage2 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC))


 * You need a secondary source for the judgment. You think it absolves him of the accusations, someone else may not. Only by finding a news or academic source that says he was absolved can we include it. Incidentally, neutrality does not mean even-handedness to all perspectives but representing the views that have been expressed in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. TFD (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Views on/ alleged links with militiamen
Should we add a section on Bolsonaro's declarations about militiamen / death squads, which begin in 2003? Or on the alleged links between the Bolsonaro clan and militia groups (which are basically a kind of organised crime)? This is something I discussed in parallel with another editor, and my first impulse was to appeal to a dispute resolution mechanism but maybe throwing this issue here is a better first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion can be seen here. But, to sum up, my opinion is no. It's a developing case, mostly involving his son not him directly, a lot of unknowns and all ties are alleged, no confirmed criminal activity or any wrong doing yet with little to no ramifications. Coltsfan (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: People, such as the current president of the murdered councillor's party, have put together Bolsonaro's support of paramilitary groups and personal relationships (as with the Flávio scandal) as evidence that the family has "ties" to these organisations but – as says – none of this seems fully developed yet. Per WP:BLP, we need at least "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation," i.e. sources on the allegations relating to the Bolsonaros as a whole (and not just Flávio). If wants to find a bunch meeting that description then I think we could find somewhere to fit in a line about it but personally I'd wait a week or two and come back to it. Adding a well-sourced summary of the Flávio scandal at Flávio Bolsonaro might be useful in the meantime, though.

Hats off to both of you for a good on-topic discussion by the way. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Personal life" section at the end, why?
I'm going to put it at the beggining of the article in the section that will be called "biography" or something. If anyone has an objection, let me know or revert me. --Bageense(disc.) 15:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

And what about the seciton "Ancestry"? Should it stay at the end? --Bageense(disc.) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but usually "personal lives" sections are in the end of biographic articles simply because they are less relevant. I'll revert.Shakula34 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Using official sources
"Bolsonaro provoked controversy for a series of remarks made to and about Federal Deputy and former Human Rights Minister Maria do Rosário. During a Congressional debate, Bolsonaro said that minors should be treated as adults if they commit heinous crimes such as murder or rape, to which Maria do Rosário responded by calling him a "rapist".[165][166][167] Bolsonaro then stated that Congresswoman Rosário was "not worth raping; she is very ugly".[168] The remarks drew considerable condemnation throughout Brazil. In the aftermath of these remarks, Bolsonaro was tried and convicted in a Federal court in September 2015 on counts of hedonic damages against Rosário.[169] In June 2016, the Federal Supreme Court responded to a complaint filed by the Attorney General and decided to open two criminal actions against Bolsonaro. The Supreme Court ruled that he had potentially incited rape and defamed the honor of his fellow Deputy. He faced a penalty of up to 6 months of jail and a fine.[170] Ultimately in August 2017, an appellate court upheld a lower court's verdict which found Bolsonaro guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine to Rosário of R$10,000 (roughly equivalent to US$2,500).[171] This lawsuit was dismissed by the Supreme Federal Court as Bolsonaro was inaugurated as president in 2019 and acquired immunity from prosecution.[172]"

The occurrence with Maria do Rosário generated two processes, Inquérito 3932 and Petição 5243 , where Inquérito 3932 was partially accepted and Petição 5243 was also partially accepted. In Inquérito 3932 was accepted only the accusation of injury, and denied the accusation of crime. In Petição 5243 as accepted only the accusation of injury, and denied accusation of slander. The two were tried on the same day, so perhaps they could have been judged as one.

Also the court order ARE 1098601 of aggravation was denied.

The accusation was again made in 2018 and 2017 for court order AP/1008 and AP/1007 that were suspended by presidential immunity. I'm not sure if is the same accusation, because the original ones has been concluded.

I recommend including judgment records for greater reliability and neutrality.

(Lage2 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

From my end, the more details, the merrier. But pls do not delete anything nor try to gloss over the case: he has *not* been acquitted. And be fair: in what appears to be separate civil procedure regarding the same case, the STF has just confirmed that Bolsonaro is due a reparation to Rosario. https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2019/02/stf-nega-recurso-de-bolsonaro-e-mantem-indenizacao-a-maria-do-rosario.shtmlShakula34 (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's fine to add links to the actual judgments, but the article in the text should only mention what is sourced to secondary sources. TFD (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Content that should be in Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro
It appears to me that people are inserting content in this article that really should be in the article of the presidency... --Bageense(disc.) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Here, the section "presidency" should be an "overhaul" of his administration, a summary, not a blow-by-blow of his presidency. Coltsfan (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well lets start moving content? "Political views" should just be political views, not actual events and happenings. --Bageense(disc.) 17:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. I ended doing a quick overhaul of a sub-section after catching a grammatical error, but the Political Views section truly has a lot that should be under the Presidency article instead. — Radnyr  ( talk ) 15:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Put the information, president pro tempore of Mercosur
He is already President pro tempore of Mercosur, are not they going to put that on?Barkins17 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Though i don't think it's really necessary. Coltsfan (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Birth control for the poor" section title is not neutral
Subsidized birth control for lower income households is generally considered a left-leaning policy and Bolsonaro's position isn't exceptional. Titling the section "birth control for the poor" seems like deliberately hysterical wordplay insinuating some sort of mandatory sterilization program (when he is generally very pro-life). Needs to be revised to encyclopedic standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:C16F:B790:21FE:A8C7 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Outdated misleading Stats on Female aproval/disaproval under Political Views
The registered poll records 52% support from females on election day. The stats used in the article were taken from earlier outdated polls that included various candidates who were eliminated. Source for more transparent statistic:

Source: SOURCE LINK ESTADAO NEWSPAPER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johonbravo (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Official portrait of the president
I would know why this article don't use the Official portrait of the President of Brazil in the main photo of the article, instead it is used a non-official portrait of the inauguration day. The Official portrait is available to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.38.209 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Size of the article
I'd like to bring to people's attention again (there were already a discussion about this in the article talk page before) the topic about the size of the article, which is already massive (incluinding with possible WP:OVERREF). Information about his presidency should be focus on the article about his administration. Not everything that makes headlines should be added to the article. There must be a vetting system to prevent the article from becoming bigger than it already is. Coltsfan (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
Why was the numbering removed from the infobox? This goes for all the infoboxes of the Brazilian presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Military Career
That section is lacking. Bolsonaro is officialy a retired captain. When was he promoted to first lieutenant? And was he promoted to captain while in active service, or only on the occasion of his retirement? If not, why not? If he reached the rank of captain during his active service, why was he not promoted to major on retirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.0.92 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Because there is no promotion upon retirement, this is a persistent myth about the Brazilian military that never seems to go away. What actually exists is an adjustment to the paycheck upon retirement (caused by age or disability). The officer DOES NOT climb one step up in the hierarchy, he just is paid as if he were. The fine differences of that don't matter anyway, as Bolsonaro quit voluntarily, which does not entitle him to any of that. fmobus (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove cornavirus category
This article is currently saying in its categories that Bolsonaro has COVID-19. However, the page doesn't include the word "corona-" or "COVID" in its text. I see on Google News that he has undergone testing because of an infected associate, but nothing there says he has it anyway - and whatever it is, it's not sourced 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:CD66:8E4:10BB:B558 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed now. Both the tests he made came out negative. Source in portuguese here. As soon as i find one in english, i can post it here as well . Source in english found. Coltsfan (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * New York Times has also reported it. With a lot of misinformation and contradicting sources, we're on wait and see situation. Only post that he has the virus when the sources are unequivocally certain. So far, official government channels have denies it and media is frantic on the issue. Coltsfan (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's me again. Somebody's put it in the first sentence now that he's a "COVID 19 victim", which would mean that he is dead. This kind of childish and scientifically inaccurate vandalism is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:F978:FD8D:5CD7:456 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Better source for the negativity of Bolsonaro. We should put it on the page, however. . 85.159.196.228 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't think it's noteworthy here. Maybe in the page Government of Jair Bolsonaro, in the context of his administration's response to the COVID-19. Coltsfan (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "which would mean that he is dead" -- no it wouldn't. Being a victim simply means that one has the disease. "scientifically inaccurate" -- you're projecting. "vandalism" -- that word has a specific meaning on WP, and this is not an example of it. -- Jibal (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Little flu"
Bolsonaro thinks the "media" has "tricked" citizens about the "little flu" -- the Guardian []. --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bolsonaro's posts have been removed by Facebook, youtube, Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/facebook-twitter-pull-misleading-posts-from-brazil-s-bolsonaro

Bolsonaro's posts have been removed by Facebook, youtube, Twitter for spreading COVID related misinformation. This is unprecedented. His conduct on COVID has been questioned and has been covered in international media. This need to be added back into the article. --Cedix (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This info can be important either here or here. In this article is a bit of WP:NOTNEWS. Coltsfan (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I will post it there. But I still believe this deserves in a paragraph. This is the biggest pandemic and his bio will be incomplete without any mention of this despicable conduct. --Cedix (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but things change so fast regarding this topic, informations are so rampant, that something added to an article becomes outdated fast and this article is already quite big (especially when you think you not only must add the info but you have to add the context of the information). A lot about this pandemic (especially how politicians are reacting to it) should be analysed mainly in retrospect to ensure neutrality. At least this is how i see it. Coltsfan (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Environmental Destruction
The Guardian recently published an article raising concerns about environmental destruction and corruption linked to the president’s son. There could be a section to ensure this vital subject is covered. AnabelC (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a single mention of Coronavirus
A quick ctrl+F reveals zero instances of "covid" or "corona" on the entire page. By contrast Donald Trump's page mentions "covid" 13 times and "corona" 48, including an entire section devoted to it. How can Bolsonaro's article be entirely devoid of mentions to the most important event of his presidency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.36.161 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question. How, indeed? El_C 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to see this has been corrected, especially now that Bolsonaro has tested positive for the virus (BBC). El_C 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also added a summary of that to the lead just now, using the abovementioned source. El_C 17:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that from the lead, cuz it's not necessary there. Other world leaders who have either downplayed the crisis or got infected themselves don't have that mentioned on their lead (like Boris Johnson, for instance). The lead is the short summary of his life and so far his infection with a slight variation of the virus isn't noteworthy enough to be on the lead. Coltsfan (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, it may be a bit NEWSy. I accept your correction. El_C 17:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bolsonaro's own infection may not be lead-worthy, but the amount of press his handling of the virus has received makes that bit absolutely lead-worthy. Coltsfan, are you suggestint a summary of his response to Covid does not belong in the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, his reaction to the crisis might be noteworthy in the lead, but his presidency has been plagued with controversies to a degree. To single out one thing above others might show POV or something. I think it's better off being treated in the section or article of his presidency or something, where the full context of what happened can be shown. When dealing with a politician who has been in power for not very long, some historical distance is needed, i think. But if the overall opinion here is to the contrary, why not. Coltsfan (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles about contemporary politicians do have a RECENTISM problem, but that's a reason to continually reevaluate what had previously been put in, not to exclude something current that's receiving widespread coverage. It should certainly be covered in the body in detail, but the lead, as a summary, needs a mention of this. I'll add something later if no one else has. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But the problem persists: why single out a single event in his presidency, among all others (both positive or negative)? Some can see this as a violation of the article's neutrality. Coltsfan (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With due respect, that's faulty logic; by your argument, no events and no policy from his presidency would be mentioned in the lead at all. This needs to be mentioned in the lead because among reliable sources discussing him, his response to covid-19 is given very significant mention. Not mentioning it violates WP:DUE. His own infection with Covid-19 is not given significant mention in sources about him or his presidency, and so does not belong in the lead. I'm sure some people will see it as a violation of neutrality, but that's really besides the point; we have negative material in the lead of most contemporary politicians, because most politicians are criticized (to a lesser or greater extent) by reliable sources. If their fanbase does't like it, well, tough. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think that putting that on the lead is what will violate WP:DUE. Of the hundreds of things (positive or negative) that he has done, one thing in particular is being selected and the reason is "because it's on the media every day"? We're gonna measure what's important based on how many news articles has come out about something? With people who are on the media all the time, WP:NOTNEWS must be taken into consideration. I'm not saying i don't completely agree with you, all i'm saying is that i'm still on the fence about this. Coltsfan (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only policy-based criterion for this decision is how much coverage something has received in reliable sources. At the moment, reliable sources about Bolsonaro are overwhelmingly media sources, because scholarly sources take a while to be written. On what basis are you making your judgement? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the basis that as a populist and polarizing politician, he is on the media all the time. The 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires, for instance, one can argue that is far more consequential than his response to COVID-19. Certainly it drew more condemnation abroad and by the media as a whole. I still think that single out one thing out of many many stuff would cause undue weight in the lead. That's my point of view. Coltsfan (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a basis in policy for that argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we were interpreting policy not simple quoting them in abstract. Coltsfan (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you both make good points. My addition seemed both brief and neutral. But the Boris Johnson comparison was apt, I thought. But upon even further thought, it doesn't necessarily mean that the comparison itself is reason enough not to add mention of this, at least for now. As I recall (but I might be misrecollecting), Johnson had mention about COVID in the lead, too, for a time. This is a major news story (testing positive in combination with having downplayed the pandemic), so perhaps being a bit more flexible, even if for the interim only, would be sensible. Thoughts? El_C 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @El_C; I'm open to being persuaded that Bolsonaro's infection belongs, but his downplaying of the threat has received such widespread coverage that I don't see how we can't mention it. @Coltsfan: there's a difference between interpreting policy and disregarding it. Interpreting policy would be examining the source material to see what warrants mention. Your argument that it's "just one thing" is not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself for the hundredth time, here goes nothing: lot of things in his presidency has been noteworthy. A lot negative, some good. To give more context, the aforementioned 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires, major fake news and corruption scandals, the COVID-19 thingy, etc. All of that attracted enormous media attention. There is also things deemed good, like the economic recovery in his first year in power, low crime rates and so on, so on. As WP:NPOV states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible". But what do you want? You to single out one thing, and without proper context, out of many noteworthy things, under the justification that "well, there is a media buzz around it". As WP:MOSLEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points", and most importantly, "recent events affecting a subject are kept in historical perspective; most recent is not necessarily most notable. Balance new information with old, giving all information due weight." So, this is my interpretation. Coltsfan (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. None of your arguments is Covid-specific; all of them could be applied to any of the material that's already in the lead. I've made my argument as to why Covid-19 needs inclusion; it has received coverage comparable, or exceeding, that of his treatment of the Amazon. If you want to put some numbers on it; there's 6 million news stories mentioning both him and the Amazon, but not Covid; and 45 million mentioning him and Covid. If you search only for scholarly sources, the numbers are comparable. As such, if mentioning the Amazon constitutes DUE weight, then so does mentioning his response to Covid. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of search results by Google is not valid, under any circumstances (for instance, it does not take into account which source is more reliable, per WP:RS). Second, the current lead follows, to the letter, MOS:INTRO, as a general overview of the subject. It's you who still do not get the point, that choosing a specific topic to add in the lead, without context, being good or bad, without thinking about due wait is a gross violation of MOS:LEADBIO. Coltsfan (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, it is perfectly legitimate for Vanamonde to consider the pandemic as living up for due weight in the lead, just as it is legitimate for you to consider at otherwise. That is a content dispute that would probably benefit from further outside input. But I don't see how either position violates policy. It's a matter of interpretation. El_C 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, i said what i had to say, he said what he thought he had to say, i don't think either can bring anything new to the conversation, so i welcome other people's opinions. Coltsfan (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not follow WP:DUE, which, as a core policy, any and all MOS pages are subordinate to. Assessing prominence in news sources is a perfectly legitimate means of gauging due weight. You are still unable to understand that your argument could be used to exclude deforestation from the lead. If you're not actually going to substantiate your position, I'm going to wait for more input, and if none is forthcoming, modify the lead; because there's at least three, possibly four (depending on if the IPs are different people), folks who are expressing concern at the absence of Covid from the lead at this point. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, i'm gonna be even more blunt: article only has negative things and/or bad coverage to say in the lead, with no context, bias. Article has both positive and negative, no sides taken, no WP:NOTNEWS, with all context given, then not bias. More simple than that, i can't put into words. Unless i'm wrong and WP:NPOV was deemed invalid by the community in some previous discussion i wasn't aware of (This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it). I'll check that out for ya.
 * Now, my opinion in a nutshell: if the information is given there, along with a other info, summury of his administration, not bias. If this info is put on the lead, alone, no context given, then bias. Simple. But, for real, are article about politicians supposed to be one sided and i wasn't aware of? I'm serious now. Did things changed? If so, when? I'm serious now, real doubt. Cuz i was trying to be neutral in all my editings and nobody even bothered to tell me that this was not necessary anymore. Oh well... Coltsfan (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a rather serious misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV is not about balancing criticism and praise. It's about presenting what reliable sources say, duly weighted. If you can't understand that, you ought not to be editing contentious topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Attempt at consensus

Here is how i envisioned that a neutral lead about his administration (not only citing one thing, as some want), would look like. This is not, by any means, the final version, feel free to modify it if you feel it's not correct or if it's insufficient. Take a look (the first and second paragraphs would be made one to maintain the four paragraphs structure):


 * Bolsonaro placed many army officers in key positions in his cabinet. Prior to his inauguration, he stated he would fill positions in his government based on technical qualifications rather than ideological sympathy. As his presidency was unfolding, many appointees saw themselves clashing, ideologically, with the government, with his ministers of Justice, Education, the Secretary of Government, the Postmaster General, among others, falling out of favor with Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro focused on domestic affairs in his first months in office, dealing primarily with the fallout of one of the worst recessions in the country's history. In his first year in office, the economy recovered very slowly, while crimes rates fell sharply. Multiple controversies marked the first years of his administration. In 2019, Bolsonaro left his party amid a confrontation with other members, and formed his own political organization. During his presidency, he has pushed a rollback of protections for indigenous groups in the Amazon rainforest and facilitated its destruction through deforestation. Bolsonaro's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil was criticized across the political spectrum: he sought to downplay the pandemic and its effects, opposed quarantine measures, and fired two medically qualified health ministers, as Brazil's death toll increased rapidly. As a result, public opinion, which had been favourable towards him during his first year in office, turned sour throughout 2020.

what do you guys think? Coltsfan (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm good with that. I've made some minor alterations. El_C 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some alterations also; some of them grammatical, some of them to remove an overuse of editorial voice, and some of them to preserve the current wording about the amazonian wildfires, which is clearer than what was in the proposal. Assuming this paragraph is inserted between current lead paragraphs 3 & 4 (with the removal of the last sentence of 3), I would be fine with this. I think the first two paragraphs could use a slight trim as well, because some of it is covered elsewhere in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ok this is what i did. The second and third paragraph were combined into a single one, with the last part of the third paragraph being removed. The new paragraph was placed in the bottom of the intro.
 * "Jair Messias Bolsonaro (born 21 March 1955) is a Brazilian politician and retired military officer who is the 38th president of Brazil and has been in office since 1January 2019. He served in the country's Chamber of Deputies, representing the state of Rio de Janeiro in several parties between 1991 and 2018. He was elected president as a member of the conservative Social Liberal Party (before cutting ties with them in 2019).


 * Bolsonaro was born in the small town of Glicério, in the northwest area of the state of São Paulo. He graduated from the Agulhas Negras Military Academy in 1977 and served in the Brazilian Army's field artillery and parachutist units. He became known to the public in 1986, when he wrote an article for Veja magazine criticizing low wages for military officers, after which he was arrested and detained for fifteen days. One year later, he was accused by the same magazine of planning to plant bombs in military units, which he denied. After a first degree conviction, he was acquitted by the Brazilian Supreme Military Court in 1988. He joined the reserve army in 1988 with the rank of captain and ran for the Rio de Janeiro City Council that same year, being elected while a member of the Christian Democratic Party. Bolsonaro was elected in 1990 to the lower chamber of Congress and was subsequently re-elected six times. During his 27-year tenure as a congressman, he became known for his strong support of national conservatism. He is a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, drug liberalization and secularism. In foreign policy, he has advocated closer relations to the United States and Israel. During the 2018 presidential campaign, he started to advocate for economic liberal and pro-market policies. A polarizing and controversial politician, his views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist in nature, have drawn both praise and criticism in Brazil.


 * Bolsonaro announced his pre-candidacy for president in March 2016 as a member of the Social Christian Party. However, he left the party in 2018 and joined the Social Liberal Party, and then launched his presidential campaign in August of that same year, with retired general Hamilton Mourão as his running mate. He portrayed himself as an outsider and a supporter of family values. He came in first place in the first round of the general election on 7October 2018, with Workers' Party candidate Fernando Haddad coming in second place. The two candidates faced a run-off on 28 October 2018, and Bolsonaro was elected with 55.1% of the popular vote.


 * Bolsonaro placed many army officers in key positions in his cabinet. Prior to his inauguration, he stated he would fill positions in his government based on technical qualifications rather than ideological sympathy. As his presidency was unfolding, many appointees saw themselves clashing, ideologically, with the government, with his ministers of Justice, Education, the Secretary of Government, the Postmaster General, among others, falling out of favor with Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro focused on domestic affairs in his first months in office, dealing primarily with the fallout of one of the worst recessions in the country's history. In his first year in office, the economy recovered very slowly, while crimes rates fell sharply. Multiple controversies marked the first years of his administration. In 2019, Bolsonaro left his party amid a confrontation with other members, and formed his own political organization. During his presidency, he has pushed a rollback of protections for indigenous groups in the Amazon rainforest and facilitated its destruction through deforestation. Bolsonaro's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil was criticized across the political spectrum: he sought to downplay the pandemic and its effects, opposed quarantine measures, and fired two medically qualified health ministers, as Brazil's death toll increased rapidly. As a result, public opinion, which had been favourable towards him during his first year in office, turned sour throughout 2020. "

I think this way is better organized. Is that cool for everybody or something is still missing? Coltsfan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Substance-wise I think this is fine. I would probably make a couple more organizational adjustments and grammatical tweaks, but I think those are distinctly minor, and would be easier to implement and discuss in the article itself after you've added this. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * things can be changed over time, improved, trimmed down, whatever necessary, as in any article. I'll put it there, we'll see where we go from here later as things move along. Coltsfan (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

image
Why exactly isn't his official photo being used for the lead image?

Kingofthedead (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, that is not the official picture of the president. The official one is not free license. As for using this one, well, i don't like it. He looks grumpy-like. Usually, for the effects of neutrality, i prefer to use an emotionless picture or one that the person is smiling or something. Coltsfan (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
The text "… is a Brazilian politician and retired military officer who has been the 38th president of Brazil since 1 January 2019." reads incorrectly and it could be mistaken that there have been 38 Brazilian presidents since 1 January 2019. I would suggest that this is changed to:

"… is a Brazilian politician and retired military officer who is the 38th president of Brazil and has been in office since 1 January 2019." Dominic OSullivan (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 denial
I think the article is lacking his positions about the denial of the dangerness of covid-19 and his opposition to social distancing and his support for hidroxicloroquine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:3283:211F:6D0B:F3EE:64AE:F11D (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there is something in the article on the issue. Very dubious indeed. What is the evidence for the "rapid increase in the death rate due to Corona-viruses"? That question is the first to examine. Then we should ask what role Coronaphobia plays in the development of diseases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.0.4.176 (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trump of Brazil" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump of Brazil. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

He created a new party
Jair Messias Bolsonaro is not in the PSL anymore he left it in 12th October 2019 and after a month he created a new party called Alliance for Brazil, here is the wiki page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Brazil sorry if i did something wrong, that's my first time posting something in Wikipedia    Drowpper (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Drowpper

(talk) 02:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC) It seems we can narrow it down to either B or H:
 * B إيان (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A or D. Don't see any problem with the current pic, but fair enough. Coltsfan (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * F — Most neutral expression; no distracting background. Don't use the one with the huge smile! — RCraig09 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * H — Neutral, high resolution, extracted from an official portrait. Torimem (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Option G, because it centers the face most definitively. I also like option B, which is the second most centered and is more recent. –Laundry</b><b style=" color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style=" color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been converted to a proper RFC. –<b style=" color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style=" color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style=" color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Option H. I second Torimem's position, this is more or less standard for heads of state. RCraig09 has mentioned F is the most neutral expression, and while this may look like the case, H is how Bolsonaro is most of the time as if it is his official portrait wasn't enough. FelipeFritschF (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I look at these from a quality perspective. Not C, D, and E as those are far too poor quality. G also falls into this category, but less drastically. A has too busy a background (darn iPhone users!). B and F are kind of awkward, but not deal-breakers. I think  Option H is by far the best in terms of quality, regarding B and then F. Curbon7 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the arguments above, I think Option H or F &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'd like to suggest a new picture, this is the actual official portrait, published by the government. It is high resolution and portrays him with the presidential sash. All other articles of presidents of Brazil use the official photograph with the presidential sash, therefore the same should be done here. So I'd like to ask someone to please upload this picture to Wikimedia, it has the proper licensing on the site (2.0), you can also find it here (official government site) in various resolutions. Torimem (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't accept noncommercial Creative Commons licenses (here CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0) on Wikipedia. –<b style=" color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style=" color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style=" color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What about CC BY-ND 3.0? It is the license on the second link. Torimem (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't use CC licenses that have either NC or ND in them, see File copyright tags/Deprecated. Basically, that limits you to: CC0; CC BY; CC BY-SA. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Option F, neutral facial expression, not distracting background, and almost looks like an official portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.246.192 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option B > F > H - B seems like a good one. Neutral expression. Nice depth-of-field. F is also good but looks like it might be less recent. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * B or H best choices; D or F decent options as well. Each of these four has an acceptable resolution, framing, and composition to my eye. B and H benefit from both higher technical quality (higher resolution, clear, crisp, and generally better image quality), and a more typical and appropriate positioning of the subject in portraiture.  In A, the subject's eyelids are virtually closed, and the eyes themselves reflect light; combined with the expression displayed in this semi-candid shot, it just does not have the quality of a portrait-like image we'd usually prefer for this image.  C is low res, poorly focused, and either framed or cropped badly.  E is extremely low res, with artifacts.  And G is entirely too out-of-focus and blurry.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  B, F, G, or H. In my opinion, the others suffer from a lack of centering, distracting backgrounds, poor image quality, or unusual/distracting facial expressions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * H Clearest and the highest quality by far, besides apparently being from an official portrait, which is what we normally use. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  H, second choice B. H is the highest quality image, and it is an official portrait from his tenure as president, which is what he is most notable for. B is okay too, though it is a bit lower quality and he is not in the "normal" pose most portraits are taken. Since other people have mentioned it, I just want to register that I  oppose F as it is quite low quality. Endwise (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

إيان (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea I was debating doing this as well. I added option F because it also had a fair amount of votes (the same amount as option H) so I think it’d be fair to add it as a finalist. Top three is a good number to vote on TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not include option F because it did not receive the same support B and H did. إيان (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * H because is by far the highest-quality option in terms of being highly stabilized, focused, static, and displaying a natural color palette and attention to face details (all in all, it seems to have all the trappings of a professional portrait, because, well... it is). It only compares unfavorably to discarded (and otherwise inferior) options C and F in terms of contrast with the background. As both options H and B correspond to Bolsonaro's mandate (1 January 2019 – 1 January 2023), the date is a non-factor.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * H though I don't think the smiling E would have been so bad either. BogLogs (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * B, it's clean and precise, and he looks almost happy. Cessaune (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)NNN
 * its good to know that he's clean,precise, and happy Zside90 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * H, it's most clean and precise, and he looks very happy.--Oli (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)