Talk:Jair Bolsonaro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Still President until his term expires. He hasn't resigned

Aren't some folks jumping the gun here? Even though Bolsonaro has left Brazil, he's still the president as he hasn't resigned. He'll continue as president until his term expires. In the meantime, his vice president has taken up the presidential powers & duties as acting president. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

He still is the president and will be president until Lula is officially vested by Congress (unless there is a source there that claims otherwise). Right now, it's like he was on a normal vacation, it is just that his presidency will end while he is on a break. Coltsfan (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

His term ended at midnight. Source: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-64120470

Zelani (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The term end is midnight on 1 January. At that moment there was an immediate transfer of the position of President. 31 December is wrong. On the wiki, we put 1 January. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

At 23:59, December 31, Bolsonaro was president. At 00:00, January 1, Lula was president. Hence, Bolsonaro's term ended at 31 December. Zelani (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede : "coup d'état"

Using "coup d'état" to describe the events in Brazil over the past week seems a little undue. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the brazilian supreme court is calling the events that transpassed as a coup (source), and so is the current government (source). Coltsfan (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Even searching explicitly for it I'm not seeing a single English language source that calls it that. Also, the second source you cited, which you say is the government calling it a coup, only quotes Lula saying "there won’t be a coup". NickCT (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"His Excellency" in infobox?

Consensus doesn't seem to be clear here. Should we have "His Excellency" in the infobox? There are multiple articles which do have "His/her Excellency" or a similar title (see Justin Trudeau, Fumio Kishida, Yoon Suk-yeol, Tsai Ing-wen, Kim Jong-un and Rishi Sunak), but quite a few articles covering presidents (notably Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelensky, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Olaf Scholz) don't contain similar titles. Is the Brazilian president (be it Bolsonaro now or Lula once he takes office) in a position where "His Excellency" should be included? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken, the law says the president is to be treated with "His Excellency" when greeted. It's not an official title or anything so i don't know how these things work. Coltsfan (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In the United States, the President is not normally referred to as "His Excellency". Such a form of address does have historical precedent in the US, but it died out before it could ever become a tradition. (A case could be made for "The Honorable" in the infobox, since that is traditional for the President. However, seeing as it's also a traditional means of address for all members of Congress, the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, judges at all levels, state governors, and a great number of other high officials of both federal and state governments, that might be excessive.) I'm not familiar with what laws and traditions France, Ukraine, China, Russia, India, Kazakhstan, and Germany have for address of their heads of state and/or government. But if there is a title that's customarily used, certainly it should be included in their infoboxes as a matter of consistency. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

in Brazil we don't call it Excellency. Guwnther (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh? Treatment pronouns are definitely a thing in Brazilian Portuguese. "Vossa Excelência" and "Sua Excelência" are used to address/refer-to the president, governors, ministers, and generals. 2A02:810D:F40:37A4:2831:4F84:65E8:8C7E (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if his excellency may apply to the president, it for sure does not apply to the ex head of state anymore. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellency#cite_note-10 5.203.234.92 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe Excellency is only used for people holding office.

Lead length

I've just added a 'lead length too long' template to the top of the article. Usually I'd fix the issue myself, but I don't know enough about Bolsonaro to condense the lead properly. It may be helpful to look at:

• Wikipedia:Lead, for general guidance.
• Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics and government biographies, for featured articles on political figures to use as an example.

The most relevant part of the lead guidance is that

As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway.

The current lead contains five paragraphs, two of which are very long for a lead. One suggestion would be to abandon the chronological structure the lead currently has, and instead have a chronological paragraph which explains the posts he held up to becoming president, another about his presidency, and a third about his beliefs and ideologies. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sofixit TFD (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As I explained above, I don't feel able to fix the lead myself as Bolsonaro is not a subject I'm familiar with. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes. It's back to four paragraphs, less "useless" information, more straight to the point, more akin to an overview of the topic rather than a Cliffs note or something. It's on par, i think, with articles of other politicians and world leaders. Coltsfan (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, it's an improvement and I don't think the banner needs to be reinstated. The lead still isn't great though, and I'd still recommend:

• Altering the structure to the one I described above, with chonology separated from ideology. The current lead mixes the two and can be too dense as a result.
• Removing as many citations as possible from the lead (ideally all of them) by incorporating them into the body of the text. If something is cited in the body it doesn't need to be cited in the lead, which makes the latter easier to read.
• Really being ruthless about what makes it into the lead. It is better, but still long.

You've made a good start though, well done! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks! Second, well, the intro does follow a structure. It starts with who he is. Then goes to his early career and political views. The third paragraph is entirely devoted to his time as president. The fourth and last is about his post presidency. The overall size, well, it's definitely "wordy" but it's no bigger than other articles of world leaders or politicians in general. Coltsfan (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Main photo

The question of the lead photo was most recently raised here on 31 October last at Lead image and subseqnently converted to a RFC. That RFC was never closed - last participation was on 18 February (and it has just been archived). By my count, there were 20 expressions of preference, of which more than half were for Option H (8 clear first preferences + 3 equal first preferences), well ahead of Option B (3 + 4 respectively). On the article itself:

• Option A remained the lead photo until 20 November, when Jonas1015119 boldly changed lead image (in line with RfC on talk page).... to the current image which, so far as I can see, was not even being considered in the RFC.
• On 18 February the preferred Option H was added by OliverDF, but immediately reverted by Torimem claiming that the image was chosen by consensus.
• Today Alza08 replaced this with Option B, saying ....Additionally, this image got the most support in the talk page. That too was immediately reverted by Torimem, commenting No, it did not. The previous image was chosen by consensus. That is right concerning Option B, but where is the consensus for the current image? Davidships (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Option H on the RFC was the current image, someone changed it later, I think it was OliverDF. Torimem (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

He did it on this edit, I had added option H on 6 November 2022, see. Torimem (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Caramba. Change the name of the winner. That's a more effective post-vote manipulation than even Bolsonaro claimed. I'm glad I said "so far as I can see", but apologies still the same. Davidships (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've lost track of what exactly happened myself, my only current opinion is that the image should be one without the presidential sash. I don't know why but he doesn't look particularly flattering in any of the portraits we have here, so picking the one where he looks the least weird is the best we can do for now. --jonas (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Bolsonaro is primarily notable for having been a president of Brazil, and he should be seen in that role. The main articles on virtually every previous presidents over the past century are headed with an image wearing the presidential sash (excepting a handful of service chiefs, some temporary office holders, and those that were elected, but did not enter office). It's a mystery to me why he is the only one whose official portrait is apparently not properly licensed for WP (now there's a political conspiracy....). Davidships (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

When the RFC was still going on I had later proposed his actual official portrait with this in mind, but they told me the portrait's license was not valid for Wikipedia. Torimem (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, and the Flickr one certainly is not acceptable, but I cannot see where the licence is for those at this page. Davidships (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of the page "Creative Commons Atribuição-SemDerivações 3.0 Não Adaptada". Torimem (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)