Talk:Jair Bolsonaro

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Results, May 2019 Datafolha

The article says: "After his first year in power, Bolsonaro's popularity steadily declined. A Datafolha survey, published on 21 May 2019, showed ..."

The lead paragraph of the given source says:

"A desaprovação do Governo Jair Bolsonaro superou a aprovação pela primeira vez: 36,2% da população considera a gestão do presidente "ruim" ou "péssima", uma cifra que supera os 28,6% que avaliam como "ótima" ou "boa" em apenas cinco meses."

(Google Translate gives: Disapproval of the Jair Bolsonaro government has surpassed approval for the first time: 36.2% of the population considers the president's management "bad" or "terrible", a figure that exceeds the 28.6% who rate it as "excellent" or "good" in just five months.)

Soon it shows a graph in which the figures are 28.6% excellent or good, 31.3% average, 36.2% bad or terrible, and 3.9% did not respond.

Other figures have been put into the article by another editor who claims to have been giving figures from this source. The other editor's figures appear to be derived from a different graph farther down the page in the source, showing "Evolução" (evolution) of support for Bolsonaro in previous months, from which the Wikipedia editor has decided to extract the figures and average them out. But the whole point of this part of the article is that support for Bolsonaro had fallen away - meaning that to take the average is particularly misleading.

The other editor, on their talk page, asked me for respect. I think they meant I should not dare to point out that they intentionally fudged the numbers. Well, they did. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

First, don't cast aspersions. I was the one that wrote most of this article and it wasn't an easy task. I painstakingly researched sources in multiple languages, navigating through biased data and false information and a bunch of nonsense, and that is tougher than you think. So, before making stupid accusations, think through and don't make personal attacks accusing others of falsifying data. I know you think you are very smart, but you made some basic grammar mistakes in your corrections (though i don't hold that against you, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for someone who claims to be the source of infalible knowledge). If this behavior persists, sanctions might be applied against you (including blocking). So, keep it civil and keep it on the level. Wikipedia is not a consequence free environment. We're all on the same boat here. Coltsfan (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Coltsfan, the editor is insulting you while pointing out a legitimate issue (Anachronist, please weigh in here), but you are completely avoiding answering the actual question. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Weigh in how? I already stated somewhere else (Teahouse I think) that the source says one thing in the text and another thing in the graph, and if I had to choose, I'd choose the graph because its provenance is stated on the graph (Political Atlas), while the figures in prose have no provenance. If someone is extracting figures and averaging them out, that's WP:OR. Due to what seems to be contradictory information, I'd say discard that source and use Political Atlas directly. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist, "weigh in" with your expert opinion! You gave a bit more detail here and that helps already; I had to look very hard to find what you were referring to. I did not see the provenance, and now that you tell me there is one your argument makes more sense. I really wish though that Coltsfan had done some explaining; I'm sure you saw that I blocked the other editor for their ongoing personal attacks--and I changed the heading of this post as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert. By "provenance" I meant that the graph has a logo for Political Atlas, which would be the source for the data, while the text doesn't really say where it came from. However, that's the English-translated name and I don't know how to find that source in Portuguese.

Looking further, I'm not sure what to make of it. The cited source says in the beginning (Google-translated to English) "36.2% of the population considers the president's management 'bad' or 'bad', a figure that exceeds the 28.6% that they evaluate as 'great' or 'good'". Google apparently translated two different words into "bad". This is what TooManyFingers wants to include. It cites Political Atlas, but the link goes to a different page in the same source that fails to verify the assertion. I don't know what to make of it, so I'd just disregard it all and move down to the graph, which has better granularity, and what is being used in this article.

I'm tempted to remove every statement cited to this source, however, due to the inconsistency in reporting. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Intro section grammatical error

"On November 22, 2025, Bolsonaro would taken back into federal police custody and ordered to return to prison" ~2025-32923-62 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"Jairbolsonaro" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jairbolsonaro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § Alanturing until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

"Bolso" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bolso has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 4 § Bolso until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)