Talk:Bolsonarism

Requested translation

A user has requested (removed from here) a translation of pt:Bolsonarismo#Anticomunismo, leaving the following links as well pt:Bolsonarismo#Anticomunismo ,

References

Tule-hog (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete this article

The article "Bolsonarismo" was written from a biased point of view, violating one of Wikipedia's basic principles. The article itself uses several terms such as "fascist" and "extremist" to refer to the subject portrayed in the article. Such an article looks more like an opinion piece written by an angry person than someone who values ​​impartiality and a good article, written without bias or personal attacks on an individual's virtue. Prince0890 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prince0890

While academic discourse continues regarding precise terminology, Mr. Bolsonaro's policies and rhetoric strongly align with fascist movements. His extremist ideology, whether accurately labeled neo-fascist, fascist, far-right, or simply extremist, consistently employs rhetoric and strategies reminiscent of Integralism, a fascist brazilian movement. SirR LucasS (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The current iteration of the article is clearly biased the way it is. Its interesting that you suggest that Bolsonarism is similar to Integralism (which I tend to agree with) but this is not featured in the article. Perhaps you add it? Hamjamguy (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. If you or others would like to make constructive edits from WP:NPOV sources, you are welcome to do so. Hamjamguy (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll begin working on it. However, the main challenge with this article is that the majority of reliable sources are in Portuguese, which makes the discussion difficult for non-Portuguese speakers. SirR LucasS (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I second this. "Bolsonarism" has just not been as well documented of a social phenomenon as say Trumpism. The page for Jair Bolsonaro already documents well his tenure, positions and legacy. Making a Bolsonarism page just seems forced Darer101 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, Bolsonaro tried to be extremist himself and his supporters longed for that. to put it into practice, he was likely unable to achieve it, but the damage was caused all the same. Therefore, the origins and motivations of the ideology were extremist, even though in practice it may not have been at the level of a completely totalitarian dictator. Skemous (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

POV tag

Bolsonarism (Portuguese: bolsonarismo) is a fascist-like[1] political phenomenon,[11] deemed as far-right,[7][8][9][10].

Seems to me like it should read instead "Bolsonarism is a far-right political phenomenon, deemed by some as fascist-like." User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I write that because far-right seems to be consensual, while fascist or neo facist at least one source I saw denies. (Folha de São Paulo article called «Afinal, Jair Bolsonaro é ou não é fascista?» from 2018)User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 01:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Contributions like this actively make this page better and negate my own support for the AfD I submitted, I and all of Wikipedia greatly appreciate this. I hope others can positively and neutrally contribute in this manner, and render my AfD null and void. Hamjamguy (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hamjamguy: your AfD is null and void, pretty much. NPOV in articles are almost never dealt with through Deletion/AfD as far as I know. But I don't know if you can find other sources that dispute Bolsonarism being fascist? (Preferably academic?) I note that I brought it up in the portuguese version of the article talk page as well, where the same issue exists. (If it is an issue, seems editors in the portuguese wikipedia don't particularly think so?) I do think the edit I proposed makes sense. Feel like I should ping some of the other wikipedians involved in the Afd discussion or in the editing of the page, see if this seems reasonable to them.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I will try, but I think it will be an uphill battle, not only because academic sources in Brazil are largely against Bolsonaro because of a variety of factors, but because there seems to be a lack of cooperation by some in actually debating this civilly versus simply trying to start edit/revert wars. Doesn't help that despite my time on Wikipedia I am not as versed in Wikipedia policy besides the basics of conflict resolution and neutrality/source viability requirements. In hindsight the AfD was probably a mistake, largely based on the fact that the page was already deleted in 2018 for the same issues the page still has Hamjamguy (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hamjamguy: I guess I noticed you weren't as familiar with some of the wikipedia policies. It's not always easy to learn everything you need to know in order to change something that seems wrong. 🙏🏽 I mean - because wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it doesn't really have an adherence to "the truth", but instead to what has been published by certain types of sources? Original research that makes sense has no place here for example. So maybe that's part of it? But --- hope it wasn't so frustrating so far 🙏🏽User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@SirR LucasS: I wanted to request opinion on 1) whether the POV tag is ok. 2) specific wording, how to phrase it 3) sources for the dispute of fascism

Sir Lucas, you spoke of how "academic discourse continues regarding precise terminology" in this talk page above. Is it your opinion that a POV tag is ok? Is there really significant academic discourse regarding the terminology? How can the discussion of precise terminology be adequately and concisely stated, without compromising impartiality? I so far have found only one journalistic article that said Bolsonarism should not be called fascist. I doubt it's the only source that disputes it or intentionally stays away from the term. But maybe that should be a priority to determine if the POV tag should stay or the wording should change.🙏🏽 User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I promise I'll try to be brief. ;)

By definition, I’d consider Bolsonaro a neo-fascist. While this isn't my field, I tend to agree with specialists on this. Why? Fascism is a mass movement that co-opts left-wing rhetoric while emphasizing ultranationalism, ultraconservatism, racial/ethnic hierarchy, hostility to Marxism, and so on.

Bolsonaro fits this mold in several ways:

• He is an ultraconservative who openly glorified the Military Dictatorship(Ditatura empresarial-militar).
• He used scapegoating and exclusionary politics against minorities and political opponents.
• He encouraged violence against opponents.
• He actively promoted misinformation and conspiracy theories.

A common counterargument is that Bolsonaro lacks the left-wing rhetoric typical of classical fascism. Unlike early 20th-century fascists, he avoided class-struggle rhetoric, instead merging ultraconservatism with neoliberal policies. I attribute this to the dictatorship’s entrenched anti-communist legacy. Nevertheless, his “borrowed rhetoric” resonated with disillusioned workers, justifying the “neo” prefix. While not identical to 1930s fascism, he adapts its core tenets to Brazil’s context.

Academics in the field, like professor Federico Finchelstein, argue that Bolsonaro is a neo-fascist based on the points I’ve summarized (I hope I did them justice). However, a common criticism of this classification is that overusing the term “fascist” dilutes its meaning, and some argue he is better understood as an authoritarian populist.

Regarding the POV tag: I don’t believe true neutrality is possible, but this article does contain significant slant, regardless of how terrible Bolsonaro is. So it needs work.

Regarding terminology: Based on my arguments above, I would classify him as a neo-fascist.

Regarding sources of dispute: Finding serious academics who do not consider him a neo-fascist is challenging. Dissidents are mostly found in journalistic articles. From what I understand, the debate within political science circles is intense here in Brazil, but not necessarily focused on whether he fits this label. Given his overlap with the core traits I'd say the label is more than defensible. SirR LucasS (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@SirR LucasS: I was sort of hoping you'd support some sort of middle ground that would serve what I was understanding was neutral or impartial. Not sure what to do now. I would defer to people more knowledgeable on the subject 🙏🏽. But thanks for your words 🙏🏽.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ll try to reach out to some experts at the polisci department of my university. I doubt any of them will support the view that Bolsonarism isn’t a fascist movement, but they should give me a clearer understanding of the counterarguments and maybe even contribute to the article themselves. SirR LucasS (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@SirR LucasS: Sounds like a plan! Maybe one way forward 🙏🏽. It'd be awesome either way, whether they give guidance or edit. I've sometimes been impressed by how academics deal with controversy / tough subjects.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhoIsCentreLeft: I'd like to thank you for your edit, if the edits stay or in other ways the article continues as I understand is more impartial I'd be ok with the POV tag being removed. Maybe just leave it for another day or two, see if the page / NPOV is stable?User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

ok, I followed a train of thought to here 🙏🏽. Not sure if Donald Trump and fascism can be a model for this article in some ways... Maybe not, there are differences between Trump and Bolsonaro. But ummm... Hopefully I was constructive in my attempt to mediate a bit towards more NPOV 🙏🏽--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As a Brazilian, here are my 2 cents: Bolsonarism has elements and it's influenced by fascists ideologies, but it's not fascism for two main reasons:

- It's does not have a long term and a plan for the country, neither has a proposal for effectvely implement a regime that changes the destiny of the nation; It does not have a plan of international expansion, their foreign policy relies on subservience from the United States; It's does not have a cosmovision afteral. Brazilian consevatives and military are known for their limited and strict worldview and perception of the reality. They are always sharing and believing a wide range of conspiracy theories, some of them even conflicting between them. For example, it's very common that Bolsonaro supporters have conflicting views over Russia's Vladmir Putin regime and the 2022 Ukraine invasion.

- The Paulo Guedes nomination for Minister shows that Bolsonarism encompasses a wide range of conflicting ideologies, often neoliberalist, often nationalist. There is no unity and cohesion, there were effectvely various internal groups inside the government disputing the hegemony: there was the Olavo de Carvalho group, the military group, the neoliberal group, and so on. There were various cases of people that supported and being supported by Bolsonaro being expelled from the government and the Bolsonarism, the Sérgio Moro the most notable one. Himself after broken up with Bolsonaro, eventually returned in 2022 elections trying to help Bolsonaro in the debates, showing that himself, Moro, does not even know about what he is and what are his long term objectives.

That's what I think and see about.--Ciao 90 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

hi @Ciao 90:, maybe those are interesting points, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR / Original Research? Not really something that would help improve the article?User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 05:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources research

Some observers and analysts engaged in Brazilian politics have argued that characterizing Bolsonarism as fascism, either in general or as a variation of this political phenomenom, is not appropriate, because the country still holds elections and presents other elements that could characterize a democracy

Boito, Armando, Jr. "Chapter 8 Why Bolsonarism Should Be Characterized as Neofascism". Neoliberalism or Developmentalism. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004498389_010 Web.

regarding the wave of right wing movements:

a greater number of scholars prefer to call it some form of right-wing populism

(as opposed to fascism) and that a famous fascism researcher

categorically asserted that the presence of anything fascistic in Bolsonaro is “a highly contestable claim that needs to be demonstrated empirically with a sophisticated heuristic framework and methodology”

Zanin, Cesar A. "Researching and Debating the Extreme Right in the Twenty-First Century."

The eruption of far-right movements in many parts of the globe in recent years has stimulated debate around the correct concept to address the phenomena taking place. Definitions lack consensus. They range from “Political Realignment” (Davies, 2019), “Right-wing Populism” (Lazzarato, 2019; Moffit, 2016), “Fascism” (Fukuyama, 2017) and also “Post-Fascism” (Traverso, 2019), indicating that a proper conceptualization of the phenomena is still disputed

da Luz, Michele Diana. "Bolsonarism: What's in a Name?." Revista del CESLA. International Latin American Studies Review 31 (2023): 165-192.

These were some sources that seemed to discuss the naming - and it seemed the sources I picked were on the side of choosing fascism, but it seems they cited at least a few vocal opponents of the label. "A highly contestible claim" I would say a challenge.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems I found a source through the Wikipedia Library [Populism without borders. Notes on a global history. Por: Finchelstein, Federico, Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 13510487, Sep2019, Vol. 26, Número 3] on the camp of calling Bolsonaro a populist, defining populism as different from fascism.

Populism is not fascism. Historically, fascism has been adequately contextualized as, above all, a form of political dictatorship. It often emerges in democracy and destroys it from within. Historically, populism has done the opposite. It has often emerged from other authoritarian experiences, including dictatorship, and in most cases it has distorted democracies, minimizing their qualities, while never, or almost never, destroying them.

Allied with fascists to some extent but not a fascist from what I could read from that article. The article is more concerned with the global movement, rather than the specifics of brazil though.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 05:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No. WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:OR to WP:CIVILPOV. Ixocactus (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I dedicated like maybe half an hour to reading in order to find these sources? I didn't mean to cherry pick - but maybe I did? Not sure 🙏🏽 I did try to find supporting passages. Maybe inadvertently that ended up taking things out of context. I didn't read the articles fully. I am not an expert in fascism nor populism. I understand there is a debate among scholars as to whether the movement is populist and/or fascist. I attempted to find sources as part of that understanding. I am not trying to argue that Bolsonaro or Bolsonarism is not fascist, or that it shouldn't be in the article, merely that it is not consensual that he and it is. That care should be spend in order to phrase that in a way that matches the sources / debate or academic consensus or lack thereof.User:D Kirlston - talk 05:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A user in the discussion in portuguese wikipedia pt:Discussão:Bolsonarismo cited like 10 academic articles that seemed to show a consensus on the neofascism category for Bolsonarism. Maybe not so much on the category of fascism, but way more present than those calling the movement "populist".User:D Kirlston - talk 03:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2022.2111827

https://www.wsj.com/articles/populist-conservative-election-president-bolsonaro-lula-brazil-polling-corruption-inflation-political-correctness-trump-midterms-11665435944

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-coup-trial-39a1952e

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/brazil-bolsonaro-lula-election-populism/

https://www.ft.com/content/c39fadfe-9e60-11ea-b65d-489c67b0d85d

I have found more sources, one academic and the rest from Wikipedia-approved sources, that prefer the label "right wing populist". In my 2 years of living in Brazil and, anecdotally, researching recent news and how those around me feel, outside of far-left circles it is difficult to find anyone willing to label Bolsonaro as fascist or neo-fascist. In my research of these news sources above, the WSJ, NYT, Financial Times, and the Washington Post, no article published by these 4 have ever made a reference to Bolsonaro being a fascist, besides referencing what opponents have called him.

This article is improving somewhat, but ignoring the fact that the majority of news sources Wikipedia itself recognizes as WP:NPOV call him simply a right-wing or far-right-wing populist, in and of itself is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Why is it so hard to undo the bad-faith edit of a now-banned user? Fascist is such a polemic and frankly ignorant label to term this movement, especially as a whole. I'm at least glad the article now somewhat reflects this by adding the link to the Fascism as an insult page, because the vast majority of Bolsonarism's followers are not fascist, under any definition of the term. Hamjamguy (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-45829323

There is also this BBC article that I found on the Jair Bolsonaro page, which funnily enough itself doesn't even label the key figurehead of this supposed fascist movement as a fascist. Hamjamguy (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CHERRYPICKING would be labeling Bolsonarism as fascist, without at least countering with the right-wing populist label to evoke at the very least some semblance of neutrality, as he and Bolsonarism are most frequently labeled as simply right-wing populist in news publications. By the same logic as is being applied to this page, being edited (and equally reverted) by at least one banned account with clear lack of neutrality towards the subject (see the edit history, the now-banned sockpuppeteer that added the fascist label in the first place), let's change the page for Lulism to add kleptocracy as an ideological tenet, given the abundance of sources that could lead to that stretch of a label for the movement JOKING, but hopefully you get my point.. Hamjamguy (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hamjamguy: good work finding sources! User:Marty McDonalds was a sockpuppet? 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽 Not sure where that leaves us 🙏🏽 When pages are created that are of a sockpuppet, I understand they can be deleted without further discussion. But it seems the discussion and lack of consensus here and in pt:discussão:bolsonarismo maybe was not only their making? 🙏🏽User:D Kirlston - talk 23:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The page itself wasn't made by a sockpuppet, but virtually every right wing Latin American political party/movement is now labeled as neo-fascist thanks to this sockpuppeteer. And now that it has stuck (and removal of this controversial label and its even less-credible "academic" sources) it is been incredibly difficult to counter this non-neutral label for the movement, and impossible to outright remove it (which, in my opinion, is appropriate, given the fact that the page for Jair Bolsonaro does not label him as fascist (hint: because he is not. Fascists don't voluntarily leave power and pout in Orlando when they lose.) Hamjamguy (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hamjamguy: I mean - you say "it has stuck" but it is considerably different from the way it was when it was originally posted right? I actually am the author of the current status of the big phrase "His views, policies, and supporters are variously described as fascist or far-right populism by scholars and newspaper outlets" - not sure if that's ok in your book. I imagine maybe not. But it's different than it was as of the sockpuppet's edit. ("Bolsonarism (Portuguese: bolsonarismo) is a fascist-like[1] political phenomenon,[11] deemed as far-right,")User:D Kirlston - talk 01:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It is certainly acceptable in my book. I think it is reasonable to list him as being considered fascist by critics, but not in the infobox. I guess I should have been more clear, but Wikipedia in the 15 years I have been a user has always shown all angles of a particular issue, your edit considerably and positively improved the article. Hamjamguy (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hamjamguy: Thanks for the appreciation. And yeah, it still states his ideology as neofascism in the infobox 🙏🏽 Not sure if I'd change that or how people would go about changing that🙏🏽 Not sure how other articles treat this sort of thing. Where scholars sort of state one thing, but newspapers another.User:D Kirlston - talk 00:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the page for Bolsonaro himself doesnt even say he is a fascist; its very obviously a fringe academic opinion in Brazil and imo doesn't even deserve mentioning but I guess to be fair we have to leave this sockpuppet's vandalism up for eternity. I tried removing it and the sources and was reverted 2 mins later Hamjamguy (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@SirR LucasS: did you ever manage to get in touch with relevant professors and talk about this page / the terminology?User:D Kirlston - talk 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Defamatory article with political intent

This article was not written in an impartial manner. Nowhere in the manifesto, doctrine, or actions of the Liberal Party — Mr. Bolsonaro’s party — is there any racist, fascist, xenophobic, or misogynistic doctrine. These are defamatory articles with political intent. Mr. Bolsonaro identifies as a liberal, specifically a “liberal-conservative.” Nothing—absolutely nothing—in his party or any of his statements supports that he is fascist, misogynistic, racist, or xenophobic. These claims are unfounded, as neither he nor his party have made any acts or declarations endorsing such views. Therefore, these are merely speculations by the media and academia, clearly politically biased, aiming to denigrate Bolsonaro and his party. Dr. Valmontier (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Valmontier: see previous discussions.

@Ixocactus: Opinions? Not my cup of tea. Much seems to have been added Feb-Mar 2025 by the sock user:Marty McDonalds. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko It's a typical drama by bolsominions and his allies. They make a lot of unsourced accusations and rant against all RSs. All ists mentioned above are in the sources. Look at previous sections to see more on this pattern. Ixocactus (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko you don't even know me, and you're not even brazilian. for the record, i’m a communist and a monarchist — not a “bolsominion.” if you're not here to debate, then don’t reply.

the question is: does the bolsonaro party have any doctrine that defends misogyny, racism, xenophobia, or fascism? is there any act or statement from mr. bolsonaro supporting those ideas?

the day such proof exists, it will rightly belong on wikipedia — otherwise, these are baseless speculations from the media.

regarding ixocactus, i advise you to disregard his comments. unfortunately, he often takes a confrontational tone and seems to believe his word is final, which undermines healthy discussion. this can be clearly seen in the following block discussion:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Ixocactus#Conclus%C3%A3o Dr. Valmontier (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not the Bolsonaro party has it in their doctrine or what Mr. Bolsonaro says is irrelevant. What is relevant is what RS states. For a supposed neutral party, you certainly appear to know much about Ixocactus. Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko i am well aware of who ixocactus is because anyone active on lusophone wikipedia knows him he interferes in everything presents himself as the final authority and behaves with the arrogance of someone who believes he holds exclusive rights to knowledge

Regarding bolsonarism are you seriously suggesting that politically motivated and defamatory media speculations with no solid foundation should be considered more credible than the legal principle of presumption of innocence there is no proven case against the liberal party and treating speculation as verdict undermines both justice and reason. Dr. Valmontier (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly words. Since you didn't provide WP:RSs for your uncivil rants this thread is only a forum and does not help improve the entry. Ixocactus (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I was in this discussion a while back, against the inclusion of the neo-fascist label. Only "reputable" (by wiki standards, academic first hand sources not specifically prohibited by rule or list) sources found in obscure Brazilian academic journals call Bolsonarism a "neo-fascist" movement. I'm beating a dead horse, the lusophone Wiki is a lost cause, and I'm now thinking the English wiki is turning that way as well. Bolsonaro's political parties aren't listed anywhere as simultaneously being neo-fascist, but I guess that doesnt matter because a far-left professor in Minas Gerais somehow got such a paper peer reviewed and put in an academic journal. Debate on this and many other things often devolves into edit wars, and "consensus" (at least back 6 months ago when I left this and almost gave up editing entirely) was unduly weighted towards more "powerful" Wikipedia editors. But I guess if one peer-reviewed journal somewhere says that 2+2=5, Wikipedia must honor that as fact. Hamjamguy (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: the source, which diverges from every mainstream news source allowed on Wikipedia, was carefully procured and placed by a now-banned sockpuppeteer, and has remained erroneously on this page since. Hamjamguy (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko: Was much stuff added by the sock-puppet Marty McDonalds? Was the article less biased previously? I think even if RS are used, they can be used wrongly. A fringe opinion treated as a consensual opinion for example. But I don't think it's the case for a lot of the stuff I saw. But I haven't reviewed the sock-puppets edits. @Dr. Valmontier: - can you quote any specific statement which you find improperly unsourced? Or any specific source which you find problematic? I think there used to be some Carta Capital sources, which perhaps were not the most impartial. I previously believed it was a bit unfair to call the movement neofascist but it seems a lot of scholarly sources in political science do warn that it is, in fact, a valid way to describe it.User:D Kirlston - talk 03:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@D Kirlston: I am not familiar with this subject. user:Ixocactus might be the best to ask about the sock's edits. The page history should give you access to edits. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko Good afternoon, Adakiko. I don't understand what you're talking about. If you're looking for reliable sources to add to this article about Bolsonarism, I recommend searching for doctrines, statutes, and other official documents from his party and his previous parties, as well as laws, decrees, and other actions he took during his government that support such claims. Best regards! Dr. Valmontier (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Valmontier: Documents from his party are wp:primary sources and not an acceptable source. Adakiko (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

👍🏼

so, what were you saying? i didn’t understand. Dr. Valmontier (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko Dr. Valmontier (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:primary as to why such docs may not be used on Bolsonarism. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko, yes, yes, but may i ask why the fellow editor mentioned me? Dr. Valmontier (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Valmontier: Ask them? Maybe because you had posted this in the first place? Adakiko (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakiko, okay, how can I stop receiving notifications from this page, or close this discussion? Dr. Valmontier (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You could go to our talk pages and click "Mute this user". Maybe just stop asking questions? Most will not ping a second time. Could add a "please do not ping me at the bottom of this section". Adakiko (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adakikothank you, have a good day! Dr. Valmontier (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"Piroca bottle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Piroca bottle 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 January 3 § Piroca bottle until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 03:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering the context, this term refers to the Erotic baby bottle hoax.--Agent010 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)