Talk:Olavo de Carvalho/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Science section needed clarification

The subsection named Science was very poorly written, by someone who obviously has no knowledge on the subject and misses the point completely, not to mention the harsh tone which barely disguises the contempt the editor had for the author. I've seen the same errors on the portuguese Wikipedia article. It doesn't even make much sense for the first paragraph to be in that subsection, or maybe even for the subsection to exist at all, but that would need a lot more editing than I'm willing to do right now.

I added an extra reference and the link for the Traditionalist School page on wikipedia, which already has a link pointing to Olavo de Carvalho as a traditionalist.

The paragraph mentioning astrology had a very subtle error, which I'll assume in good faith was a mistake, but is incompatible with the given reference. He doesn't say anything about astrology becoming a branch of scientific study, but about astrology becoming object of scientify study. Those are very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.148.77 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The previous reasons for deletion still apply

The amount of people reading this article shows by itself the need of it´s existence and improvements. If Olavo weren´t important there wouldn´t be so many people reading this article, and others that try to do his "Damnatio memoriae". igrunevald (talk)

The problem is that WP:AUTHOR is not satisfied by the paltry secondary sources. Looking at the footnotes we have three candidates for WP:RS

1. An interview with Caravalho. This is not really discussion of (as opposed to by) Caravalho in a secondary source. It was part of the deleted version of the article and did not stop the consensus at AfD from choosing to delete.
2. A single book that quotes Caravalho on a single page. Ok.
3. A single sentence in an interview with Barbara Abramo in which she says, "Hey, guess what, Olavo de Caravalho used to be an astrologer!" Ridiculous excuse for secondary sourcing.

Someone at Deletion Review commented that something like five real secondary discussions of the person would be expected. That sounds about right. So far we have one, maybe one and a half. I have no personal opinion about whether we should have an article on this man, per se. But I do believe the notability standard should be upheld. So if in the coming weeks I don't see those five real secondary sources, I will bring it back to AfD and expect the same result for the same reason. Wareh (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Wareh. This article was deleted by the right reasons. It is RafaAzevedo who distorts Wikipedia's rules and insists in those nonsensical things.--189.55.129.216 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Even in example (2) , what we have is a quote of a very general (even banal) remark by the biographee about the general unreliability of the midia, which the author of the book simply quotes (more or less) approvingly. That's not commentary on the biographee's views, and therefore it's not RSCerme (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should probably be deleted, but by the letter of the law he does pass both WP:G4 (has a few new sources so not sufficiently similar) and WP:BLPPROD (has some sources). We could try AfD again. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wareh should at least try to spell the name of the person correctly, before commenting on the topic. I completely disagree, obviously, with the reasons for deletion shown above. It seems to me that the opinions are politically and ideologically charged, and may even consist of an abuse of Wikipedia in order to prove a point of view (that is especially the case of the user Cerme). RafaAzevedo ^msg 11:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take some perverse pride in my misspelling. It's evidence for the truth, which is that personally I don't care one way or the other about Carvalho, and that I lack even a trace of political or ideological interest in the matter. I don't need to be an expert, because the question facing the Wikipedia community is not whether there could be a valid article on him, but whether there is one. I do not know whether the kind of sources exist or not that would justify an article, but I do know that (in my judgement) they were not there yet when I posted my observation! For that, I don't need any competence beyond an ability to read this article and look at what it cites. What seems strangely political are the objections to my nonpolitical previous AfD. A very mechanical task is laid out in front of those who want the article: prove that the proper WP:RS exist in sufficient quantity, and base the article on them. If this happens, you'll find that I not only won't take it back to AfD but will support keeping the article if someone else nominates it. From this point of view, perhaps you can see why the failure of the article's proponents to say simply, "Right, we'll get much better RS in there and base the article on them," does lead me to wonder whether proper sources do exist. But I'm very open minded on this point. Wareh (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You said "From this point of view, perhaps you can see why the failure of the article's proponents to say simply, "Right, we'll get much better RS in there and base the article on them," does lead me to wonder whether proper sources do exist." I completely agree, but you have to admit it is extremely offputting to keep trying to do that while one or two editors (not you, of course) keep trying to delete the article on an ideological basis.

Misspellings aside, I assume you understand Portuguese, and I beg to differ on your interpretations of these sources. The third example, for instance, is not merely such an exclamation made a famous Brazilian astrologer, but one in which she mentions clearly Carvalho as an astrologer, her early mentor, so to speak, and does it in a manner that makes it absolutely clear that he is, at least to the interviewer and his/her readers, a notorious person. As for "a single book that quotes Caravalho [sic] on a single page", I frankly fail to see what is wrong with that; many sources are only "single books that quotes someone or something on a single page". RafaAzevedo ^msg 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I did realize after posting the comment that my "single sentence" was an exaggeration in relation to the astrologer interview. I do think we want, not "proof of celebrity," but sources that engage with his writings. Interviews are not ideal for this at all. If proof of celebrity were good enough, then the fact that he gets half a million Google hits would have been enough to prevent the previous deletion; the point is to show that he has done more than gotten himself into the public eye but has actually been treated seriously by the sources. As for quoting him on a single page, I'll just say that in my census of sources I did consider that the one perfectly solid example. If we had five like it, I'd be much better satisfied. There was once an article on Kola Boof, who claimed an affair with Osama bin Laden and, I believe, even published a book about it. It has been absent from the encyclopedia for a long time now, perhaps partly because of WP:BLP policy concerns, but also, I think, because a notorious attention-sponge does not automatically get deemed encyclopedically notable, and every article has to be based on WP:RS. I do know Portuguese well enough to read the sources, FWIW, and I will take some care to do so more carefully in giving the article further consideration. Wareh (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. On "famous Brazilian astrologer": I put the redlink (and there is no Portuguese article either) partly to make a point. If Carvalho had been the astrological mentor of an encyclopedically notable astrologer, that could be part of his own claim to notability. As it is, it's a bit tough to see why we should give much weight to a magazine interview with an astrologer. Wareh (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your reference in 1 is about a translation of Brave New World, published in 1946...what does that mean ? Was he not born in 1947 ? I have never seen this preface-to-preface that makes him so great. And never heard about it. Your reference in 2 is about journalism, in a book about journalism and media.that he published in Zero Hora, a newspaper (and not one of the biggest) in Brazil. Your reference in 3, from Barbara Abramo, a journalist that writes horoscope in Folha de Sao Paulo, says that she had "some astrology (!)" classes" with Olavo de Carvalho. Your reference in 4 is a Radio interview WITH him, promoted by a extreme right oriented journalist, as he is. As a fact, there is NO reference to him in Jstor, or to his books or "scientific" articles. That means, that his works are not important or regarded, or translated, or discussed or cited by academics. He claims to be " just a philosopher, writer, and professor, committed to the search of what seems to me to be the truth and to educating a group of people who are so kind as to pay attention to what I say." (http://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html) The point is : he has not proven to be a philosopher among the philosophers; he is almost unknown in Brazil as a writer; and where does he teach ? Where are his lectures ? He is not recognized as a professor in Brazil or in USA, except among a little group that pay to hear his lessons on-line. The same people that is now trying to make him important :

http://www.orkut.com/Main#CommMsgs?cmm=44668&tid=5588671222910535654&na=3&nst=21&nid=44668-5588671222910535654-5588700648099652917

If you can read portuguese, and I am sure you can, RafaAzevedo, you will see the organized movement,to bring him back to wikipedia. To those people that do not know Orkut, it is like Facebook. (Robertocasagrande (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

I can just as clearly see a movement (perhaps even more, since they/you are actually HERE and not in other websites), formed by Left-leaning editors, dedicated exhaustively to remove any mention of him from Wikipedia, of which you are the latest example. It would be much more honest to use a single, registered account to try to do it, using appropriately the talk pages, than through brute force and the use of anonymous and 'phantom' accounts. Your view of the references is completely tendentious and partial (such as describing a journalist as "extreme right oriented"), and therefore do not deserve much attention, as it is ideologically-motivated. Try to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, where even people you may not personally like deserve may eventually have an article, and then maybe I can discuss with you. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RafaAzevedo, I do not need to prove any interest in this "movement" to delete him. The truth is, that I have seen his article in german and made a lot of corrections,ALL aproved. Then I saw some things in portuguese, and appointed to you. Then I saw here in English you trying to make him more important than he is. The only movement here that I can see is represented by you in Portuguese (defending the author, deleting critics and proposals of deletion), and here, and I am sure, in german, writing in english, of course. Would you not think it a coincidence, that the same referecens that you presented here were presented in german too, just now, but without a name ? Would you not agree that he is described as a important journalist and essayist in portuguese ? But here and in german you want to make us believe, that he is a very important philosopher. So, do not come here thinking about conspiracies of left movements, without recognizng that yourself is art interested in the defense of the great philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.132.214 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I don't "want" anything. I won't discuss with people who hide under the cloak of anonimity to point fingers and make bogus accusations. I never edit German Wikipedia (except for the occasional interwiki fixing), so my conscience is clear of this 'charge' of yours. If you have anything to talk about the article, this is the place; if you want to discuss other subjects, I suggest you go somewhere else and stop with this disruptive behavior. RafaAzevedo ^msg 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for proper information about Huxley source

Who is the author of this preface to the Portuguese edition? Carvalho, or someone who mentions him? If the latter, saying what, exactly? Something, I presume, that justifies using this as a source supporting his status as "one of Brazil's preeminent thinkers"? Wareh (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He is the author of the preface to editora Globo's (one of Brazil's largest and most important) translation of Huxley's work, and is quoted as such in the "preface to his preface", so to speak. RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is plain wrong. Editora Globo has already acknowledged they included Olavo's bio there by mistaken, which has being fixed in their latest edition. http://mariafro.com.br/wordpress/2010/05/11/no-twitter-globo-livros-explica-engano-da-inclusao-de-bio-de-olavo-de-carvalho-na-de-huxley/ Wikipedia is hurting it's own credibility by helping to spread a lie. 139.82.183.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, though that doesn't name the author of this preface-to-preface. In any case, I'm confident you will see that what amounts to a publisher's blurb for the author (unless it is signed with the name of some authority so eminent that this interested purpose is beside the point) is not acceptable support for his status as "one of Brazil's preeminent thinkers" (whereas I suppose it is adequate for his vital information). The whole point is to get sources and voices that are editorially independent (at least formally) from Carvalho. Wareh (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Even I don't agree fully that he is "one of Brazil's preeminent thinkers" - I actually think it's quite an exaggeration (although he certainly has this influential status among certain niches of Brazilian society), and wouldn't mind some rephrasing in this bit - but if a major literary work published by a major publishing house in Brazil claims he has this relevance, you have to agree that he has at least some degree of encyclopedic relevance... RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the "major publishing house" carries no real weight. A publisher claiming that its own preface-author is a genius shows absolutely nothing except that Carvalho wrote the preface. Again, the whole problem is that we have lots of writing by Carvalho and the accompanying self-promotion of author & publishers. We're short on writing truly about Carvalho, and this doesn't qualify, beyond confirming his birthdate/place. This is my judgment anyway. Wareh (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the references shown (they are not merely written 'by him' or indicate promotion), and therefore I would like to hear other opinions (of course, not from the user(s) ideologically-motivated, such as this one below). RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to see more independent voices, and I made a fruitless plea at the Deletion Review for some of that crowd of admins to spare some time to look. I guess they probably don't read Portuguese anyway. Just to be clear though: I distinguish (1) references to publications of which Carvalho is the author (and I'd include the Huxley introduction there), (2) interviews (we haven't really discussed the one with Carvalho), (3) works written about Carvalho without his participation. I trust we agree that the most impressive sourcing would be to pile up a lot of category (3). Perhaps we disagree about whether the astrologer interview is a strong example of that class. Wareh (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

unfortunatelly editora globo is not so great as you want. If he wrote the "preface to freface" to a translation of the Brave New World, why should he be "agree that he has at least some degree of encyclopedic relevance" ? In english ? Coud you please show me how important was this never mentioned preface to preface ?(Robertocasagrande (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

I don't "want" anything, it is a simple fact that Globo and all of its branches in several forms of the media is one of the biggest companies in Brazil, and to deny it merely indicated bad faith (something which can be attested by your only edits, all of them indicating your sole purpose here is to delete this biography). And he didn't write the "preface to preface", you should try to read more carefully what other people said before trying to quote them. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RafaAzevedo, you need to choose. Am I a lot of persons or olny one ? I think it would be reasonable to think that I am only one. It would be much easier for me to discuss with you and make a lot of edits with fakes. As you said above, if you want to discuss the edits, you need to go to another place. What I want to know is how great is the preface he made to a great edition of one great press of the greatest groups of Brazil. About the edits, sure I do not think Carvalho important as you and his friends that try to maintain he here, as I showed you above.

Yesterday Carvalho said in Trueoutspeak, that "would give some thing to wikipedia to show them who he is, so that they may decide". I am sure you heard that too. I am not impressed that you could find some relates from friends (R. Campos) or references in unknown brazilian books. That still is a peace of propaganda. And the "New American" is right oriented as Olavo is. I do not see where is the error. And I will learn to read you, when you learn to distinguish in your notes what are translations, what are compliments from his friends , what are invitations to speak at "Clube Militar" and what are the real evidences of his philosophy or the greatness of his astrological habilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertocasagrande (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't answer to trolling. Stop with the insults, personal attacks and provocations, and the debate with you may continue, otherwise, further messages from you will be duly ignored. RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not like "trolling " and unfounded accusations too. I am sorry if you feel personaly ofended. If you remember, you acused me of being part of a movement (left oriented), then of being "various fakes". Everything I did here and elsewhere I did alone and under my own conscience and name. You should be careful berofe acusing pleople without knowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertocasagrande (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho has been interviewed by Brazil’s biggest magazine

According to Veja, which is arguably the magazine with biggest circulation in Brazil:

• “O filósofo Olavo de Carvalho se notabilizou pelas críticas à hegemonia esquerdista no espaço cultural e político do país. Desde que publicou o livro O Imbecil Coletivo, obra que ataca consensos construídos no ambiente cultural brasileiro, ele se tornou uma espécie de porta-voz da diminuta intelectualidade conservadora do país (embora tenha aversão a este papel).”

[The philosopher Olavo de Carvalho became notable with his critique of leftist hegemony in brazilian culture and politics. Since he published the book O Imbecil Coletivo, a work that attacks the accepted truths created in brazilian culture, he became a spokesman for conservative ideas in Brazil (a role to which he has aversion).]

Olavo de Carvalho: esquerda ocupou vácuo pós-ditadura

187.113.202.73 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to translate some things : "he became a spokeman of the LITTLE CIRCLE OF CONSERVATIVE intelectuals in Brazil" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.235.185 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, Mr. Anonymous. The real translation is "he became a kind of spokesman of the small brazilian conservative intelectual circle". Your translation induces the false assumption that he represents just ONE small intelectual circle (among many). But conservatism (as we understand Conservatism in Edmund Burke, for instance) in Brazil is a dying species, since the whole brazilian political spectrum is left or center-left dominated, and all right-wing thinkers are automatically transformed in persona non grata. The simple fact that conservatism (a strong political force in many democracies) is recognized by a major brazilian magazine (the biggest in circulation here) as a "small intelectual circle" an that Carvalho is - even agains his will - considered its spokesman, makes an article on en.wikipedia about him undoubtfully encyclopedical. Mathieu Struck (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho & Aleksandr Dugin 2011 Debate

Many online sources show that Professor Olavo de Carvalho and Professor Aleksandr Dugin (the last a politologist and one of the most popular ideologists of Russian expansionism and nationalism, with close ties to the Kremlin and Russian military) have agreed to realize a written political debate in 2011, about major geopolitical questions, such as the USA, the Eurasia Movement and the New World Order.

Here are the external sources to the debate already available on the internet:

• Olavo de Carvalho Debates Alexandr Dugin (I) - Tuesday, 08 March 2011 01:08

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/olavo-de-carvalho/247-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-aleksandr-dugin-i.html

• Olavo de Carvalho Debates Alexandr Dugin (II) - Thursday, 07 April 2011 10:42

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/olavo-de-carvalho/257-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-alexandr-dugin-ii.html

It is a paradox to me that Aleksandr Dugin can have a en.wikipedia article - full of evidence of his importance has a well-known thinker - and his contender on this debate is considered "not encyclopedical". Mathieu Struck (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The "sources" provided are from a website owned by Olavo de Carvalho, which only mounts to the evidence of self promoting and biased editing. [not signed]

Political reasons to delete ?

It seems obvious the political bias of some members of Wikipedia towards this author, in the rush to delete this article : Carvalho is one of the few who consistently and continuously raises voices against the political errors in Brazil and has helped to put in evidence the new masks used by socialists in politics, media and universities ( See Gramsci approach ), not only in South America ( where they are so obvious ) but in other parts of the world .

I don't believe there is any political reason to delete this article. It's not a matter of his political views, but notoriety, which Olavo de Carvalho has none. Please read wikipedia rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 

How can you so boldly claim de Carvalho has no notoriety? This is absurd. He has written at least a couple best-sellers, has been interviewed by Veja and Folha de São Paulo, done writting to Folha, Veja, O Globo and many other big papers in Brazil. His Twitter account was the fastest growing in 2014, his facebook account is croweded and the number of followers grows daily, his Youtube videos have more views than those of famous philosophers like Roger Scruton, Zizek and Terry Eagleton. He has earned a fairly large number of titles and internationally important prizes. And that's just what I can remember from the top of my head. He clearly has "notoriety". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.21.158.153 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to Delete?

The problem with the article is not in its existence as such, as long as it simply states that so-and-so exists, is a Far Right journalist and pundit with somekind of a fanbase, has written such-and-such works and engaged in such-and-such activities. The problem is that it cannot be used as a basis for his fans to argue for his idol's intellectual relevance, that, as far as reliable, third-part, international scholarly sources are concerned - is simply nil, this going specially for his allegedly philosopher status (so far backed by no quotation index whatsoever). Perhaps he is somekind of so far unsung intellectual hero, but in that case all that Wikipedia can do is to wait until he becomes acknowledged as such Cerme (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2011 (UTMaybe a better research on him would do .

Maybe a better research on him woukd do . Butl let's just suppose he is not that famous in the USA: Does it make him irrelevant? Or is wikipedia only for the US , or is it for the English-speaking world . In fact he is relevant enough in Brazilian and South America media intellectual circles as well as in Europe. Perhaps his problems are his ideas to be too disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.22.223 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He is not famous in Brazil either, which makes him even more undeserving of recognition on the english version. Check wikipedia rules, it's not up to his fanbase to break it just because they feel a certain way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

But oh yes, Olavo de Carvalho is very well-known in Brazil. Especially by the leftist/atheist trolls who hate him. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 189.120.156.96 (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Astrologer?

In time , I have removed the "astrologer" reference. It is a common smear on his reputation made by his many enemies ( he has received lots of death threats in Brazil ) . The reference is in Portuguese and comes from a sports magazine and does not state more than say he "was " either an astrologer or Astrology student , but no further elaboration. It seems to be the interviewed's personal opinion . In fact he studied Medieval Astrology by guessing it could lead to his own better understanding of medieval mind and the Renaissance Period . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.22.223 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Olavo de Carvalho was an astrologer: http://www4.worldrag.com/imagem/di-WV2F.jpg (Veja, 9 April 1980)

189.107.144.142 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the information is properly sourced, unless you have another source that specifically claims he is not an astrologer, you shouldn't remove it. And TPM is not a "sports" magazine. RafaAzevedo ^msg 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a small problem here on both sides of the discussion . The author himself claims in his website to be a former researcher/student of Medieval Astrology and its connection with mysticism and human affairs but has given it up. He states that modern astrology is not a valid discipline ( as most people would agree ) . Therefore he is not an astrologer, in the modern sense , and the expression " astrologer" used in the article could be misleading to those who would read the article . One can agree that Trip Magazine is not a sports magazine and by checking the source carefully( which is in Portuguese) it states (based on someone's a personal memory) that Mr. Carvalho was doing research in Astrology long ago . So if one is to believe a person's not very much elaborated statement in a magazine long ago and Carvalho's own present statement it is fairly acceptable to see the latter as more valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.177.10 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Although Olavo de Carvalho may currently deny to be an astrologer, but several references can be found on his website. Because Pele doesn't play soccer currently, it does not mean he is not a soccer player. Selective editing should not be tolerated on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hee is a retired soccer player , therefore not a player anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.15.38 (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to describe Olavo de Carvalho as a retired astrologer, that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No I don't . As I said he's never fit into the modern description of an astrologer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.170.113 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case, what are we to do about this link : [1] from the digital archive of Veja, issue 605, 9 April 1980, where this article's subject is described as one of the "fashionable astrologers" (astrólogos da moda) of the time?Cerme (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link , it only confirmed the point above . : As the edition is from 31 years ago and Carvalho said he no longers deal with Astrology other than from a historical point of view ,this link confirms he is an ex astrologer . To put this into his description is pointless . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.93.184 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Embarassing as it may be, in the Veja article he does not appear to be dealing "historically" with Astrology. He treats it as a source of actual knowledge - if not on the future, at least as a means for "character analysis", even interpreting Fernando Gabeira's astral map. But then, if he "was" an astrologer, then he has sometime recanted his earlier views on the actual "scientific" worth of astrology. When did that happen?Cerme (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think he might feel embarassed by his past. I think you are from Brazil: Please Check on this link http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/textos/astrologia.htm .This may clear up some points for you. He gave Astrology up , in terms of Astral maps, readings etc. , about twenty years ago. Thereafter he started studying it under a more historical/anthropological point of view.

To describe him as an astrologer as if this was his primary activity is misleading. Even if you still recognize him as an atrologer, you cannot describe him as such because he is not famous for that, nor he is seen as that by his readers or himself. To use this as a defining description of his occupation is not honest and, in my view, a way to cast a negative light upon mr Carvalho. A more honest and neutral way to deal with this topic would be to create another section in the article. 191.34.247.247 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)a. andretta191.34.247.247 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Biased editing by Olavo's followers

I just visited Olavo de Carvalho's community on orkut and there is a concerted effort by his fans to re post all deleted content, which further reinforces violation of wikipedia. I took screenshots to prove it in case it gets deleted. Besides, a huge portion of his praising comes from biased or Olavo's own material.

The entire topic should be deleted and locked until further investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? You want his article to be edited by his haters only? Of course there's a concerted effort by his fans to recover unfairly deleted content and to defend him. Who else would do that? I'm sure there are people here who would like to delete the article or to do arbitrary editions unchallenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.141.199 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Contributions to american political analysis" removed

The article starts with "Olavo de Carvalho has colaborated with political analysts such as Jeffrey Nyquist, Donald Hank, and Judith A. Reisman"

Jeffrey Nyquist's entry on wikipedia is being considered for deletion, and he is not recognized as a relevant American political analyst. Donald Rank is also unknown, and Judith A. Reisman's source is from a website ran by Olavo de Carvalho's himself. Plus, there is no articles on the source where Judith A. Reisman mentions Olavo de Carvalho. Also checked on Judith A. Reisman's own website, but again, no luck.

Do not revert removal without making a relevant case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfquei (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Contributions to the study of revolutions"

This section suffers from the same flaws that appear in the whole artcle.There are no third-part sources, except for the supposedly endorsment of some intellectual figures. However, this endorsment is, at least partially, bogus. In the case of Roberto Campos (footnote 14) what the article quoted - avaliable in The Sokal hoax: the sham that shook the academy , edited by Alan Sokal, found here [2] - actually has to offer is a simple phrase stating that the subject is, in Campos' view, "an erudite philosopher" (page 110); it says nothing about his specific views on anything. The various pieces in the book refer to an specific event, the famous Social Text controversy. Also, Sokal, in an article originally published on Folha de S. Paulo, October the 6th. 1996, available here [3], states that:"em seu zelo de interpretar a controvérsia decorrente numa camisa-de-força de esquerda/direita, Campos distorceu os meus motivos políticos _claramente declarados, aliás_, recrutando-me contra a minha vontade para sua cruzada ideológica direitista" (in his zeal to interpretate controversies according to a Left/Right straitjacket, Campos distorted my clearly stated political aims and engaged me unwillingly into his ideological rightist crusade). Something that suggests that the late Campos was very instrumental in his appreciations of other peopleCerme (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:N698992191 1179215 5103.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:N698992191 1179215 5103.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Please find reliable third party sources for any controversies. Youtube is not acceptable.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

The "Ideas" section of this article is of particular importance, but unfortunately most of it is sourced to a blog post which probably does not meet our criteria for reliable sources. It would be great if the claims made in this section could be supported by independent coverage from an academic journal or other reputable publisher. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have just now noticed that much of this section has been copied or closely paraphrased from the blog post, and have blanked the article accordingly. Now would be a great time for someone versed in Carvalho's ideas to rewrite this bit. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://laiglesforum.com/olavo-de-carvalho-on-the-revolutionary-mind/305.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Philosopher controversy and source for claim

Regardless of whether or not Olavo is "really" a Philosopher, the source cited for him being so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olavo_de_Carvalho#cite_note-2) is sketchy at best. It is a list of people who are deemed philosophers, but even that source mentions that he isn't academically recognized as a Philosopher. Aditionally, the website the file is hosted on seems to be nothing more than a fringe group's website, unprofessionaly built and with very few academic resources available from the website. They are not an actual organization either, with no CNPJ registry. The group's name, when translated, is the incredibly generic "Institute of Philosophy", which makes it incredibly difficult to find if they are cited by other, reputable sources in different matters (since many Institutes of Philosophy exist, usually attached to an University's name).

I recommend either: Dropping the word "philosopher" from his introduction or appending a [citation needed] tag in place of the current source.

MateusLST (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Philosophers are not necessarily emergent from formal philosophy degrees

The above claims by Mateus are, at the very least, debatable, as major philosophers in history were not always from a formal education background. Friedrich Nietzsche Is a clear example of individuals who were not intangibly related to a "Degree dependency" (Mostly observed in applied, hard sciences and engineering), to credit their works and contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.83.39.9 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017‎ (UTC)

Philosopher or Right-wing Conspiracy Theorist?

The explanation above for a philosopher without formal philosophy degree tries to apply a concept that was valid in XIX to today's world. In the XIX century it was also possible to be a scientist without formal education. That is not true in the XXI century anymore, given the huge specialization of knowledge. The same way one should distrust a physicist without a PhD, one should be highly skeptical of a "philosopher" without a degree, who worked as astrologer for several years.

Mr. de Carvalho is considered to be a philosopher only by fringe right-wing groups in Brazil and around the world, and is not seriously considered by real philosophers. His "philosophy" consists mostly in advancing right-wing conspiracy theories such as (1) Obama is a islamic gay president; (2) Einstein's relativity theory was incorrect; (3) The world is run by a communist cabal; and so many others that can be easily heard in his youtube video talks (in Brazilian Portuguese).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9d80:9fed:3884:62a8:b263:b38d (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because Olavo de Carvalho is an astrologer. --186.247.60.169 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet that's the invalid reason you gave for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the page was changed by unauthenticated user --Alysson Zero (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Two phrases are essentialy equal

In this article there are two sentences that are virtually equal:

'He is an advocate of a conspiracy theory named "cultural marxism"'
'He is an advocate of conspiracy theories as "cultural marxism"'

Maybe one of them may be deleted.

Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

About last changes

1 - There is no reliable and independent sources that support him as a philosopher or a Philosophy professor. This is especially needed for living people. The fact he do give Philosophy online lessons does not credential him as a philosopher, plus they hit limited public for an online activity. He also do not, and never did, have any kind of academic affiliations, productions, certifications, or formal education in this or related area. It has been an edit war for the last months regarding this matter. Please, just update it if you have and cite, again, a reliable and independent source.

2 - Wikipedia is not a place for political opinions. As an enciclopedia it should a place of rationalism and objectivism. Changes should be based on, for the last time, reliable and independent sources. Please, double check to prevent (possibly accidentally) biased activities. One of change messages even contained this full of fallacies snippet: "Carta capital is a known underground comunist [sic] propaganda journal from Brazil)".

Andretf (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Everyone's help is welcomed, but again, Wikipedia is not a place for political views of the world, neither for biased view of reality disguising as a fact observation. Please, please, help us keep and improve quality of the articles. Please read Wikipedia guidelines, mainly about about adding content from [sources]. Please read, about removing unreliable content before removing content with references just because your personal beliefs are hurted.

If you truly believe a content is wrong, improve it backing on reliable and independent sources instead of only deleting phrases and stating in changelog that's just because "Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory" as if it was an obvious and well-known established fact, such as "We are not plants".

Not at least, I recommend reading of [bias] topics for any human being, as even many good faith intentions are mistakes created by our own mind traps.

Andretf (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

Why exactly is he in that category? No citation is provided for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.200.16.57 (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As said in the article, he used to be an astrologer. Indeed, his very first book was about astrology. The amount of citations, however, confuses me, since only two of them cite him as an astrologer. Other situations, like the one time he threw a fit because Pepsi was using "aborted foetuses" as sweetener, could easily buy him the category. Savation (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Then he should be not directly in the pseusocience cat, but in Category:Astrologers, which is a sub-subcat of Category:Pseudoscience. I will change it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Turned out Category:Climate change denial was not in Category:Pseudoscience, where it should be. I thought it was, via Category:Denialism, but that leads to Category:Fringe theory, which is more general. So I added that too, and now he has two pseudoscience categorizations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. If I'm correct, he's also antivax, though this is the only clue we have to his position (he cites and congratulates his antivax personal doctor on the topic), though he's well known to defend that smoking is not unhealthy (he literally says that smoking is not unhealthy and calls the idea a "monstruous fraud" — no space for misinterpretation here). I don't know if both enter any category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savation (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

About the many citations: They are not only for the last word, but for the whole sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

He worked with astrology. Is there a "Former astrologers" cat?—Pórokhov ^Порох 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No. I don't think there would be enough articles to make one. And the articles are not about people as they are now, but about their whole lives.

If there is a source for his being "former", we could add the word to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the sources we have currently support this. He isn't astrologer anymore, but was.—Pórokhov ^Порох 17:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It is already in there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki as a source

One of the sources cited is RationalWiki. However it should be noted that this is not an impartial source and using it would be equivalent to using Conservapedia as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Improving Grammar of the subsection Science

After fixing the English in this subsection, all my edits were undone by user Coltsfan.

I think the English is not great in some places and needs to be improved. This includes the quote about Galileo. I should know because I was the one who did the translation.

Conspiracy theories

This page is bound to be the target of infinite edit wars with everyone accusing everyone of "biased". Some well-meaning and open discussion is essential, given his ascending importance in Brazilian politics.

I believe that one important aspect of Olavo de Carvalho thought refers to his continual peddling of ideas that have been widely qualified as conspiracy theories -- from the theory that Pepsi uses foetuses to his belief that Osama was no American to his assumptions that the Foro de Sao Paulo plays any major role in how Latin American is actually ruled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Contributions as a philosopher

As it stands, the article treats Olavo in the same way that an academic, widely recognized philosopher is treated. This seems troubling to me. While it is okay to state that he *is* a philosopher -- as to be named a philosopher one simply needs to call himself a philosopher -- it is *highly* controversial that his work *as a philosopher* is in anyway recognized. Take the "notable ideas" section -- what is the evidence that these concepts are minimally "notable"? He has never published in any minimally serious peer-reviewed journal and academic philosophers constantly laugh at the idea that his work is in any way valid, new, important, "notable".

He is without a question highly influential as a political figure, an ideologue, a propagandist, a conspiracy theorist. But as a philosopher? I suggest changing the box so as to reflect his real importance.Shakula34 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to have a degree in philosophy or even recognition of peers to be called a philosopher. He has books and other works published that can be called "philosophical". He is often considered to be the guy who revitalized the brazilian right. The article can and should be expanded and improved on this front, but he is, in a way, a philosopher. Of sorts. Coltsfan (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed re no-one needs to have a degree in philosophy to be a "philosopher". Let's assume he is a philosopher. My point is whether the article should be shaped around the assumption that *being a philosopher* is what has made him relevant. Unless there is evidence that his ideas, *as a philosopher* (and not, say, as a journalist, propagandist and conspiracy theorist) are what have made him relevant, I think items such as "notable ideas" end up being misleading. That is, the article might cite his philosophical work, without giving precedence to it in relation to his production as a journalist and propagandist.Shakula34 (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As no-one seems interested in discussing this aspect except us, I will make some changes in the box, so then folks might debate whether they make sense or not. Shakula34 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, he's not a philosopher. Dornicke (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I think "self-proclaimed philosopher" would be fine, since he's not recognized by his peers. Dornicke (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

conspiracy theories / falsehoods

How should the article treat the conspiracy theories and falsehoods spread by Olavo in a way that makes it explicit that they are false but does not give the impression that the article is biased? Does Wikipedia have some form of protocol on these topics? Shakula34 (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE may help. Also WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. If you do something wrong, other people can correct it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the word "false" too much is bad style. The section "Conspiracy theories and falsehoods" needs to be trimmed down a bit, but I do not have any concrete ideas how. Except: "Carvalho falsely claims that global warming is a hoax produced by a global conspiracy" - The global conspiracy bit is already a good enough hint that what he says is wrong.

Maybe we should remove his antivax tweet because of bad sourcing? That would remove one more "false". Then the antivax category (which I just added) would have to go too.

Generally, to "not give the impression that the article is biased" is not a good reason. Fuck the Wikipedia-is-biased whiners. They will whine anyway. Good style is a better reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good points. My proposition: to keep the vocabulary used in the title of the section ("Conspiracy theories and falsehoods") and then clean the body of the text. On the anti-vaxxer thing -- why that should count as bad sourcing? The tweet is his, the source is primary. I also don't really care about accusations of bias. My point is the same as yours I suppose: I want folks who read this article to understand how objectively unhinged this guy's ideas are. Overusing the "false" / "falsely" might backfire. Shakula34 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

His tweet is a bad source because it is primary. See WP:PRIMARY. Maybe he just wrote it on impulse and is usually not interested in the subject.What we as Wikipedia do not do is look at his output and decide what is worth mentioning in the article. That would go in the direction of WP:OR. Instead, we look at what reliable secondary sources say about him. If they, for instance, mention his antivax stance, we do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are bad when they involve events that might be disputed. When it comes to one's opinions, they are the best source that there is. You're right re whether being an anti-vaxxer is a central aspect of his persona. It does not seem to be. So, the category might he removed. But I don't see why the mention to the tweet should be removed. What the article is saying is that he has spread this falsehood, what is objectively true.

The problem with that, again, is WP:OR. Collecting people's tweets and drawing conclusions from them is the job of secondary sources. Not ours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

From WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion *not stated by the sources*." That's why your point does not apply in this case -- the information that Carvalho has said that vaccination kills (a falsehood) is the very content of the source. As long as we don't say that he believes in this, its fine. Should your critique on this sort of primary source be followed, all sorts of public speechs or statements would have no encyclopaedic value, what would be absurd -- Obama really said that "yes, we can change", even if he did not believe in this.

"Ad hominem" attacks

The following words in the lead section say: "As a polemicist, Carvalho has been praised for not complying with political correctness but also criticized for often resorting to obscene ad hominem attacks". However, the source doesn't mention anywhere "ad hominem attacks", but instead criticizes the philosopher for his use of obscene words. I tried to replace "ad hominem attacks" with "obscene words" but it was reverted with no given reason. Edmundo Soares (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not talking about the veracity of the content. We're talking about phrasing here, wording (in a way). The information in the article does not need to be a copy and paste of the source. If the information is validated by a reliable source, the wording (as long it doesn't change the content) can be anything. The info is, in this case, backed by RS. That's what matters, not the choice of words to use. Coltsfan (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese, so I'm dependent on a machine-translation of the article, which I don't think does it justice. @Edmundo Soares: Which of the following two statements would you say is the better assessment of what the source says?

1. Carvalho is being criticized for making attacks against specific people.
2. Carvalho is not being faulted for making attacks against specific people; he is only being criticized because he used obscenity in the attacks.

Your change implies the latter is the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The article does criticizes him for making attacks against specific people and using obscene words (it doesn't address however the validity of the attacks). But the accusation of using ad hominem rethoric, that is, the attack on someone's character or attribute avoiding the topic of discussion, is nowhere to be found in the article. As swearing isn't equal to ad hominem, I believe it should be changed to "obscene words" or "using obscene words to attack others".Edmundo Soares (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of antisemitism

1. Being a "left-wing" news outlet does not, PER SE, disqualify any publication -- unless you have a very strong anti-left wing bias, which would then likely disqualify you as a judge on what is published by a left-wing news outlet. Or are we going to stop using Fox News as a source?
2. The Intercept text makes explicit that Olavo is a supporter of Israel. It's in the very first paragraph! At the same time, in the past, he has also said that Israel might be equated with the Nazis. If you read the piece carefully, you probably noticed that the piece is precisely a debate on the ambiguity of his positions. One can be a supporter of the current far-right GOVERNMENT of Israel AND be antisemitic.
3. At any rate, what the article says is that he has been ACCUSED of antisemitism. Do you deny this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, i struggled to find any other source other than the one from The Intercept (a notorious left-wing website) that supports the claim that Olavo de Carvalho is an anti-semite.

First, we have to remind ourselves that we're talking about a living person and Wikipedia has very strong rules about this (see here). According to WP:V: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people". That's a given, so based only on this, the reference to "antisemitism" should be removed. Plus, he has being accused of hate speech against a lot of groups, the jews don't stand out in particular in his rhetoric one way or the other.

Second, as you said yourself, he supports Israel, that alone leaves the "antisemitism" stuff in doubt, and since we're talking about a living person, for us to make accusations it must go beyond reasonable doubt. Plus, he not only has said things in support of Israel (the state) but he has also sang praises to the jewish people. He has done so in his twitter account, in his facebook page, and in his personal blog (here and here).

Third, the information is disputed.A Israeli Zionist organization in Brazil has came out (see here) in support of Olavo and against The Intercept, calling their reporting "fake news".

Fourth, Shakula34, what you said here is fundamentally wrong. To quote WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". And "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." And The Intercept, because of it's left-wing bias (that they don't even deny), is far from being totally reliable.

So no, the content should be removed at once.

PS: Shakula34, just a thing, you violated WP:3RR and that's liable to WP:BLOCK. I'm not gonna make a fuss out this because, quite frankly, i don't care that much. But still, just a reminder. Coltsfan (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Both facts -- that it's only the Intercept, and that the Intercept is "a notorious left-wing website") means very little. Who knows why the story was not picked up by other outlets, and, again, being left-wing cannot in itself be considered a problem.

There're two "sources". One is the outlet, which you you haven't been able to prove that is notoriously misleading. But since the story is based on factual and literal quotations, the other and arguably main source is Carvalho himself. He's been accusing Jews since the 1990s! Just look at the quotes, please. They are quite explicit. See, for example, Carvalho's mention to Jewish bankers as being part of a global conspiracy. There's no context that can undo the antisemitism of that sentence. It's almost a cliche of antisemitism. Or his comparison between Jews and Nazis. Both are explicitly used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism).Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

1. "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions"
2. "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

True. But given the obvious historical importance of antisemitism, the mention is justified, in my view.Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

True. As I said before, the Intercept piece DOES contextualize what he has said with his pro-Israel statements. The fact that his discourse is ambiguous should not stop us from highlighting its antisemitic element.Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, and the Intercept cites someone from a Jewish Association supporting the idea that Carvalho is an antisemite. As you likely know, the Jewish community in Brazil is divided between pro- and anti-Bolsonaro. The fact that one of the many Jewish communities in Brazil supports Carvalho is not, in itself, a proof that he's not an antisemite.Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Being left-wing is not the problem. A track-record of systematically publishing fake or misleading information is, in particular if intentional. So, if we are going to dismiss the Intercept as an "unreliable" source, you must be able to tell me when exactly they systematically published fake or misleading information. Which examples do you have in hand? I don't know of any, except mistakes that are common to any form of journalistic practice and eventually committed by the best media outlets in the world.Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess that the best argument against the mention of him as an antisemite is the ambiguity of his positions. Therefore, I suggest that we leave the "accused" in the lead so as to make it clear that this is not a fact and create a section titled "Statements regarding Jewish and Israel" in which we detail this ambiguity. Hopefully that makes sense? I can write the section.Shakula34 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make a section about his alleged antisemitism, go ahead. But this has to be removed from the lead at once! You can create the section in the article, but make sure to provide all the sources and to show both sides of the discussion and, above all, you have to mention that it's alleged and that this view is disputed.

Shakula34, what you have to understand is that we're talking about a living person. Wikipedia has very strong rules about what goes in a article like this, especially when we're talking about prejudices. The fact that is middle dispute, the fact that only ONE source went after this and the fact that this source makes it clear that not only they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the guy, they openly disdain him, should be a MAJOR red flag. WP:BLPRS states: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Having said that, i'll remove that information from the lead, as WP:BLP states. If you want to create a section to broader explore this, go ahead, but not on the lead. If you still think i'm wrong in my interpretation of the rules, feel free to ask any Administrators for their opinion. But, in a WP:BLP any contentious material that is not 100% reliable, must be removed. This is not only in the name of integrity, but also to avoid any legal action (as rare as those can be). Coltsfan (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Olavo de Carvalho, 20-09-1998.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Polemic

Can someone hyperlink the reference of "as a polemicist" to direct to the wikipedia page on "Polemic"? I don't know how to do it but it seems like it would improve the article in a non-trivial way. thanks :)) 96.11.254.206 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. It's very easy, see here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

TheLACKsa (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A família de Olavo anunciou sua morte nas redes sociais, em 24 de janeiro de 2022, oito dias após ele ter testado positivo para COVID-19 . [3] A declaração de sua família não especificou a causa da morte, mas sua filha Heloísa disse que foi por coronavírus. [1] [2] Seu médico pessoal declarou oficialmente que sua morte foi causada por estresse respiratório associado a enfisema, insuficiência cardíaca, pneumonia bacteriana e uma infecção generalizada.

 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. Please make your request in English. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Views on science?

The section labelled "Views on Science" as it currently reads is perfectly opaque to me. Since most of the section is merely quoting the subject of the article, you might argue that this is the subject's fault, not Wikipedia's, but might Wikipedia provide some enlightening context or explanation? On the other hand, maybe there is no context or explanation, maybe the subject is merely ranting and rambling incoherently, but if this is the case, Wipedia could still be clearer about that, it seems to me. TheScotch (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

I'd like to propose a change in the "far-right conspiracy theorist" expression. That is a very biased opinion with poor references. Olavo de Carvalho, himself, stated multiple times that he is not a right wing.

References: https://odysee.com/@Mercola:7/olavo-de-carvalho-na%CC%83o-sou-de-direita:c

https://mobile.twitter.com/odecarvalho/status/809577619977015296?lang=en Rildlanster (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The Atlantic is pretty strong source and describes him as "The 72-year-old is the architect of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s far-right vision". Cannolis (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

Since his supporters, as I gather, seem to characterize the subject of this article as some sort of intellectual, it would be helpful for Wikipedia readers to learn what, if any, objective credentials he has. Does he have college degrees? If so, what degrees, from what institutions, when? Has he been published in peer-reviewed academic journals? If so, how extensively? Has he held academic posts at any repudible institutions? If so, which? TheScotch (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If he had credentials, we would list them. We write what is the case, not what is not the case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is nonsensical sophistry. Your "what is not the case" sounds a lot like "what is fictitious" (which I'm guessing you even actually mean equivocally to imply by a sort of rhetorical legerdemain), and obviously that is not at all issue here. If someone is posing as a public intellectual, then whether he has credentials is very relevant. If it is known that he is without credential and sources can be found that state he is without credential, then this information very much belongs in the article. TheScotch (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source which mentions his lack of credentials? I think he also lacked competence, modesty, wisdom, morals, and other desirable things, and the same is true for a lot of other people. Still, we do not write all that into articles unless we have sources that explicitly mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)