Talk:Jair Bolsonaro

Deforestation
Rates of deforestation have skyrocketed under his watch. Of course he denies it and tries to fire a highly respected Amazon researcher and monitor, Ricardo Galvão, who later harshly condemned his actions. Whoever those disgusting evil twats who voted for Bolsonaro can go get crushed by a falling log while Bolsonaro and his crew sit on a face-up running chainsaw. 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're essentially saying you'd be okay with the mass genocide of a group of people for their political beliefs? Maxy (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just wanna see every single log that falls suddenly shoot from the sky and land on their legs and Bolsonaro and his crew can live with crude, dribbling etchings of "Captain Chainsaw" on their asses. 06:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But I'm done with playing nice polite decorum. Tons of people are going to die. Indigenous people will have their lands destroyed. Tons of organisms are going to go extinct. Lush reservoirs of biodiveristy will turn into parking lots for cows. Climate change is going to be hugely accelerated. All because of a bunch of arrogant, vile, selfish people who think their ideology and the logging and mining industry, not even their country as they think, are above the well being of the world. 06:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Said people are genociding another group of people right now as we speak, get your priorities straight. — Oxyaena Harass  07:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just realized that Brazil politics is screwed to begin with, between Bolsnaro and a guy in prison. And, Bolsonaro approval is plummeting, voters begin to regret what they did. I take back what I wanted from voters. I got really mad at those that continue supporting him, thought it was the same hopelessness as Trump voters, but I'm wrong and shouldn't have said that. 08:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking for what he or his supporters believe or even what they have done. I'm just saying that the death penalty and wishing people death is wrong and also immature and literally hypocritical. Do you not think it adds to the problems you guys are hoping to fix on this site? As I've been lurking here for quite a while, I've noticed that RationalWiki seems to propagate a lot of hate itself, sort of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality that you guys have against conservatives. I disagree with them too, on a massive scale (often for different reasons, but not in this case), but I think you should keep your cool and not wish them death just for what they believe, even if what they believe and have done is equally wrong. I don't want the people vouching for peace to also be vouching for the same kind of hatred, tribalism, and separation, and even death, that has been plaguing our society for millennia now. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is a barbaric desire that we all need to overcome. Maxy (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Seriously, why should we play by the rules if the other side won't? They'll cheat, they'll win, then they'll eventually kill us. You really need to understand, that after a certain point the rules don't matter anymore, not if want to keep your head. 15:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Seriously, why should we play by the ruled if the other side won't?" "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Wrong, you should always play by the rules. This sets a much better example for these specific voters you're talking about. If more common people actually saw you as nice people trying to solve problems, instead of snobby elitist assholes (which you make yourselves out to be frequently), you'd be more likely to convince people of your views. Hate of human beings never helps anything. Maxy (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Don't fight back" blah blah blah. Look how well that turned out last time. "If more common people actually saw you as nice people trying to solve problems, instead of snobby elitist assholes (which you make yourselves out to be frequently), you'd be more likely to convince people of your views." No, they won't. You're delusional if you think the other side is going to play nice. They. Want. To. Kill. Us. All. Got that? Talking nicely with them isn't going to solve anything, it's just going to make it easier for them to off us. "Hate of human beings never helps anything." Some people are unworthy of love or tolerance. Namely the dipshits who wouldn't show one iota of it in return were they given a seat at the table. You can't reason with Fascists. They don't think the same way you do. So, I ask again. Why should we play by the rules when they won't? Why should we treat them as anything more than what they really are? Hateful, murderous, delusional, scum. 15:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They already aren't playing nice. We tried playing nice but the far right knows this and capitalizes this by stepping all over us, breaking our rules, and we enable them and let them continue practicing undemocratic means. In the US, we tried "going high, they go low, we setting examples", but this process allows Republicans, who operate on a different and totally unfair standard from us, which they are well aware of, to whittle away democracy with our false hope that people will realize their anti Democractic practices and then let them change the rules so they'll continue getting the upper hand. Right now, you're wasting time focusing on strong rhetoric. As on our attitudes on conservatism on the wiki, conservatives are pushing that overton window farther and farther away. Their ideology in the spectrum is whacked and they're giving rise to authoritarianism and fascism around the world. This is the time to panic. Meanwhile... People are going to die. Bolsonaro is a genocide advocate. The rainforest is reaching a point where some of the damage is going to be IRREVERSIBLE. That's the point and this calls for strong condemnation from us. This isn't a matter of being a "snobby elite" this is a matter of life and death especially for the future. 17:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you on this particular viewpoint, that what Jair is doing and supporting is absolutely terrible and needs to be stopped. But you also attacked his supporters, people who mostly probably have good intentions in believing bad ideas, as most people who believe bad ideas do. I know that Jair is being extremely hateful and I would say the same thing to him as I'm saying to you, but to you I'm saying that attacking hatred with hatred is not a valid solution. Hatred vs. hatred = more hatred vs. more hatred. The modern flame wars between the left and the right are largely due to both sides being at fault here, with both sides absolutely hating the other with a firey passion, making both sides much more radical and more prone to hanging out in echochambers (like RationalWiki itself or Conservapedia on the other end). As people become more radical and tribal, people become more prone to hating just anyone they disagree with. For instance, you might be very much against Jair and his alt-right supporters, who may (for example) so happen to believe that global warming does not exist. Then you meet someone else who does not believe in global warming (a single other person, mind you), with that being all you know about their personal beliefs, and you hate them, just as you would someone who was on the alt-right, because you associate every person who believes some quack ideology now with hateful people. What you fail to realize though is that quacks are not all bad people: many of them actually are very good people. I for instance have a family member who denies that the Earth is round or that humans have landed on the Moon, so I know from experience from being his family member that he's not a horrible person who's out to kill all the gays or something, no not all people who believe silly things are like that. You might call him "stupid" (still not a term I'd like to use for anyone, since it itself is pretty degrading to the value of a human life), but flat out hating someone just because they believe something that does not align with scientific consensus is just flat-out wrong. The flat-earther moon-landing-denier that I know is actually one of the nicest, sweetest guys I have ever met and I am not exaggerating, he wouldn't hurt a fly, yet I'm sure you would act with sincere hatred towards him simply for believing what he does. Your goal should be to educate these people, not hate them for their beliefs, or undermine their very being. By being so hateful towards actually hateful people who have some of the same opinions, though, you're not only causing those bad people to react with even more hatred, but you're psychologically causing yourself to tribally separate yourself from good people who are peaceful but don't agree with you on issues not related to violence. Maxy (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For everyone who needs to hear this: "playing nice" vs publicly wishing ill upon everyone on the other side is a false dilemma. When doing nice things that don't work fails to deliver results, the answer isn't to do bad things that don't work. Be more politically savvy, not less. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said bad against those who voted for him and supported him. I went too far in condemning them and, again, shouldn't have done so. I was really angry and feeling hopeless because our world is going to get hurt, and it made me really fearful and anxious. While the supporters shouldn't get hurt, I still think they should be ashamed of what they've done. It appears that they at least shown some regret but what they damage they've done is going to go really deep and last a lifetime. I was really angry expecting them to just double-down and ignore all the problems like the current Trump supporters and I also read an article where a crowd around him was cheering him on and took it to mean it as representative of his support base. I, however, can't say the same on Bolsonaro. I don't want anyone killing him, really, because it'll be counterproductive to the cause and cause backlash and excuse for him. But I did wish harm in other indirect and over-the-top means that'll be impossible for anyone to carry through.
 * That being said, however, you're also making assumptions about me based on one of my posts I really didn't mean. I don't like climate change deniers, especially if they spread their ideas. It'll be difficult for me to be friends with a climate change denier since it's a passionate subject for me; same with moon landing truthers. They have a framework of thought that I'll heavily question but I will try to convince first. The backfire effect throws a huge wrench into your ideas that educating people will make them change their minds, however. It's much better to engage with someone who's on the fence and intellectually honest rather than someone who's closed off.
 * Additionally, while there's more division in politics, I say it's charitable to assume that both sides are equally drifting away at equal rates. It's clear to me that right-wing is getting more radicalized through politics (and I have examples: rise of the alt-right, rise in right-wing terrorist attacks, rise of far-right nationalist populist parties/politicians around the world, rise in right-wing hate crimes of racism sexism homophobia transphobia, tons of far-right media that spread falsehoods); left-wing has done similar (more left ideas being Green New Deal, mandated income, universal health care all rising to be attractive proposals in the US), but not to the same degree as the right. It's ignorant to try to either overstate what the left is doing or downplay what the right is doing to reach that conclusion. RationalWiki is in no way like Conservapedia; while both have consistent ideological slant, we don't ban people for disagreeing, we don't have draconian ban policies, we don't have draconian protection, we allow nighttime editing, we allow all usernames, we hold elections to get mods on board, we allow IP editing, our bans tend to be short, etc. to conflate RationalWiki with Conservapedia is very disingenuous.
 * What we should do to combat Bolsonaro, I think, is not violence but with nations cooperating to protect the rainforests and indigenous people. But enforcing and enacting these are a challenge with wannabe dictators who don't care for the rules. I think boycotting or putting heavy economic sanctions on Brazil can work, but it'll hurt citizens a lot there. I'm not sure what we can do to stop the illegal loggers and miners; Bolsonaro has stripped regulatory administrations to a skeleton crew and is starting to fire those that even mention deforestation. I'm also hoping the scandals surrounding Bolsonaro help hurt his legitimacy as ruler though this isn't active policy and I wouldn't bet on it (also I'm disappointed with the people interviewed here, not really expressing regret for his policy consequences but more of he isn't "acting statesmanlike" or "he isn't focused on security" and are expecting more from him). We also should take note of how he uses social media to his advantage and use social media to our advantage, just not sure how. I think news should stop calling climate change deniers "skeptic", news should focus on solutions to his problems rather than solicit opinion from his supporters 22:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure that employing general ”heavy economic sanctions” against Brazil is going to work (let alone whether setting them up is feasible). What would be more likely to work would be the sort of “targeted sanctions” that specifically hit Bolsonaro and his cronies by limiting their ability to jet around to attend world stage occasions, having their kids go to prestigious schools and universities abroad and preferably target their personal wealth and business interests. This might be accompanied by boycotting Brazil at international sporting events etc.
 * General economic sanctions will simply allow Bolsonary to play the “circle the nationalist wagons” game and are unlikely to affect him and his business elite pals, as opposed to the the ordinary Brazilian. Basically, draw inspiration from a combination of the sanctions against the leaders of the Ukraine separatist rebellion and the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. That would probably be more likely to generate pressure for change, both from the populace below and from within the elites. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

People usually say that Mao carried on the largest mass killing in the XXth century (although I wouldn't put him on the same level as Hitler and Stalin for a few reasons). According to some estimates, he was responsible for 45 million deaths. Bolsonaro was elected with 60 million votes. I didn't expect to see people supporting the deaths of all these 60 million peoples (including more than half of my family) and use whataboutism to justify them. Wow. Just. Wow. GeeJayK (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What about an "Olavo de Carvalho" page?
The guy is like a Brazilian Alex Jones. I think he deserves his own page.
 * There is currently a Draft:Olavo de Carvalho. Pages about him in English were previously deleted twice for being poorly referenced hit pieces and the same is true of a page about him in Portuguese. So make sure anything you have to say about him has strong evidence to back it up. Spud (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He definitely would merit a page as someone with a long history of crankdom, and particularly with his new importance as an influence on Bolsonaro, but most sources seem to be in Portuguese. Nothing necessarily wrong with using foreign language sources, but it does make it harder for non-Lusophones. --Annanoon (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Bom, alguns artigos em português parecem não ter sido traduzidos, e sim recriados do zero por nossos colegas brasileiros. Mas esse trabalho não ficou como todos gostariam, por isso que é importante apenas traduzir artigos para o português por enquanto.


 * Well, some articles in Portuguese do not seem to have been translated, but recreated from scratch by our Brazilian colleagues. But this work was not what everyone would like, so it is important to just translate articles into Portuguese for now.[[image:DabUnicorn.png|50px|link=User_Talk:Smalkade]] Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 11:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not enough topics on all the batshit crazy things he does
I think this article is seriously out of date, this guy has said and done so many insane things during his presidency and yet most of it focus on the controversies before he was elected.

While his records on environmental policy and his ties with militias have been put on an adequate maner, there's so much more which needs to be told, i myself can list some:

- His terrible response to the covid-19 pandemic, which included firing two health ministers during it's peak because both of them recused his line of a complete end to social distancing policies of business closure and his unyielding support for the use of hydroxychloroquine despite all scientific evidence pointing against it.

- The support he gave to protests by his followers aimed at closing our chamber of representatives and our federal court of justice and asking for "military intervention with bolsonaro in power" (as seen in banners present in them), which is a blatant attempt at trying to show support for a self-coup.

- The ever growing evidence of corruption by him and his family and his efforts in meddling with the police investigation.

- His involvment on a scandal of government fund use for a fake news campaign on the internet and his various attacks on the press, which included things ranging from verbal attack on reporters to silly but still worrying things like delaying the release of covid deaths until after the end of our most watched nightly news program so that they couldn't show it.

- An almost infinite number of minor events, but which show just how out of his mind he is, like the time he said to Al Gore that he wanted to exploit the amazon rainforest together with the USA (!!), or the time he was forced to fire the culture secretary because he made allusions to a fricking Goebbels speech (!!!!!!!!).

What i want to point is that his scandals are daily and much more than i can remember off the top of my head, but so few are in the article.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Innominate / talk / contribs
 * I think the issue here is that Rationalwiki tends to have a primary United States bias, then the bias shifts to other English speaking or Western nations, and there's a serious fall off from that. Media tends to be nationally localized; in the United States, the United States media is swamped with the insanity of Donald Trump, that only choice nuggets about Bolsonaro get through. The United States in particular has always in my lifetime had a bad bias on not covering international events; the difference between even top US media and, say, the BBC, was startling even in the 1980s, and probably more so now that practically all of US cable news media has turned to the talking head / tabloid route. (One of the reasons I subscribe to the Economist, a British magazine, is that it actually recognizes that news occurs in other countries aside from its country of origin.)
 * We don't have terribly comprehensive articles even on European thugs like Viktor Orbán. Our coverage of Jarosław Kaczyński / PiS is just a paragraph. If an African authoritarian thug is extensively covered in the English media was (as Robert Mugabe was) our article is pretty good, but if the coverage is patchy (like say on ) it might not even exist. Same with Asia -- is not even mentioned in this Wiki bar a couple bits in our Indonesia and a handful of other articles, despite his serious authoritarianism bent as of late. Our article on Rodrigo Duterte is a not very well written stub. This probably reflects this bias.
 * Some of the Bolsonaro insanity on COVID-19 made it through to English media, so you'll find some stuff in our COVID-19 article. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of the rest of the insanity is described in Portuguese articles. Ideally a Portuguese / English speaker would be better for this task so they know what terms to search. I am not a native speaker so I am more subject to Google's whims, and Google is letting me know that it thinks the most important Bolsonaro story is one where he gets bit by an emu (edit: Google suggestions lied, the bird that bit Bolsonaro was a . Thank you very much, Google suggestions). Soundwave106 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keeping track of every bit of dumb fuckery the man says or does is enough to cover a book or two. The main problem is like Soundwave106 said, most people are US centered and even though there are users from other countries, not all of them will end up reading here. It's good that the current state of the article has a decent amount of information that can't be mocked on the original wikipedia. To note, Bolsonaro recently stated that he "put an end to corruption". Just today, a senator and close ally of his, Chico Rodrigues, was found by the federal police carrying around 30k BRL (~5.5k USD) in his underwear.
 * I can easily go after some of that information, add to the article and properly source it, but it takes some time. Again, keeping track of every stupid and/or criminal shit he, his sons and ministers do is hard because they work incredibly hard to prove that imbeciles do not rest.
 * And the article didn't even touch on any of the miraculous economic reforms his Finances Minister, Paulo Guedes, tries to shove down everyone's throats. You know, sell off every public company, cut retirement funds, remove workers' rights. Trickle down economics, only sold as a miraculous economic growth pill. Everything that his predecessor, Michel Temer, with his incredible 2% approval ratings, was already doing. Or the Women, Family and Human Rights Minister, who is a fanatical woman that claims to have seen Jesus on a guava tree. Or the whole relation of his election and Lava Jato and how Moro joined and then left the govt. Or when an Iranian cargo ship transporting food was prohibited from leaving port because they wanted to show off that they're really good dogs to Agent Orange. Seriously, that Bolsonaro has zero risk of being impeached shows how corrupt the whole system is in Brazil. 2804:1B2:181:D35F:CC:861F:B7E0:869E (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding his quotes on indigenous people?
Bolsonaro and racism are like peas in a pod. I wonder if we should add some of his comments and views on Brazil's indigenous people to this article. In the subsection about his quotes on race, I noticed that there aren't any quotes about his racist views on them.

Aside from being Brazil's original inhabitants and important to the formation of Brazilian culture as we know it, they still make up an important minority of the population. They're probably the most affected by climate change and illegal logging; granted, the article does make brief mention of them in "Environmental Supervillain".

I think his quotes on them are especially important because he openly advocated for their genocide. For example, he said that he wished Brazil's military had been as effective as the US Cavalry was in the Indian Wars. Yikes.

Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can get an exact quote and a link proving he said it, yes, totally. Twodots (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to oblige. I went looking for that quote and got more than I bargained for. This webpage has documented all of his racist ramblings on indigenous people.


 * The quote I mentioned is from April 12, 1998 and it's from a newspaper interview: "It’s a shame that the Brazilian cavalry hasn’t been as efficient as the Americans, who exterminated the Indians." Unfortunately, the page doesn't provide a direct link; however, there are more than enough other quotes with direct links.


 * One particular amusing (and I mean that to mock him) quote of his is from 5 years ago: "The Indians do not speak our language...How did they manage to get 13% of the national territory." Very ironic because it's the other way around; since he's on indigenous land, "our language" is the indigenous languages of Brazil, not Portuguese.


 * Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great, dude. Do it. Twodots (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda for the september 7th "anti-revolution"
In case anyone wanna have an idea of how the propaganda's being given out in Bolsonaro's favor, these 2 videos ought to give some insight. Both are in english and subtitled. I hope they don't end up deleted a few years from now on, they have historical value already, as they're how the supporters see themselves. https://twitter.com/i/status/1433049702753357825 - For some reason, it has a part where it says "Let Americans see clearly there can be no concession to evil". Also asks Europeans to embrace their "brave brethren from the East" (Russians? Indians? Chinese?), I suppose it was supposed to be "from the West", which is where the Americas are. https://twitter.com/i/status/1433404428317560832 - The man in the video is Captain Contar, who was elected state deputy for Mato Grosso, under the same party that Bolsonaro used in the 2018 elections, PSL. "Brazil is being harshly punished for the wrong political choices made decades ago". Pretty sure the whole "fuck the environment" political choice was put into action 2 years ago. I "pray" that the self coup doesn't happen. Mistermano (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Brazilian elections coming up, guess how he's behaving
This year, 2022, is election year in Brazil. Pretty much every poll done since Februrary shows Lula leading, with a chance to get more than 50% of the votes an be elected in the first turn. Bolsonaro has said time (brazilian video) and time again that he will not accept any result other than his own victory. He casts unfounded doubts on the electronic voting machines nearly every day and even did that during an event with diplomats. Even the military is getting in on that, playing dumb and asking for "urgent access (g1, portuguese)" to the source code used on the machines, something they, and the society at large, had access to since October 2021 (TSE, portuguese). Apparently, the military is also considering doing a parallel vote counting, just in case the results come out "wrong" (disable javascript to read, portuguese) And there's a ton of "charity giveaways" Bolsonaro has been desperate to pass in Congress, such as an increase to the Auxilio Brasil; a BRL1000 bonus to truck drivers; a similar bonus to taxi drivers, but all of them with a expiration date of November 2022, right after the elections are over. Under normal circumstances, that would count as "buying votes" and "abuse of power" but, since we're talking about Brazil, a law was passed in July, the "PEC dos combustíveis", that makes those kinds of extraordinary expenses during election years legal. There's also the change of plans for this year's September 7th, as Bolsonaro wants the military parade to happen in a different place than usual in the city of Rio de Janeiro. At least thus far, there are no documents showing this will happen. Pretty much everyone is expecting Bolsonaro to lose the elections and try something instead of giving away his power, likely a new 6th of January. Mistermano (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"no reason for impeachment" section
on january 1, 2023, this section will be outdated because he will no longer be president by then. i think we should either delete it or rewrite it and change the verb tenses. thoughts? G Man (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rewrite. We still need state on record that there were discussions for impeachment. 02:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

also, how is this a bronze article?
this article is full of bare urls, some of which link to dead or blank webpages. this renders many of the claims in the article dubious at best. (i have identified a few by inserting notices.)

i would fix the links and/or fetch better sources myself (as i see fit), but let's be honest: nobody has the time to do that with dozens of citations alone. another thing to consider is that some of these sources might not even be reliable. G Man (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Golly, that's over 100 of these. I'm going to promote the article until this is fixed. It IS already stated in bronze notes, but I don't think it should be bronze at that state either. 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * in addition, i will continue my work to make this article seem a little less like an obvious hit piece. i'm glad geejayk took the first steps; now i'll take up the mantle. one of this site's mission is to explore authoritarianism, and some of these unsubstantiated or poorly sourced claims are straight up character assassination (i.e. assuming he is guilty before evidence is available, or guilty until proven innocent). nothing rational about that! ;)
 * anyway, we should always be very careful in handling figures who are, even if we don't like them. last thing we need is a defamation suit. i will continue to challenge and/or remove such dubious claims. The G (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have an obvious vendetta against Lula. Bolsonaro is far worse. Yes we should cite our claims, but we shouldn't coddle him either. Vee (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there are still many shitty sources on the article. I'll work on them when I have time. I also removed the "anti-semites" category since Bolsonaro is crazy about Israel and the article doesn't suggest that he's an anti-semite. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shitty in what way? Vee (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall unreliable (although the information on the article is probably correct). If you can use, say, National Review, when the infomation is also available on Reuters which one would you choose? I'll see if I can find some of the claims on the article on major news outlets. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are Neo-Nazis who are pro-Israel (so supporting Israel doesn't make one antisemitic). Also, how do you quantify "overall unreliable"? Political slant? Let's be careful not to whitewash the article. Bolsonaro is a fascist piece of shit. No need to coddle him. As for the sources you mention, I think Brazilian sources are an obvious go-to, considering that Bolsonaro is Brazilian. If the sources are from the opposition, well, we cite pieces from the Democrats against Trump and the GOP all the time. What's the difference here? Hell, I cited the US government itself (an obvious biased source) on the Internet Research Agency article. No one is up in arms over that. Vee (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i'm not coddling him in any way. if you look at this article's edit history, you'll see that i've added (well-sourced) claims that are critical of him without veering into sensationalism or yellow journalism. no, i don't like bolsonaro, but that doesn't justify writing daily mail- or national enquirer-style articles (which is contrary to our fact-based mission). to be fair, the "the end?" section needs to be expanded and updated, but i'm waiting for the dust to settle from the transition. bolsonaro is unusually silent following his electoral defeat, but it's too soon to tell for certain what he's up to. The G (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the mainstream brazilian press is generally very critical of him (and rightfully so, for the most part). i understand it's a bit challenging for you guys who don't speak portuguese (it's even challenging for me because i'm more familiar with us media outlets in terms of credibility), but if you want to help us find sources, some such as folha de são paulo (which is basically the brazilian equivalent of the new york times). have english-language editions. other suggestions include brazilian report and the rio times, though some of these might be paywalled. The G (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * for instance, i added this subsection because i felt it was important to highlight his anti-vax nonsense. it's not meant to water down his pandemic response in any way. i don't think this gets the attention it deserves, but brazil definitely showed us what it looks like to have a country led by an anti-vaxxer. even though brazil's robust, well-established vaccine culture ultimately withstood bolsonaro's denialism, there were still too many preventable casualties that resulted (including those of people i know). The G (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

to answer your question...
yes, brazil uses the dd/mm/yyyy date format. (example: they say today is 7 november instead of november 7.) G Man (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ty. 01:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

'The end?'
as of writing, lula's inaugration is about 11 days away. i'm still waiting for the dust to settle from the fallout of the election (i.e., protests, bad-faith challenges to the results, etc.), but i'm considering merging this section with the 'Big Lie' (formerly titled 'Preparing for a Coup') section. bolsonaro has remained strangely silent since his electoral defeat in october. some might argue that that silence is tacit approval for the continued protesting of the election results. again, since this is a current event, i'm waiting a little longer until more information is readily available to make the move.

if you have any information surrounding current events, please free to contribute. and be sure to cite your sources! The G (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * scratch that. i won't merge the sections anymore. (i've already updated the 'Big Lie' section). instead, i'll revise 'The end?' accordingly, time permitting. you're more than welcome to beat me to it. The G (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * changed my mind again. i ended up merging the sections. the article looks a little more organized now. The G (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)