Talk:Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro

Investigations
The section "Investigations" does not belong here, as it has no relation to the policies issued by Bolsonaro, or their consequences. It is about judicial investigations to some members of the cabinet, for issues that predate Bolsonaro's term of office. The content should be moved to the articles of the cabinet members, if appropiate. Cambalachero (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and a few people over the portuguese wikipedia also agree. The problem is that over there, one or two editors don't let anyone remove the content. But I guess it is safe to remove that section here. Go ahead. Holy Goo (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I undid the edit. I would suggest we pursue a community-wide consensus here on the talk page. I disagree that this has no relation to this article, because this article is not only about Bolsonaro's policies and their consequences. It is an overview of his presidency, which should include any relevant events relating to it. These investigations have been mentioned in reliable sources in the context of his presidency as evidenced by the references in the section. I would agree, however, to possibly trimming the section and moving most of the details to the article of each minister being investigated. But we should at least mention that these investigations are ongoing or have been conducted because it is relevant to the context of the presidency. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have proposed this edit, got one user supporting it, waited some days and nobody opposed it; that's enough consensus to proceed. And no, you are wrong: this is a "presidency of..." article, and so it is only about the policies implemented and their consequences. It is not a venue for everything Bolsonaro-related. Personal stuff unrelated to the government, and things that took place before or after the officials were in the national government, are out of scope. It is certainly not "everything that Brazilian newspaper may be talking about right now". Note that references that are not encyclopedias do not follow the same rules. A same news article in a newspaper may be within the scope of several wikipedia articles: that would mean that the reference should be used at the several articles, not that we should get off-topic to match the sources. --Cambalachero (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Verifiability: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". So there it is. Unless you get consensus otherwise, this stuff should be removed. --Cambalachero (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you insist the article pertains only to the policies of the administration, I assume you would support removing the section on opinion polls and surveys? Those are not government policies. Investigations of officials appointed by the president to the cabinet are definitely not out of scope. At least three of them are still under investigation. The references in this article are WP:RS regardless of whether they are newspapers or not. And I do not understand your point about references. I am not suggesting we get "off-topic to match the sources"; quite the opposite, in fact, the section uses sources to verify relevant information.
 * See WP:BRD, WP:Bold. This sourced content was already in the article, you removed it and I contested your removal. Anyway, I do not think this content should take too much space in this article. Nor should it be removed altogether. The investigations are pertinent, even if it were to be only a brief mention. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's another discussion, but I would have no problem removing polls and surveys. Their problem (here or in any article) is that they are a snapshot of the highly volatile public opinion, and may easily become outdated in months or even days. And even if written with perspective, they would belong elsewhere, as in a "public image of..." section or article. I would only cite them here if some policy is implemented or halted because of such polls. --Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 24 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) 21:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Foto Oficial Presidente Bolsonaro.jpg

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 discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Salles-3.jpg
 * Vac abr 0612188194.jpg
 * Velez21-840x560.jpg

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 into the article. 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) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletation of the "At the same time, job insecurity...increase."
In this excerpt, two sources are used, one from the Humanitas Unisinos Institute and the other from the Obervatório da Democracia, the latter of which is linked to trade syndicates.

For the Humanitas Unisinos Institute, work has become more precarious and informal, as workers will no longer have the participation of syndicates in mediating contracts. It also points out that due to MP. 1.108, which institutes the hybrid work, and MP. 1.109, which allows teleworking, with early vacations and holidays, and differentiated working hours.

He used an interview with the technical director of the Departamento Intersindical de Estatística e Estudos Socioeconômicos (English: Intersindical Department of Statistics and Socioeconomic Studies), which is linked to trade syndicates, who says that it is necessary for society to discuss these MPs, as he believes that only trade unions can negotiate labor agreements and that these measures seek to weaken them. However, the study by the FGV at acceptance of this modality has been growing over the years, and also, in report by O Globo, that among workers, some already prefer this modality.

In this article, they discuss how it can be harmful, in the view of the unions, since the worker doesn't have the power to negotiate alone with the employer. The interview was conducted on the TV dos Trabalhadores channel, linked to the ABC Metalworkers' Syndicate. It is clear here that this is not a reality, but a political and economic view on the subject.

The second, on the other hand, was reported by Observaório da Democracia, another website linked to syndicate organizations and the Workers' Party, whose ideological position is against the MPs.

It criticizes MP. 927, which made labor relations more flexible in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, again stating that individual relations between employers and employees are harmful. It also criticizes the home-office, the flexibility and anticipation of vacations and holidays, and the end of the forced payment deducted directly from salary, without the employee's agreement to the syndicates, citing that “experts” claim that this measure is risky for workers.

However, with the end of the compulsory syndicate tax, collections fell by 98% in five years, demonstrating that the majority of workers were not comfortable with the obligation according to article from Poder360.

After I tried, wrongly, to make an abrupt revision, I was cordially corrected by the editor Coltsfan, who added two more fonts.

In the first, from the newspaper O Globo, reported that during 2021, jobs decreased and unemployment increased, causing workers to look for ways to work independently, outside the CLT, according to government data, All those outside this regime are informal workers under Brazilian law. But there is no mention of precarious employment, which may cause confusion for those unfamiliar with Brazilian bureaucracy.

In the second source, in an article of the newspaper Estado de Minas, said that because of the cuts in staff at companies due to Covid-19, many have had to become self-employed, with better salaries, and outside the CLT regime, and many are struggling because they can't earn enough.

Finally, it is clear that this excerpt, and these sources, as well as being unreliable at the time, continue to be unreliable today, are opinions strongly linked to the political ideologies of those who issue them, and go in the opposite direction to reality. It therefore makes no sense to lie about them, which is why I urge you to delete or reword them. Paraguassuu (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's get the first thing out of the way. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that the argument "the ideology of the source must be questioned" is usually not a very good indicator. It sounds more like "this source should be more aligned with my views, not the other way around." Sources are citing numbers (statistics have no ideology), and above all, they are in use in several other articles around this Wiki.
 * But anyway, most of your questioning is not about whether the sources are wrong or if they don't back said info. It's mostly a weird interpretation. At any rate, all sources point out that, during Bolsonaro's administration, there was an increase in unreported employment and job insecurity, mostly because of laws that either the administration supported or enacted. That's the conclusion they drive home.
 * The rest of your argument is neither here nor there because you are just discussing policy (for instance, the Poder360 source has no bearing on this discussion; it's another issue). That has nothing to do with this. The increase in job insecurity is a statistical thing—numbers. Whether it's Bolsonaro's fault or his intent, for good or bad, doesn't matter. The numbers that the sources talk about don't lie. Job insecurity has increased in the years he was in power, under his watch. Fact. And they increasing still in 2023/4. And the sources say that some of his policies have an impact on this. Statistics don't lie. You can question ideology (which is not the subject of this discussion), but you can't question numbers. Sources are categorical on this. Coltsfan (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's disregard ideology, we have the economic issue, which is very important, and as we have seen, the unions, with the measures taken under the Temer government, which have continued under Bolsonaro, have directly affected the unions economically. Numbers have no ideology, a 95% cut over the years has influenced their activities.
 * According to the sources, informal work is all work outside the CLT regime, and that doesn't benefit the syndicates. So yes, taking into account that the two sources are linked to organizations with a direct interest in repealing this, say that it has increased.
 * I understand that labor relations are changing and negatively influencing the economies of many countries, and that is indeed a reality. But the debureaucratization of labor relations, respecting the individuality of workers, is not an effect of this. I stand by my position, and using the link itself: "Precarious work is a term that critics use to describe non-standard or temporary employment that may be poorly paid, insecure, unprotected, and unable to support a household.". This in no way encompasses an end to compulsory union pay, and an end to the obligation for contracts to be made collectively. Paraguassuu (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are still not addressing the point. Are the sources lying? Is there a piece of information that contradicts this? We no that the answer is no. Sources (4 of em) say that job insecurity has increased after laws that Bolsonaro's supported were enacted. Again, numbers, statistics, data. You are questioning the reason why those numbers are what they are, but they are accurate. And that happen during his watch, after he passed major changes to labor legislations. Numbers don't lie. 2 + 2 will be 4, regardless of ideology. Coltsfan (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is, the information used comes from websites that are institutionally linked to the main parties economically affected by the measures. Especially the first two, before they were revised. Paraguassuu (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)