Talk:Jair Bolsonaro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Biased opinion on the article[edit]

"Dilma Rousseff, along with other terrorists of the time, would have been tortured (even though her cell mate stated that she never truly was tortured, nor has ever proved through medical examinations)." Implying that she was de facto a terrorist, a terminology commonly used during the dictatorship to misinform the population so that people did not think that the government was limiting the right to exercise political opposition but rather ending with "terrorism" (citation to this are a lot of brazilian history books that I don't remember the name). Also, the "cell mate stated that she never truly was tortured" have no citation, and in my own reseaches I only found that this information is a lie created by non trustable media blogs, actually I found an entire interview with her cellmate stating that they were tortured. I'm removing this section from the article.

PS, for some reason, compating the link through wikipedia '[ ]' is not working, so here is the interview: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2016/04/01/ela-jamais-entregaria-os-pontos-diz-ex-companheira-de-cela-de-dilma.htm -- 179.212.91.12 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

this article by her cellmate does not say whe was NOT tortured. At least not explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.238.188 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does not deserve vs. Not Worthy[edit]

On the notorious case of the discussion with Maria do Rosário. Bolsonaro's exact words in portuguese, widely available on video, were "você não merece" [1], which translate to "you do not deserve", not "you are nor worthy" as reported by the Huffington Post [2]. The Huffington Post article has an incorrect translation, either by incompetence or intenttional bias. Do not repeat that error in this article. Fbergo (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't remove content which is backed by reliable sources. That constitutes vandalism and, if you persist in this behaviour, sanctions (such as blocking) may be applied. Consider yourself warned. Pay attention to the sources. Regardless of your opinion on The Huffington Post, this site widely considered a reliable source in this wiki. Altering the content of the articles contradicting the sources for your own biasis is vandalism. I advise you to stop it.
And also, respect the wp:status quo of the article. Coltsfan (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on claiming that the Huffington Post is more reliable than the videos of his actual speech [3] (at 0:12) and later mentioned in session [4] (at 0:36) and hundreds of articles in the mainstream brazilian media (such as the one that I added as a source and you repeatedly removed) in order to defend the mistranslated quote on the article. Fbergo (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is his speach in english? No. So we are talking about the translation of the word here. You are trying to change "worth" (which is what he was trying to say) for the word "deserve" because you believe this word is more soft (a classic case of 'push pov'). Do not use wikipedia to transmite your political bias, whatever they are. And no WP:POINT either. Coltsfan (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Please read this article from The Guardian, which I suggest be added as an english-language source alongside the Huffington one: [5] . The whole matter started in a live TV interview in 2003 ([6]), where his words translate directly to "does not deserve" (and the Guardian uses this as translation in the article body). Many years later, in december 2014, Bolsonaro gave an interview to a print newspaper, Zero Hora (the actual interview is this one, but may be behind a paywall depending on geolocation: [7]), where he expanded on the previous discussion. The compensation he had to pay is related to this 2014 print interview, not the 2003 one. It would be helpful to expand the paragraph to clarify and contextualize the matter (that spans over a decade). I will no longer edit the article about it, but do consider weighting in different sources. Huffington is knowingly a left-wing outlet, and it is expected to have a bias when reporting on a right-wing politician. Fbergo (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Depending on who you are asking, even The Guardian can be called left wing (or right wing). This doesn't say much. The thing is: you are trying to sugarcoat what he is saying. But fine, you are saying that The Huffington Post is too left wing? Great. How about The Telegraph? How about Time.com? even the freaking Guardian again? Are they all left wing? All of these sources say that Bolsonaro meant to say that that woman was not "worth" being raped. So there you go: multiple WP:RS backing what is said on the article. Coltsfan (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"Você não merece" can be either, worthy or deserve, and can be interpreted both ways. Don't try to impose a lighter character to the sentence as this is a obvious case of language manipulation made by him. -- 179.212.91.210 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

he did actually worse because when asked why she did not deserve to be raped, bolsonaro stated "because she is ugly". hence "you are not wothy" is more accurate. https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/coluna-do-estadao/depoimento-de-bolsonaro-no-caso-maria-do-rosario-e-adiado/

Biased opinion about poor[edit]

Bolsonaro defended a voluntary birth control. http://bahia.ba/politica/bolsonaro-defendeu-rigido-controle-de-natalidade-para-pobres/

What makes him far right exactly?[edit]

BBC and Guardian think he is - I am just confused to his actual far right agenda which I can't seem to find anywhere. I am not sure being against racial quotas and same sex marriage makes one far right - and yet the article indicates these are representative of his far right attributes. Reaper7 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources, not our personal judgement of what is "far-right" to decide who is far right. Since your change was not predicated on policy, but instead on your personal opinion of this guy, I'm reverting your change. Also, don't put WP:NPOV tags for no reason please. If you have a concrete explanation of what material is missing, that's backed up with sources, present them on the talk page, and then add the tag. Don't add the tag just because you don't like the article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Reaper7: Editing "strikes me as" to "makes one" doesn't change what you're doing. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so it isn't for us to decide what constitutes far right in Brazil. And let me ask you what you try to accomplish by making Wikipedia a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Do you think labeling him as right rather than far-right will make him more palatable to the "leftists" you hate so much? I doubt it. Equivocating on the label because a few editors think he's not extreme enough to be far-right will only make Wikipedia viewed as less reliable a source. So I ask you to reconsider what you're trying to do when you push your anti-leftist agenda on Wikipedia. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Attack during campaign event undue?[edit]

I spinned it off to Attempted assassination of Jair Bolsonaro, but was reverted by Coltsfan. In my opinion, the attack is not that significant for his biography. The section about his campaign currently contains only a couple of sentences, and a lengthy paragraph and subsection about the attack seems WP:UNDUE to me. wumbolo ^^^ 13:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You just applied copy and paste to the text from one article to the other. Rewrite Attempted assassination of Jair Bolsonaro with other words and more content and it should be fine. Coltsfan (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If we only include a sentence or two on this article, then my article can be restored (per WP:SPINOFF). wumbolo ^^^ 13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:COPYWITHIN. Might enlighten things a bit. Coltsfan (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I did exactly what the guideline said. What's the problem? wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You said "In my opinion, the attack is not that significant for his biography". Really? The guy almost died, a candidate for the presidency of a country, and it's not significant? That's just plain wrong. Second, you just copy and paste the content. We'd have two articles with the same text. Better be in one place then. This is not a case of forking. Like i said, if you have wrote the other article with different words, or a different approach, that would be a different thing. Other than that, the attempt on the congressman's life is very relevant to his article here. Coltsfan (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The first edition of the article doesn't have to be more than a stub. --Pudeo (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The attack and its outcome is a current event. Spinning it off into a second article will only make it harder for both versions to agree with each other as new information becomes available. The historical importance of the attack will only be accurately perceived after the election cycle, and it is good practice in editing wikipedia to be cautions and avoid attempting to report events in real time like a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). For now, it seems appropriate to keep everything about the attack within this article. Fbergo (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sterilisation of the poor[edit]

To me the quote attributed to Bolsonaro sounds more like he is advocating people use condoms and the like rather than the poor being sterilised against their will. The quote is in English, fortunately, as I cannot read Portuguese, so I may be missing an implication or something in what he actually said. Anyway, is he actually saying something a bit dubious here or is it quite innocent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapirium (talkcontribs) 01:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

He means birth control not in terms of condoms, but in terms of governmental birth control (think China's one child law). According to the article, currently Brazil bans any form of governmental birth control. Basically, he wants to stop the poor from reproducing via induced sterilization. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tapirium. He does not appear to be stating he wishes to sterilise the poor. Reaper7 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

China hasn't had a policy of sterilization though, as far as I know, advocating contraception or family planning does not mean sterilization, which is an extreme thing, especially if you have no choice in the matter.Tapirium (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The article specifically says induced sterilization. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In the section: Birth control of the poor, it states that, 'Bolsonaro provoked considerable controversy for public remarks made in July 2008, when he advocated the forcible sterilization of poor people'. I suppose this qualifies as induced, forcible is a somewhat stronger term though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapirium (talkcontribs) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Heavily biased article[edit]

I couldn’t read 1/4 of the article out of sheer embarrassment. It’s clearly written by someone who dislikes Bolsonaro and misrepresents information. --Lecen (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you be specific? This isn't worth for anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.183.36.250 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

”when he advocated the forcible sterilization of poor people”. NOWHERE, in the article, with the exception of the title, is there any quote from Bolsonaro in which he proposes that. --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lecen: This paragraph cites another article that describes this quote. Is it accurate? Jarble (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bolsonaro is famous for his "tough speech". He is a politician that uses controversy in order to get media attention (this is well documented by reliable sources inside the article). So what should we do? Pretend he is not controversial in order to give an impression of "fairness"? No. We that would be dishonest. Plus, all the information present in the article are backed by reliable sources. As for the "sterilization of the poor", the problem is not in the lack of sources ([8], [9]). But the new tittle of the section should elucidate things better now. Coltsfan (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Bolsonaro and the brazilian military dictatorship[edit]

Some editors in this article have been trying to whitewash Bolsonaro's support for the 1964–1985 military dictatorship or downright totally suppress the word "dictatorship". I'd like to address that.

A. "Was the brazilian 1964–85 military dictatorship an actual dictatorship?"

  • Yes. And that is not even up for debate. It is a consensus among historians, scholars and journalists that this period in time was a dictatorship. Basic characteristics of a democracy, such as the right to oppose the government, did not exist. Any political dissident was arrested, tortured or exiled, typical characteristics of a dictatorship. (source, source, source, source).

B. "Why is Bolsonaro's support for that regime so noteworthy and what does this have to do with its brutality?"

  • Simple. Bolsonaro doesn't support the 1964–85 military government despite it's brutality. No. Actually, it's one of the reasons why he supports it. In fact, he has made this one of his signature battle cries over the years. Let me give a few examples.
1) He has voiced his admiration for Colonel Ustra, a notorious torturer and human rights abuser (source, source, source).
2) Bolsonaro once said that the biggest mistake of the brazilian dictatorship was the fact that they "tortured [people] but did not killed [them]". (source)
3) He has mocked the death of political dissidents of that regime and has also openly mocked some efforts to find their remains, claiming that "dogs look for bones" (source, source).
4) A major part of his support comes exactly from the supposed "toughness" of that dictatorship (source, source, source, source, source, source).

So when users like Dilidor removes the phrase "a dictatorship known for constant human rights violations", he is not only removing information backed by reliable sources, in violation of WP:V, he is trying to sugar coat it. What makes Bolsonaro's support for the 1964–1985 military dictatorship so peculiar, is the fact that he supports a regime that is best known for its brutality and was actually a model for other military regimes in the continent.

So, it's not a matter of "that information lacks RS". It's not a matter of "that content is up for debate". So, if it's not that, it must be something else. So, i'd ask people to stop with the WP:POINT. Bring your own sources, discuss it first, and then talk about removing valid information backed by reliable sources. Actually, as you can see, a lot of what i wrote here is not even on the article! So, who is doing the PUSHPOV here? I was the one who expanded his biography and added other information other than his controversies. But apparently some people are trying to either turn this article into a "Love letter" or into a "diss track". In my opinion, it has to be neither. But the truth must come first (when backed by WP:SOURCES). Coltsfan (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your accusation of "whitewashing" suggests that you have an agenda of mud-slinging. My deletions have been an attempt to retain a neutral point of view, but you are endeavoring to take a side in the "widespread contention" over the man's politics. —Dilidor (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not "mud-slinging". I'm stating the things as i see them. But look, look how this article was just 5 months ago. There were 3 lousy unreferenced paragraphs in the section "Political career". While the "Criticism" section was pretty beefy. I'm trying to help mantain an article that is both accurate and truthful. But i'm not gonna create a false balance, by saying that the guy's accomplishments have the same weight as his controversies, when the sources themselves don't swing that way. An article can be neutral and truthful at the same time, we don't have to sacrifice one to achieve the other.
The interpretation should be like this: 'the article says the man defends the 1964–85 military dictatorship. Why is this peculiar enough to be mentioned? Ah it's because of the nature of said dictatorship. Does it have reliable sources to back it up? It does, really, more than one, actually. Good'. Like i said, an article can be neutral and truthful at the same time. But if we have to "hide stuff", twist meanings and "play with words" in order to give an impression of neutrality, that means we're throwing WP:NEUTRAL out the window. If you take the time to read the sources i posted, you will see that not mentioning that fact would be a very neglectable move. Coltsfan (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Coltsfan: "I'm not mud-slinging. I'm stating the things as i see them." So you say potato…. Stating things as you see them is putting forward an opinion and making a value judgment. Leaving out a value judgment ("the regime was characterized by human rights violations") is not "hiding" anything; it is merely avoiding stating one editor's opinions and value judgments "as I see them". That's why I keep deleting it. —Dilidor (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with you if that statement wasn't backed by multiple reliable sources or it was disputed by other sources, at the very least. But it's not the case. It's not my opinion, it's not 'anyone's' opinion. It's in the sources in the article and the ones i point it out for you here. If still, after all i said and these 18 different sources posted in the article and here, still you think it's just "the opinion of the editor who wrote it", then the "value judgment" that i don't think i'm doing is actually correct. Coltsfan (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Coltsfan is clearly on a political activism track here. I'll reply to each point he raised:
"Yes. And that is not even up for debate. It is a consensus among historians, scholars and journalists..."
Actually, no. There's a strong debate and is about when it was a dictatorship. There's a reason why it's called "Brazilian military regime" and not "Brazilian military dictatorship." Generally, the agreement is that the period from 1964 until 1978 was authoritarian, with increasing and decreasing levels of authoritarianism. Historians make a differentiation between "authoritarian" and "dictatorship." The widespread accepted view is that 1964-1985 is better called "military regime," the 1964-1978 period as "authoritarian" and the 1968-1978 (when the IA-5 was active) as "dictatorship." Once the IA-5 was extinguished in 1978, no one considers Brazil a dictatorship. With the exception of the office of president, still held by a general, everything else went through clean elections (Brizola, who was João Goulart's political heir, even became governor of Rio de Janeiro).
"Simple. Bolsonaro doesn't support the 1964–85 military government despite it's brutality. No. Actually, it's one of the reasons why he supports it."
Wrong again. Bolsonaro has stated several times that the military regime was a necessary evil, or, the lesser of two evils (that is, either an authoritarian military regime or a communist dictatorship). He even acknowledges that the regime made mistakes and committed tortures (see his interview on GloboNews and for Jornal Nacional, recently).He also stated that present-day Brazil is very different and the military regime that happened in the past occurred due to specific causes related to that period, and is not something he wishes to occur again.
"He has voiced his admiration for Colonel Ustra, a notorious torturer and human rights abuser."
Ustra has been accused of having people tortured under his command, and despite several legal cases brought against him, he was never declared guilty. Maybe he allowed people to be tortured, I don't know, but Wikipedia cannot call him a torturer. It could, at best, point out accusations against him.
"Bolsonaro once said that the biggest mistake of the brazilian dictatorship was the fact that they 'tortured [people] but did not killed [them]'."
I believe you're talking about this specific moment. He was being heckled by a crowd and spoke that to annoy them. this interview , under a far different and calmer circumstance, Bolsonaro says "I do not support torturers" and explains his points of views regarding what happened in the military regime.
"A major part of his support comes exactly from the supposed "toughness" of that dictatorship."
Wrong again. Almost all Brazilians hardly care about the military regime. Bolsonaro's support comes mainly from his strong stance against crime and support for traditional family values. To a lesser stance, his commitment to lower taxes and to allow for lesser government interference in the economy.
You clearly have no understanding of what's going on in my country, and is trying to force a nonexistent perspective on real issues. Indeed, we can discuss whether Bolsonaro's views regarding the military regime and tortures as necessary evils, but to claim that he actually supports tortures or that people are willing to vote for him because they like dictatorships is outrageous. --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lecen, i know you probably think i'm dumb foreigner, but i actually know a lot about Brazilian history and i speak portuguese fluently since i grew up in a bilingual household.

So, let's see your points. Here goes nothing:

  1. No. It was a dictatorship, and the people who argue against it usually are the revisionists, the same people who say that the Nazy party was left-wing. But this is all not me, Coltsfan, that is saying this, it's the sources. I also recomend that you read the FAQ in the discussion for the portuguese page for the Brazilian Military Dictatorship (that's what is called on pt-Wiki, btw). In Wikipedia's portuguese version, your fellow braziliains have voted to change the name of the article to "Dictadorship", in order to, in their words, "reflect the reality of the events". Ps: and Brizola being elected as Governor as your exemple of political freedoms is misleading, to say the least. Brizola was elected in 1983, when the democratization process was already in full swing. Free election for offices of the executive (like governors) was held for the first time in 1982, just two years before the regime was officially ousted and when the military were already determined to leave power.
  2. Bolsonaro has stated several times that the military regime was a necessary evil? You could have fooled me when he stated: "I am in favor of a dictatorship," he bellowed in a speech that rattled a country that only left military rule behind in 1985. "We will never resolve serious national problems with this irresponsible democracy." In 1999, he said, in open session in the House of Representatives that he "favours torture" and called democracy "crap", and that he would close down Congress if he could. A section from his interview with NPR: "Bolsonaro's admiration for the army extends to the country's repressive military dictatorship that ruled from 1964-85. He describes this to NPR as "a very good" period". In a 2017 piece from Reuters it states: "Many others in the Catholic country, however, are outraged by misogynist comments and outspoken support for Brazil’s former military dictatorship, including its use of torture." He once called the 1964 Coup d'état a "democratic intervention". Don't look like someone who thinks that that regime was a necessary evil. He actually feels nostalgic about it. And again, it's not my opinion (read this).
  3. Your position on whether Ustra was a torturer or not is amusing. I don't know if you are aware of this, but he actually has talked about and was implicated in cases of torture and imprisonment of dissidents during the military government (more sources: [10] [11], [12], [13], [14]). One of his colleagues have even confessed to do it. But hey, if he was a torturer, why was he never put in jail? Well, it's because of the 1979 amnesty law. Still, in 2008, a judge even condemned him for the crime of torture and kidnapping (source), but because of the amnesty law he didn't spend a day behind bars. But as you can see, Ustra involvement with torture is well known.
  4. The thing about his opinions on torture is that he mantainted it for a long time. True, he kinda toned down a bit, but that only happened recently, when he was already in campaign mode. But in the year 2000, for instance, he said: "i support torture". Plain and simple. There was no heckling there, no one was cracking jokes. Was just a normal interview.
  5. "Almost all Brazilians hardly care about the military regime." Again, you could have fooled me. In a 2017 survey, 47% of brazilians said they would support the return of the military to power. And apparently this growing "nostalgia" for the dictatorship has not come out of the blue. So much for "people not caring". The fact that he is nostalgic and openly supports the dictatorship is not an opinion of mine either. It's well documented (source, source, source, source). And his new stances on taxes, privatizations and less government intervention in the economy is actually rather new. Throughout most of his political career, Bolsonaro supported developmentalists policies and other types of government intervention in the economy (something that the 1964-85 regime often did). Acording to sources (like this one) Bolsonaro was against privatization of state owned companies, the appropriation of natural resources by foreign companies, among other things. Yes, he is changing his opinions now, but only after decades of defending these old policies. In fact, he has voted together with the left-wing Workers' Party on economic issues on several different occasions over the past 20 years or so.

So, before you accused me of dishonesty and "not understanding of what's going on in the country", do your research first. Coltsfan (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018[edit]

I am requesting that the section on birth control for the poor be improved or removed. It states that Bolsonaro advocates the forceful sterilization of the poor then gives a quote from him that does not, to me, clearly state or even imply this. Clearly there are articles condemning him for such a stance, I fully accept that he may indeed have, or have had, such a belief, however, his quote ought to show clearly what his stance is, or else remove the quote and show why others believe him to hold these views. Forcible sterilization of the poor is obviously a subject that is important to have included, it is something that he is accused of, I do not wish to remove any mention of the matter. Merely to have the article clearer to readers such as myself who are ignorant of Brazilian politics. Regards Tapirium (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have at least 3 sources (1, 2, and 3) that say otherwise. This source, for instance, says he tried in his career to put forward three laws that reduce the minimum age for clinic sterilization. WP:V says: "readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." How to be truthful to that if we're gonna ignore the sources in order to "manage the tone" or to get PC? Doesn't make much sense. Coltsfan (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether he holds the position or not, merely, suggesting that the following quote: "It is no good talking about education because most of these people are not prepared to receive education and will not educate themselves. Only birth control can save us from chaos," attributed to him does not really (at least not to me) show that his views are what is stated in the rest of the article. If he holds such views and is outspoken about them then isn't there a Portuguese speaker who could find us a better quote? He seems to have a reputation of being outspoken and opinionated on all sorts of controversial issues, this one in particular has received plenty of attention, so, I presume there are better quotes. Many journalists would have quizzed him on it, let's get a better response from him.Tapirium (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if there is better sources, someone can put it forward. But since we're not discussing meaning and interpretation but wording, the "sterilization" thing makes sense. At least, this word is backed by sources. And the word doesn't have to be explicitly said. If i say "i'll end his life" and someone transliterates as "i'll kill him", well, different words, same meaning, right? Coltsfan (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Coltsfan, I'm really worried about your misrepresentation of sources and I truly hope that is caused by lack of understanding of Portuguese. One of your sources says "Let's bring back Eugenics and save our race by removing ugly people from circulation. How wonderful." This is not journalistic work, it's a biased and unethical political activism. You have to provide reliable sources, do you understand this basic requirement to edit on Wikipedia? Now, back to Bolsonaro. I'm Brazilian from Ceará (one of the sources, O POVO, is actually owned by my first cousins), and I'll translate each of Bolsonaro's quotes (all sources provide the same quotes, but I'm using Folha de São Paulo, which is regarded as the most reliable among them):
1) "I'm not allowed to say it, that I put forth, but I wish Brazil had a program of family planning. A man and woman with good education will hardly wish to have another son to be dependable on government aid."
2) "Poor people are useful [in the eyes of politicians] for one thing only: to vote. Voting ID in one hand and a degree of ignorance in the pocket, to vote on whichever party is in power."
3) "We must adopt a rigid birth control policy. We can no longer make demagogic speeches, asking for resources and means from the government to aid these miserable people that grow more and more throughout our country."
4) "I'm in favor of death penalty and of rigid birth control, because I see violence [crime] and poverty growing more and more in our country. Who has no means to raise more children than is capable of, shouldn't have them [more children than can afford to raise]. This is what I'm in favor, I'm not worried about having votes for the next election."
5) "It's pointless to talk about education, because the majority of the population is not prepared to be educated [due to the precarious situation of public schooling in Brazil] and wont be educated. Only birth control will save us."
6) "It's about time we discuss a policy to contain the demographic explosion, otherwise we'll be wasting time voting government aid only." [he mentions government aid programs for the poor, such as "bolsa-família" and "vale-gás", which has no good translation without sounding awkward]
7) "We have to provide the means for those who, unfortunately, lacks education and has no way of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Because we [people with better education and higher income] can, while the poor cannot."
Nowhere, Bolsonaro suggests any idea regarding "forced sterilization of the poor." It was an unethical title placed in the newspapers articles and it's even worse to see Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, to push forward. Even less a few editors who seem to be carried away by their own personal political opinions. What Bolsonaro seems to indicate from his words (nowhere he says exactly what he has in mind) is that the government should facilitate means for the poor in Brazil to have access to birth control measures, such as educational campaigns, birth control pills, government funded tubal ligation and/or vasectomy. --Lecen (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lecen: Would "extreme birth control measures" be a better wording then, in your opinion? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
FenixFeather, I believe that "extreme" would be stating an opinion on the matter. I, for example, see nothing wrong or "extreme" in having the government provide educational campaigns, birth control pills, condoms, or to finance medical procedures for free. This, however, is my opinion. Honestly? The entire section should be removed. I've been following the presidential campaign and I saw no one, neither the opposing candidates or anyone with credentials in the press, to have raised issues with Bolsonaro's opinions on birth control, which were clearly done years ago and he himself hasn't raised them again. What I've been seeing in the campaign, which could be regarded as controversial, are his ideas about firearm ownership and his views on the Brazilian military regime. Birth control? Nothing. This Wikipedia article is very biased against Bolsonaro. The man has discernible flaws, but it's not our purpose to deceive our readership. --Lecen (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lecen: I don't think it would be an opinion, because Bolsonaro says "rigid birth control", in his own words. At least in your translation above. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lecen, my portuguese is in on an acceptable level. But read this source. Bolsonaro states: "There is no use in talking about education, because the majority of the people is not prepared to get educated and they won't go for it. Only birth control can save us from chaos." (i confirmed this with google translator, which seems pretty accurate) That don't seem to feat in your argument of "he just wants educational campaign". He is talking about imposing birth control. Maybe we should find a better word for "sterilization", but to claim the word that the journalists used was 'completely wrong', well, i'd say no. They might have fancied it up, but they didn't put words in his mouth. And again, the source says that he tried, during his career, to put forward three laws that reduce the minimum age for sterilization. Don't seem like the wording is totaly out of left field. He clearly meant "forced birth control" here. It's obvious. What we can discuss is maybe the word "sterilization" might be inappropriate, andwe can choose another word, but still, the core meaning would be same. Coltsfan (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

But just to make my opinion clear. I don't object removing the section entirely if there is no middle ground to be found (as long as it respect the sources). Coltsfan (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Coltsfan, you still haven't answered why you've been misrepresenting sources. He doesn't support "forced sterilization" and didn't imply it. Your "google translation" is wrong. As I said in a previous message, which you seem to have ignored, Bolsonaro meant: "It's pointless to talk about education, because the majority of the population is not prepared to be educated [due to the precarious situation of public schooling in Brazil] and wont be educated. Only birth control will save us." When you're translating something, you need to take in account the meaning and the best way to represent it in another language. I work with 18th-19th century Brazilian texts, which I need to carefully translate to English. When I see you making wrong translations, I start to be worried. Are you doing it for lack of understanding of my native language (Portuguese, language spoken by Brazilians)? --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the question is the level of the portuguese spoken here, but simple interpretation of the text. This interpretation you have is valid, you are entitled to it. But, the tittle of the source article is: "Bolsonaro defends the sterilization of the poor as a way to tackle misery and crime". I'm not making assumptions, i'm reading what the source states. If you think the source is wrong, if you think the journalist was malicious while writing his piece, you can use WP:RSN to question the reliability of the source itself. Other than that, the source says "sterilization", then the word sterilization is being used as such in the article, in respects to WP:V. Who ever added that section (wasn't me), didn't made that up. They respected the source material. As everybody should. Coltsfan (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've seen sources often deemed reliable call Trump a fascist and Barack Obama a socialist, and nonetheless it would be wrong to state either opinion as fact in an encyclopedic article. Unless you can find a source in which Bolsonaro clearly sais that he believes that poor people should be forced to be sterilized, this section has to be removed. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There's a reliable source that calls Obama a socialist? I don't think the whole section needs to be removed, but the wording could be adjusted if it's not accurate. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
*Agree with Lecen. He has explained his position clearly and the logic of what he said - no matter how emotional or concerned an editor may be regarding Bolsonaro's politics - makes complete sense. The 'sterilisation of the poor' section is perhaps leaning towards a very good example of Fake news. I for one think the section needs deletion. Bolsonaro's opinions on 'rigid birth control' can be mentioned in another section. Reaper7 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So why the birth control section is still there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.223.131 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bradv 06:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's really a shame that the article includes an outright lie even though it gives a link with the Portuguese original wording. How disgusting to not correct this falsehood and mislead those who cannot read the original language. Coltsfan, you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia. You give the Wikipedia a bad name. That's the way dictatorships work - censorship instead of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.223.99 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What's wrong with the quote? The source says

Não adianta nem falar em educação porque a maioria do povo não está preparada para receber educação e não vai se educar. Só o controle da natalidade pode nos salvar do caos.

which by all accounts translates directly to what we have in the article. Bradv 03:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)