Talk:Michel Temer

Profile Picture with VP Flag
The present profile picture is the official photo of Michel Temer as Vice-President, and the Vice-Presidential Standard (the yellow flag that is the insignia of the Vice-Presidency) appears in the background. Now that he is president, it is appropriate to replace the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CEF:88AA:E0A3:9C5A:A768:B48C (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is! He already has his official presidential photo! Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"42 years his junior"
The article seems to go out of its way to point out the age difference between Mr. and Mrs. Temer. This sounds a bit judgmental and unnecessary. Does anybody see the point in keeping this here? Zelani (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Zelani (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspended from PMDB presidency?
Article said Temer was suspended from the Presidency due to Brazilian Law, but this doesn't make any sense. There is no law that requires that a Vice President relinquish the presidency of his party.

In any event, he's back as the party President and still Vice President, so the point is moot.Zelani (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Zelani (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing here about accusation of corruption?
According the the NYT 4/14/2016, he was accused of corruption as part of Operation Car Wash. Shouldn't that be in here? 128.148.231.34 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There should be .... any links? 68.144.218.20 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

He was not yet formally charged, only named in a plea deal Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion
Many sources claim his parents were Maronites. Somebody is trying to claim him as Greek Orthodox because his parents come from a predominantly Orthodox village. Not confirmed. Xuxo (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This source is clear to claim Temer was raised Maronite and now is a Roman Catholic Vilarejo libanês do 'filho Michel Temer' segue igreja ortodoxa grega For those who do not speak Portuguese, here is the translation:

"The population of Btaaboura follows the Greek Orthodox tradition (...) The vice-President's team told the reporters, however, that he (Temer) had a Maronite nurture and that he, now, considers himself a Roman Catholic - like most Brazilians". Xuxo (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Michel Temer's ethnocultural's background is purely Antiochian Greek-Orthodox
The Temer/Tamer family is absolutely not "Maronite"...

I don't speak Portuguese so I haven't corrected this gross mistake in the corresponding Brazilian wiki page. As for "sources, well they're mostly in French and Arabic & I have read them.

Pls. note that there is absolutely no ambiguity here as Btaaboura, the small village where Temer's parents BOTH came from is 100% Byzantine Greek-Orthodox - unlike say some other Lebanese towns with mixed populations belonging to different communities.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btaaboura

The widespread confusion from the part of some Brazilian journalists stems from two unrelated facts:


 * 1) Temer and his brothers converted to Roman Catholicism = mainstream Latin American Catholicism


 * 2) Most BUT NOT ALL Brazilian-Lebanese are of Lebanese Maronite-Catholic descent. BUT that's not the case of the Temer/Tamer family who are all of Byzantine "Antiochian" Greek Orthodox origin.


 * Hope that helps

B.Andersohn (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop with theories. His team confirmed to Brazilian newspapers Folha de S. Paulo that his parents were Maronite but now he is a Roman Catholic. Xuxo (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You’re absolutely wrong and, sadly, don't seem to know much re: the 'Millet' ethnocultural system that defined the life of minorities in Turkey and the Levant (including Lebanon) up until 1920.


 * There's only one Temer/Tamer Christian family in Lebanon and they ALL belong to a distinct ethno-cultural minority called ‘Antiochian Greek Orthodox'. They simply converted to mainstream Roman Catholicism AFTER their migration to Brazil in the 1920s. The ‘Maronite Catholic Church’ is a distinct minority.


 * The statement from “Temer’s team” (?) is absurd… as hinted by the Brazilian journalist who wrote the article you have quoted: VILAREJO-LIBANES-DO-FILHO-MICHEL-TEMER-SEGUE-IGREJA-ORTODOXA-GREGA
 * “…A populacao de Btaaboura segue a tradicao de igraja ortodoxa grega …. Os primos de Michel Temer afirmam ser a religiao de TODA A FAMILIA” There is absolutely no ambiguity here – for an objective, intellectually honest analyst.
 * Cheers B.Andersohn (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Theories and theories...the source is clear to claim that Temer was raised Maronite and now is a Roman Catholic. Period. His personal staff confirmed that. There are dozens of Brazilian sources claiming his parents as Maronites. It doesn't matter what religion people follow in the town his parents were born or what religion other members of his family adhere to. Xuxo (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The article says the village is Greek Orthodox *but* that Michel had a Maronite upbringing, and the fact is that having a french name is strongly suggestive of Maronite affiliation. Even if communities tend to remain distinct in the Middle East (and hence it's not true that 'it doesn't matter what religion people follow in the town his parents were born or what religion other members of his family adhere to'), it seems that for whatever reason Michel Temer was indeed Maronite before he 'became' 'Latin Catholic' - and that's not even conversion, Maronites are in communion with Rome.2001:8A0:F009:9A01:89B7:7DBF:85A2:39F7 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for fallacies and inaccurate criticism
User:Luizpuodzius is posting fallacies in the article, including statements from Dilma Rousseff, the suspended president, and from "friendly" newspapers. This article is not the place to give voice to the suspended president claims.

Some of the fallacies:

1- "He unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations".

Reality: Temer's cabinet is all-male. But the reality is that, in the last election, 90% of Brazilian congress people elected were males and only 10% were females. So, the real problem is that Brazilians are not electing women. You cannot criticize an all-male cabinet if 90% of the Congress, elected by Brazilians, is composed by males. You have to blame Brazilians, not the government. This information must be given to the reader.

2-"Ms Rousseff attacked the cabinet for being all-male and all-white".

First of all: this is not the place to post comments of Dilma Rousseff, the suspended president. This article is about Michel Temer, not about her.

Reality: Dilma Rousseff's cabinet was virtually all-male and all-white as well. The only black woman she hired as a Minister was placed in "Ministério da Igualdade Racial" (Ministry of Racial Equality), for obvious reason.

And third: the information that Temer's cabinet is "all-white" is NOT accurate. Temer's Minister Marcos Pereira, of Industry, Trade and Services, is obviously not Caucasian. and Mendonça Filho, of Education, is not White as well.

And, the most important information: only 3% of Congressmen elected in Brazil are Blacks. So, once again, you cannot blame Temer's government for not hiring black people as Ministers if Brazilian voters are not electing black politicians.

This article must not be used as a place to propagate fallacies. Xuxo (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Like Jack, the ripper, we will answer by "parts".


 * 1) It has been said by User:Xuxo that I have been "... posting fallacies...propagate fallacies...from "friendly" newspapers". The accusations has inaccuracy, are illogic, and uses of just-partial and/or misreading support. My conclusion is supported by the fact that "a fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument".
 * First, I did not constructed any argument for or against lovely Temer, the information came from respectable media with good repute.
 * 1) Can you tell us what is the source that informed you that Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, NY Times, BBC, Reuters and Forbes are Dilma's "friendly newspapers"? As far as we know, regarding Brazil, theses sources are at least 500,000 times more neutral and reliable than Rede Globo and other outfits of the Brazilian mass media.
 * 2) Any mind can see that the arguments you gave to suport your claim are fallacious.   The argument committees the fallacy pointing others. It is an redoubtable fact that Temer " unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". This is a easily verifiable fact. This real. This is true. There is not source negating the informaion. However, in order to counterattack, or justify Mr. Temer's action of removing blacks and women out of the brazilian cabinet, instead of explaining why this action in an democratic, necessary, or desiarable, you decide to inform the reader that the "Congress" has more white males than blacks and females. You did not even noticed that little number of blacks and female. This erroneus attempt to justify that ZERO women and blacks in the cabinet (created by someone who has never elected president) is the same thing as a feel black/female in the elected (chosen by popular vote) congress. Pointing out that congress (or even hell) is worse and uglier than his cabinet, does not show that he did not "unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations".  Your argument is, if not fallacious, at least absurd.  Dr. Loo Talk to me 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all: I agree that blacks and women must be represented in the government. But this is a personal opinion; some people do not find this important.

Dilma Rousseff's arguments that Temer's Cabinet is "all white" is not true; I posted pictures of two obviously non-white members. This is another non-sense coming from her. Those newspapers only repplied Dilma's comments without checking the accuracy. They only needed to google the names of the Cabinet members to see it is not "all-white", not even by Brazilian standards of race.

Moreover, this article is about Temer, not about Dilma Rousseff and her attacks to the current government.

The information about the all-male Cabinet is important, since it was an issue that the Media talked about; however what the Media hides is that Brazilians elected a 90% male Congress. Hence, the president has a very small number of women to invite to become part of the Cabinet. The same is applied to Black people. This is not a justification, this is a fact. Blacks and women are very few in Brazilian politics, including in Dilma's party, even though she pretends that her party is full of Blacks and women, which is not true. This is something that must be clear. Xuxo (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How hard is to understand that you pointing out that, even if it is correct that the "Media hides is that Brazilians elected a 90% male Congress.", this "fact", does not clear 100% WHITE MALE. Please, undertand that - FIRST, 100% male is more than 90% male! Go look in math book and educate yourself about this obvius fact. TWO, try to understand that, if you are angry that "Media hides is that Brazilians elected a 90% male Congress", that is in the National Congress of Brazil talk, NOT in the "Michel Temer" talk, you should be talking. Here you must show that there is no basis..there no veracity...that in reality, Mr. Temer DID NOT "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". Finally, your argument that "this article is about Temer, not about Dilma Rousseff and her attacks to the current government..." does not give basis to exclude Ms. Rousseff's opinions. You fail to notice that there is a part of the article that you love, that talks about the "Role in the impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff" and that the only reason that Temer is a President today, is because the Brazilian population voted for Dilma (not Temer). Any poll shows that Temer has only 2 to 4 % of approval in Brazil. Without Dilma, Temer would be out of a job. Moreover, his title "acting president" is completely dependent of the existence of a president elected - FYI: DIlma is that person. If you want an article to be used as a curriculum vitae for "propaganda", the Wikipea is not the place. Here, we show "both sides" the side that you love and the side that you wishe did not exist. That is one of the 5 pillars. We do not care if you "...agree that blacks and women must be represented in the government". That is not the issue. The point is that Temer, independently if we like or not like, if is moral or not, if is supported by law or not.., is that he  "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". That is it. No moral or ethical jugdement is nedded. This is the fact. This is reality supported by evidence. That what the project does. Shows the real thing. The good side and the bad side. Understand?
 * Please, read the rules of the Wiki and come back with real arguments to justify removal of information that reflect reality and are supported by credible sources. Dr. Loo Talk to me 03:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this at all. What if it were an all black cabinet? Would we add criticism then? What if it were all women? It's 2016, color and gender should not be a problem or polarization tactic. Like said above, it's not like they were chosen because of their skin color or gender, its the Brazilians choosing to do this...-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 04:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:ZiaLater if cabinet was all black, this fact, if real and supported by reputable sources would be treated the same way that the fact that Temer "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". Meaning, people would show up and would try to hide the realy. The same way that you are now trying to do with the verifiable fact that Temer  "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". The problem for those who need to make reality goes way, it that there are people, who will always free up the information about socio-cultural action by presidents. There is no criticism here. There is no moral judgement about Mr. Temer's decisions and actions. The article is just narrating the fact. It is a fact that Temer  "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations".  Dr. Loo Talk to me  —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop posting your POV in the article. This is not the place to post non-sense comments from Dilma Rousseff. Your intention is to spread her agenda. And yes, Temer was elected ALONG with Rousseff. He was the vice-president. Everybody who voted for Dilma knew that, if she was out, Temer would take her place. That is what the Constitution affirms and everybody was aware of that. Dilma choose Temer for vice-presidency two times and people who voted for her agreed with that. Blame on her and on her voters. Deal with it. Xuxo (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is a picture of Dilma and her cabinet. I can see only one black person there, the female minister for "Racial Iquality" (for a obvious reason that minister "had" to be black). Nearly everybody is White, male and old. If she were so worried about "diversity", her cabinet should be full of blacks, mixed-race, Asians, Native Americans, women, gays etc. I don't know why she is coming with this pathetic argument, when her cabinet itself was far from being "representative" of the Brazilian population. But what I find more pathetic is that people believe in that fallacy and even try to spread this. Xuxo (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with what Xuxo said. The color of the cabinet is pretty much the same, but just saying this makes me feel awkward since the color of ones skin should never come into conversations like this. Rousseff and the left media (The Guardian, who's staff loved Hugo Chávez) often categorize what happened as a coup and that the new government doesn't represent the Brazilian people. But like Xuxo said, many of these officials are who the Brazilian people chose themselves. So as absurd this conversation is, the people chose most of the officials themselves, Rousseff's POV (or tactic) is hypocritical at best and controversy about the color of someones skin should not even be included.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 17:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. I gave up! Now we are going to the next step. Help be arrive soon. Dr. Loo Talk to me 00:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's look at corruption more and not the color of skin.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The moment of actual succession
I think, Panam2014 you should explain the background of your behavior on this article or just desist with your frankly childish behavior. If you can show me why he didn't become President on the moment Rouseff was removed please do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * you should explain the background of your behavior on this article or just desist with your frankly childish behavior. You are ridiculous. His term began at 19h pm. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's now moot, as to the exact time Temer became President. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But before that your actions was ridiculous. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Go away. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is for you to go out. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Panam2014, it is not moot and you were behaving ridiculous. You should have explained why you think that the beginning of the Presidency is dependent on the taking of the oath when your assumption was challenged and you failed to do so while repeatedly asked. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All three of you should take a look at WP:COOL, WP:NPA, and/or WP:CIVIL. Now, what do the sources say about the Brazilian presidential line of succession? (That WP article has no sources at all, so forget that for now). There is an interesting source below which states that "as soon as the Federal Senate institutes proceedings in an impeachment trial [...] the president “shall be suspended from his [or her] duties” for a period of 180 days or until the end of the trial, whichever comes first. If, at the end of 180 days, the trial is still going on, the president’s suspension “shall end, without prejudice to the normal progress of the [still ongoing trial] proceedings.”" So it appears that once the Senate voted to impeach, Rousseff was suspended as President and Temer automatically became "Acting President." This designation seems to be somewhat distinct from President. Another source says, "The Brazilian Federal Constitution establishes that a Vice-President succeeds as President when the elected President dies, resigns or is removed from office. The other officers in the line of succession are the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the President of the Federal Senate, and the President of the Supreme Federal Court, in that order, but those other officers do not succeed to the presidency as a Vice-President would. Instead, they merely serve as Acting President. The Vice-President and the other officers in the line of succession, in accordance with the constitutional order of preference, also serve as Acting President when the President is under incapacity, or is suspended due to impeachment proceedings, or when the President travels abroad." So if Temer's impeachment trial went the same as Rousseff's, Eduardo Cuhna would become Acting President as soon as the Senate voted to impeach, but then after actually being impeached Cuhna would simply remain Acting President until the elections. Unless they impeach him, too! (And I thought our politics here in the US were messed up, looks like the person 4th in line is under suspicion as well.)

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/04/22/what-we-could-learn-from-brazil-and-vice-versa-about-presidential-impeachment-procedures-and-related-matters http://www.liquisearch.com/brazilian_presidential_line_of_succession

So from what I can tell - Temer became Acting President as soon as the Senate voted to impeach Rousseff (in 2015), but did not formally ascend to the office of President until Rousseff was actually impeached, in August of 2016. If this is true, then the article should more accurately reflect this nuance. But wait - didn't the trial last longer than 180 days? If so, does that mean her suspension was lifted at some point, technically making her president again until the impeachment concluded in August? <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Michel Temer took the oath of office on August 31 at 4 PM and became President at that moment and not before.


 * The 180-day limit begins counting when the Senate accepts the impeachment process passed on from the Chamber of Deputies and suspends the President. That happened last May. Zelani (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest President
I've reincluded the information that Michel Temer is the oldest President by age upon taking office. It had been previously removed by a user on the argument that it was 'irrelevant trivia', but in fact these statistics are common in lead sections for Presidents. Fernando Collor de Mello is noted to have been the youngest President, Ronald Reagan to be the oldest American, etc. There are also mentions to the first elected President, first President to die in office, first Protestant President, and, more recently, first female President. I would argue that such statistics are far from irrelevant.

I do agree with the aforementioned editor, however, that it does not need its own paragraph. I've added it to the first paragraph. Zelani (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Vice President: None or Vacant
What is it that I'm missing about your insistence on setting the Vice President entry in the infobox to 'None'? You have said that the entry refers to the person, not the office, but that is not correct. It does not refer to some particular quality of the person. The entry is for the name of the person who is (or should be) filling the office of Temer's vice president. Since nobody is currently appointed to the position, it should be set to 'Vacant' or 'Position vacant', indicating that it's a position that is temporarily not filled. By setting it to 'None', you are implying that the position has been abolished or that Temer will carry on through his entire term as president and no vice president will be appointed. Is that the correct situation? Is a vice president to Temer never going to be appointed while he is in office? If I've misunderstood this, then I'm sorry, but right now it looks like you do not have a good grasp of English and do not understand the subtle difference between None and Vacant. Akld guy (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No Akld, a vice-president will not be appointed during Michel Temer's presidency, our Constitution (Brazil's) only allows the position to be filled through the next elections, in 2018, which are only going to be valid after the end of His Excellency's term. Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 6 21 pm, 7 February 2017 (UTC-2)


 * Since the office position is unassigned, it shouldn't even be listed in the infobox and any clarifications go into the article's main text. I don't see any of you arguing about the vice prime-minister field of infobox. Fbergo (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you continue the revert war you will be reported to the wikipedia admins. My edits were explained here before I made them, and prior to reverting you made 2 completely useless edits only keep your edits on top. Fbergo (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I didn't notice you're arguing here, I don't intent to revert war, and as for those useless edits, I appolagise, I made a mistake, 2 actually, I only think that before altering anything that relevant, we should talk about it first. So, let's talk: I strongly believe that the absence of a vice-president is a tremendously important fact to be kept out of the infobox and only in the body of the text, don't you agree? Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Absence of vice-president in this circumstance is absolutely normal. Fbergo (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It is normal, but still very relevant. Many people who acsses Wikipedia don't have time to read the body of the text, so they turn their attention only to the infobox, I belive that the field vice-president should be maintained. Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So please fill the vice prime-minister field too, so that these stupid people are properly informed that the office is also unoccupied. Fbergo (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

When you say vice prime-minister you mean the office of the “Vice Presidency” don't you? I believe that in the field “successor” it says “position vacant”. Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Inelegibility in 2018
A recent edit mentioned this source: to state that Temer is ineligible for the 2018 election. According to this other source, from much the more credible BBC agency, that is incorrect. There are legal reasons to block an eventual candidature, but that decision can only be taken by brazilian electoral justice when/if he applies for the candidature. Fbergo (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

political comment
I removed a remark that Temer taking power "allowing a political shift from a center-left to a center-right government." I question whether this is accurate, but supposing it is, it would require a citation as it is interpretive. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

first constitutional substitute?
It's unclear what this means. I am guessing that he would succeed Temer if something happened to Temer, but this should be clarified if so, and explained if not. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

name
His name seems accurate except for Temer as [ˈtẽmeɾ] which should be [ˈtemeɾ]. Any source or reason for the nasalized vowel? ~Michael

Greek Orthodox
Temer is not Greek Orthodox, and his parents were Catholic Maronites. I removed the two pointless citations about the Greek Orthodox church. Xuxo (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Leaving office, date
'''When did Temer leave office? December 31, 2018 or January 1, 2019?''' I'm assuming that we're quite clear on when Temer is leaving office. It's on December 31, 2018 & not January 1, 2019. Noting this, as an IP has been messing around with the infobox departure date in the other post-1990 presidents bios articles. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC). GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The CIA world factbook says Temer's term ends January 1 --Grngu (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Presidential terms end on 31 December. 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) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding end of term dates for Brazilian Presidents, here is further proof, from OFFICIAL SOURCES, that the presidential term ends on 31 December, not on 1 January. : The following 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) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, the official transcript of yesterday's Joint Congressional sitting, in the link provided above (HTML version: 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, with the usual Google Translate imperfections, but clear enough on the point here discussed, 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) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the web version of the official transcript of yesterday's Congressional Joint Session for the Presidential Inauguration, here is the link to the pdf version of the same transcript, in the website of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies: https://escriba.camara.leg.br/escriba-servicosweb/pdf/54479. This is further confirmation of the text quoted above, explicitly mentioning in the inauguration of the President itself 31 December 2022 as the end of term date, and thus confirming that presidential terms officially end on 31 December, not on January 1st. Antonio Basto (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In this website, kept by the Library of the Presidency (".gov"), it will be found the biographies of every single Brazilian President and the period under which they governed, their Ministers, Vice-president and so on. There you will see the date of the ending of each mandate since Itamar Franco to be the 1st of January. However, due to the "earliness" of the date, it is often spoken that the mandates end at the 31st of December. For parallels, like the Governors of New York. I wonder: at the 1st of January, before Mr Bolsonaro was sworn in, who was the President? Was Brazil President-less? A divagation. The mandates of the Presidents of the United States since FDR are January 20th to January 20th or January 20th to January 19th? The same principle applies here, I think. I rarely win discussions in this Wikipedia, even though I find myself quite sensible—and often right—, because people tend to be stubborn and I can't be bothered. In the Wikipedia in English I think people are more civilised than in the Wikipedia in Portuguese. That is my take on the subject. Hoping to have helped, do as you wish. M. Armando (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A request
If/when either of you change the date here. Would you please change the date on all the other Brazil prez & vice prez bio articles? Otherwise, this article would look odd, being different from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the others presidents, the term end in 1 January, for Temer and Bolsonaro, in 31 December. It is not our business if it is normal or not. We should use the official dates for each president. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The overall dispute is whether Brazil presidents & vice presidents terms end at midnight. This covers January 30/31 & March 14/15, as well as December 31/January 1. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
Note to self and others: Somebody needs to go through the references. I spotted RT and Epoch Times, which both definitely have an agenda. Apparently there have also been disputes about sourcing. This is a president of Brazil. These events have to have been covered everywhere, almost, so there is no reason to use marginal sources. Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Michel Temer recebe vice-presidente norte-americano.jpg