Talk:Olavo de Carvalho

Archived talk page

I have archived the talk page as it stood, creating Archive 2. Most of it consisted of disputes about the article's neutrality, which I assume had been concluded (regardless of whether they had been resolved), since there was no notice about a neutrality dispute on the article itself, as is custom. The other discussions were also outdated. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your dishonesty is unprecedented.

You are swiping everything under the rug.

This whole article is politically motivated slander.

His whole position on science is mischaracterized by secondary sources. 189.6.250.135 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"In June 2023 (...) I also revised the Olavo de Carvalho article, reorganizing it and adding more detail on Olavo's conspiracist and philosophical views. (...) Nothing else I did is worth noticing, for now. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thiagovscoelho

It's quite obvious your political bias. 189.6.250.135 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I did add more detail on his conspiracist views, namely by giving detail on his specific views on birtherism, which were only vaguely portrayed before. I believe that it is not slander to say that he had conspiracist views at least on this point, since in his 2012 essay on Obama's birth certificate ("O império das puras coincidências", published in "O Mínimo Que Você Precisa Saber etc"), he did not reject the "conspiracy theory" label, but rather made the point that, on this issue, the "conspiracy theory" was more sound than the opposing "pure coincidence theory". (At any rate, the "conspiracist" claim was only made in my user page, not the article, so please focus on issues with the article here.)

I also added the entire "Philosophical views" section, citing his works on each of the three theories I was able to add up to now. His views on science are largely supported by direct quotations, so you should be more specific about what parts of it are portrayed inaccurately, so that I can edit it. I assumed that I had fixed any problems with the article by adding the clarity that I did, but if you think that it is still biased, then please give examples of inaccurate claims in the article. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I exposed the whole issue on the page you archived. 189.6.250.135 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, first, it is not easy to tell which comments in the archived talk page were written by you, since you are an unregistered user, and the only comments there attributed to your current IP address are not very detailed. The other comments by unregistered users also do not mention any specific claims in the article that are wrong. I am asking for specific suggestions of improvements – "exposing the whole issue" by claiming that "the whole article is wrong" is not constructive. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There is one comment by an unregistered user that goes into some detail, but only by making a host of unsourced claims – for instance, the idea that "OCs criticism is not about Newton's physics but about how The Royal Society and Academy distorted and instrumentalized Newton's work, motivations and character" is not supported by any reliable sources, whereas the claims about his views on Newton in the article are supported by direct quotations, so I cannot improve upon them as they stand. Again: what do you think should be changed? Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Barack Obama’s “military enlistment”

There’s a section that makes reference to Obama’s “military enlistment” which is weird because there is no indication the former president ever was in the military in any form other than when he was commander in chief. Can anyone clarify? 2600:1004:B17C:A921:D541:247A:3725:FAC9 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure! That's a paraphrase of Olavo's actual claim in the source article: "Barack Hussein Obama elegeu-se presidente com documentos falsos. Sua certidão de nascimento é falsa, seu cartão de Social Security é falso, seu alistamento militar é falso." ("Barack Hussein Obama was elected president with false documents. His birth certificate is fake, his Social Security card is fake, his military enlistment is fake.") I do not know whether he really did have such documents, whether genuine or fake. Here is a complete translation of the source article for context. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing of claims relating to Obama

Wikipedia is not a collection of random ravings by deluded weirdos.

• WP:SPS says, self-published material such as [..] personal websites [..] are largely not acceptable as sources.
• WP:PRIMARY says, Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
• WP:BLP says, This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article and Never use self-published sources [..] as sources of material about a living person.

Obama is a living person, and that trash talk by someone whose adherence to facts is so tenuous that he does not even bother to check whether Obama has a "military enlistment" document before claiming it is fake does not belong here. Every crazy claim by OC in the article that is not sourced to a secondary source but to OC's website has to be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Olavo's "controversial and misinformed views", which were the bulk of the article's content when I first found it, were most likely added by his detractors, so as to present him to an English-speaking audience as a "deluded weirdo" like you say. This is why its neutrality was disputed for so long, such as by the Brazilian unregistered user above. I did not judge it my place to remove them, so all I did was make sure that everything was properly sourced, which, by the time I was done with it, it was.

There may be good reasons to remove the material, but I do not think you have given such reasons. It will be very difficult to write this article without quoting Olavo on his own views, if his views are to be covered at all. WP:PRIMARYCARE: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself." Olavo is talking about Obama, but the article is only citing him as saying what Olavo believed, not what the actual truth is about Obama. Note also that Olavo's website is only republishing a newspaper column, so the ultimate source is not self-published.

Given that the claim was already under the top-level heading "Controversial and misinformed views", as well as the second-level heading "Misinformed views on politics and history", I think it is clear enough to any reader that the claim is false, and presented as such. Whoever is reading a "misinformed views" section of the Olavo de Carvalho article as a source on Barack Obama has only himself to blame. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That is all sophism.

• about what the person says about themself OC talking about OC believing in crap is still OC talking about crap, not about "themself".
• the article is only citing him as saying what Olavo believed Wikipedia talking about OC talking about Obama is still Wikipedia talking about Obama, and BLP applies.
• the ultimate source is not self-published Wrong. Wikipedia quoting some crackpot quoting a newspaper is still Wikipedia quoting some crackpot, and WP:PRIMARY applies.

You are using Wikipedia as a megaphone to spread OC's stupid ideas, and you are trying to circumvent the rules forbidding that by WP:wikilawyering. And yes, they are stupid ideas and subject to WP:FRINGE. (One of his stupid ideas caused his death.) I alerted WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

While in general Olavo's deluded ravings only reflect badly on himself, and I think it is appropriate to quote him in order to illustrate that, it's pretty clear that WP:BLP forbids us from reproducing his slander against Obama. Tercer (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If it falls under anything in WP:BLP, it would probably be WP:BLPGOSSIP, but it seems to be "relevant to a disinterested article" about Olavo de Carvalho, as I noted below, since it quotes the political beliefs of a political figure. (Although I cannot prove this, I think Olavo was probably a large source of Brazilian belief in the supposed fakeness of Obama's documents.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly believe that it is simply not true that "Wikipedia talking about OC talking about Obama is still Wikipedia talking about Obama". Is Wikipedia simply unable to say what specific conspiracy theories were believed in by notable conspiracy theorists? And it is my honest, and quite general, belief, that it is simply very difficult to cover someone's views without citing their primary writings.

"Wikipedia quoting some crackpot quoting a newspaper is still Wikipedia quoting some crackpot, and WP:PRIMARY applies." I do believe that WP:PRIMARY applies – which is why I quoted WP:USEPRIMARY – but not WP:SPS, which you had quoted; the source is primary, but not self-published. I do not like citing Wikipedia policies, but you started it, and you interpreted them wrong (in my opinion).

If I were interested in using Wikipedia to spread his ideas, I would not be defending keeping a section which I just said I believe was added by his detractors. If I were interested in spreading specifically his misinformed views, I would not have added the "Misinformed views" headings myself. I do not know why you are jumping to these ideas about my motivations. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To remove all doubts about the article being self-published, I have changed the citation to the republication of (that section of) that article in a printed book, published by a well-known publisher. (The book does not reproduce the entirety of "Depressing notes", but only an excerpt that contains the quoted passage; it retitles the excerpt "O erro dos birthers" ["The Error of the Birthers"]). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia simply unable to say what specific conspiracy theories were believed in by notable conspiracy theorists? If we do not have a good source about it, then no.

it is simply very difficult to cover someone's views without citing their primary writing Easy to resolve. If you do not have a good source on something, you do not mention it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of all thoughts a person ever had.

I do believe that WP:PRIMARY applies [..] but not WP:SPS If we link to OC's website, we are linking to an SPS. Period. There is no reason to filter a reliable source through OC's website first.

I do not know or care why you want Wikipedia to mention bad ideas using bad sources, but that is what you are doing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Olavo's website is (probably) an SPS, but the Diário do Comércio, which was the ultimate source of "Notinhas deprimentes", was not self-published. (And, well, while it is clearly a website dedicated to Olavo, I'm not sure that he published it himself – clearly someone else is publishing it now that he died.) At any rate, I have already changed the citation to a printed book, so the website is not being linked regarding that claim in particular. I think that's a good source: it is primary, but only quoted to say what someone's views were.

"Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of all thoughts a person ever had", but this is a political pundit, known mostly for his political influence (albeit in Brazil rather than the US, where Obama lives). His relationship with birtherism seems relevant. Again, I do not oppose removing the information – "there may be good reasons to remove the material" – as long as the only reason for it is not that it is primary-sourced. Primary sources are useful. I may have less of a point with self-published sources, but that citation was not ultimately self-published, and at any rate, is definitely not self-published now that I changed it to the book. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:INDY, articles are based on descriptions by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:INDY: "Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy." Llll5032 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the article relies on independent sources for its core claims, so it is not true that the "article is based on" primary sources, but it uses a primary source for specific claims about someone's beliefs, which it reproduces without adding any original analysis. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF #1-3 prescribe major limits to self-sourcing. Why not summarize independent WP:BESTSOURCES instead? Llll5032 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not to be confused with primary sources. I did just change the relevant citation from Olavo's website, which is seemingly self-published, to Olavo's book, which is published by an independent publisher (but still a primary source, although not self-published). Olavo's website, as I also noted, was only republishing what a newspaper independent of Olavo, the Diário do Comércio, had already published in its print edition, which is simply not as accessible as the website's republication. I also added a citation from a different independent news cite quoting Olavo on Obama's documents. This turns out to be another direct quotation, but we see that the publishers involved here are all independent, with the possible exception of the website claiming to be the "official website" of Olavo de Carvalho, which is only cited as a republisher of an independently published (although primary) publication. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality of new sources in the article, in general

WP:PRIMARY #1-5 prescribe major limits as well. Many of the references recently added to this article appear to be WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF; such text should be limited, not expanded. Llll5032 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing my best. Certainly it should be limited, but Wikipedia does not completely forbid it. Two of the three theories in "Philosophical views" were mentioned in a secondary source (Ronald Robson's book) and the third is just a very short mention of something he wrote an entire book about. Anyway, if you think the coverage is poor on something other than Olavo's claims about Obama's birth certificate, you should probably start another topic (or "be bold" and remove it). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Has Ronald Robson co-written books with Olavo de Carvalho? Llll5032 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I just added a secondary source about the theory on Aristotle, so as of now, all three theories in "Philosophical views" have a secondary source, although they use direct quotations a lot. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just added even more secondary sources on all three theories. I just tend to believe that direct quotations represent someone's views the best, since it is hard for someone like the Brazilian unregistered user above to claim that a direct quotation is misrepresenting. But these are theories that he talked a lot about, so sure enough, there were secondary articles covering them, and those citations may help the discerning Wikipedia editor understand that they are notable enough. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We follow WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:OVERQUOTING and WP:LONGQUOTE in regard to direct quotations. Note that "Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information" and "Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy." Short quotations can be DUE if they are used prominently by WP:BESTSOURCES describing the subject, and are used in context (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context"). Otherwise, their use is limited. Llll5032 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed both quote boxes that I added, as well as the one that was already there when I got here, replacing them with shorter quotations. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Coverage of fringe theories

The typical Wikipedia article about a wackjob like this guy quotes reliable sources depicting and opposing his beliefs. Because of WP:FRINGE, we cannot just list the crazy stuff he believed without also quoting reliable sources saying that it is crazy stuff (this is obviously a paraphrase) and explicitly mentioning him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright! We have secondary sources denouncing Olavo for the social media posts on Obama, and Olavo's own articles are context for that, so I think the Obama section is well-covered, as well as the rest of the "Misinformed views on politics and history", which are all secondary-sourced to opposing sources.

The "Misinformed views on contemporary science and consumer products" are about halfway covered – some are primary-sourced and some are secondary-sourced. We might have to drop the coverage of his "Views on climate change" if that's the standard for WP:FRINGE. I can't find these specific criteria in the WP:FRINGE page, though. Are you sure?

I'm also not sure how these standards, supposing they are the actual standards, apply to his "Disagreement with famous scientists and mathematicians" – should we remove the parts about Newton and Cantor and Galileo and so forth? Scientists may use contemporary versions of, e.g., Newtonian physics, without being committed to views about the history of science, so Olavo's views there – although shocking, controversial, and denotative of a general disrespectful attitude towards respected scientists – might not be actually contrary to what scientists believe. (Do any contemporary scientists defend that particular sense of "eternal motion" that Olavo criticized in Newton? It is fair to ask whether Newton himself did so, of course, but that is for the historians.)

For instance, the book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" seems to be written by a conspiracy theorist, who also wrote other books dedicated to the broader proposition that there has been a conspiracy to manufacture the figure of Einstein as a great and "saintly" Jew. But there seems to be a real Relativity priority dispute, so that there is not consensus on the side of Einstein's priority either, and I cannot claim that there is. Despite this, Olavo's view on Einstein is obviously controversial, which is presumably why it was added (by someone other than me, I just added the source). What do you recommend? Thiagovscoelho (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

All cited sources need to be published reliable sources. There are lists of criteria at the reliable sources link, and some sources have been evaluated at the reliable sources noticeboard. For books, verify that they have favorable reviews in reliable journals. Llll5032 (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" is not cited in favor of or against any claims about Einstein, but was mentioned as the reason why Olavo believed that Einstein was a plagiarist, which it is. The fact that Olavo believed this on the basis of this book is referenced to the video of his lecture. (I just noticed that this video was taken down, so I replaced it with a video that is still up.) We do have a secondary source cited saying that Olavo had this belief, and mentioning that it was in a lecture of his online classes, but only the lecture itself mentions why he had it, which I believe is important context.

"Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist", by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, is not a very well-known book, but I was able to find this review of it for Infinite Energy Magazine, which is a mixed review, recommending the book for some purposes and not others. The review claims that the book does not support charges of plagiarism "narrowly construed" against Einstein, but that its "case is much stronger and also much fuzzier" if plagiarism is construed more broadly as "the theft of ideas without acknowledgment". For what it's worth, I think Olavo only accused Einstein of "stealing" the relativity theories themselves, not of copying the exact (or near-exact) words or phrasings of anyone.

(Update: As a source for the claim that the book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" does indeed defend Olavo's belief, I have now replaced the link to the book itself on Internet Archive with a link to this review in Infinite Energy. As context, I also added the review's conclusions about the book's quality to the Wikipedia article.)

This random tech website, which uses the book rather uncritically as a source, is the only other writing that talks about the book, as far as I know.

I'm saying that Bjerknes, the book's author, was a "conspiracy theorist", but this is from my own original research: I personally looked the author up on Google, found his other works, and drew that conclusion. So I cannot call him a conspiracy theorist in the article, of course – I only mentioned it as a possibly relevant fact in relation to the WP:FRINGE policies, which I still do not fully understand. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Infinite Energy and said tech website appear to be self-published sources and should not be used. Note WP:REPUTABLE: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

How so? A self-published source is a source published by the author, right? But Thomas E. Phipps, Jr, the reviewer, is not the owner of Infinite Energy, and Richard Moody Jr, the author of the tech site article, is not the owner of Tech Counsellor, the tech website. (Upon review, Tech Counsellor appears to be republishing it with permission from Aulis Online, which is not owned by Moody, either.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cited sources must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:REPUTABLE. Have you read WP:REPUTABLE and looked at WP:RSN and WP:RSP? Llll5032 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely, but I really don't think there is any reason why these sources should not be used. Looking them up on Google Books, I find that other pieces from both Infinite Energy and Aulis Online are cited in reliable publications, so that seems to speak to their reputation. More generally, you seem to just be vaguely mentioning random policies, whereas just now you apparently didn't even know what self-published meant. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking more closely, Aulis was only mentioned by an apparently reliable book as a "website supporting moon hoax theories", so that was actually a negative mention. Anyway, I only cited Infinite Energy in this Wikipedia article, and this specific Aulis piece was also republished by Tech Counsellor, which may have a better reputation than Aulis. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed half of "Disagreement with famous scientists and mathematicians", as well as the "Views on climate change"

In response to feedback here, I have removed Olavo's "Controversial and misinformed views" on Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Cantor, geocentrism, evolution, and climate change, all of which were only sourced either to primary sources or to Fernando Seboncini's personal blog, and for which I could not find better sources.

I have removed the claim that the book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" does indeed defend that Einstein was a plagiarist, since it is obvious from the book's title, and editors above have seen issues with citing either the book itself for the claim (since the book is not reliable) or a review of the book in Infinite Energy Magazine (which, I see now, might not be very good, since it is run by cold fusion supporters). I have kept only the claim that Olavo's accusation against Einstein rested on this book, which is straightforwardly supported by his lecture. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Please also be careful about long POV heading names per WP:POVNAMING and WP:IMPARTIAL. A good article uses economical language summarizing RS. Llll5032 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:CAREFUL, when the wording is longstanding and by a succession of editors' efforts, it is often encouraged to first tag problems, try to find better sources yourself, or reduce the wording, instead of immediately removing all content. Because it was longstanding, I restored the climate change portion and tagged it for improvements. Llll5032 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Since this posting, I have found secondary sources for the views on Cantor and re-added those. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Headings of views sections

User:Llll5032, I assume that, by calling the headings "POV", you mean the reference to misinformation in the headings. I find that this reference is essential to that section's content, however, since the section was mostly a list of claims that Olavo made and which were claimed to be misinformation by various sources, and is far from covering his views on topics such as politics, health and the Inquisition in any depth. Indeed, most of the secondary sources on his views on these things are trying to indict him for "propagating" misinformation, as a previous version of the article had put it. This is why I have reintroduced this reference by making "Misinformation controversies" a heading, and splitting off the material that didn't quite fit this. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sections should be structured based on topic, not by points of view: see WP:STRUCTURE and the WP:CSECTION essay ("best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section"). The text should clearly state the conclusions of RS, but the large headings are kept short. Llll5032 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be bad practice to have "views about Brazilian politics" and "misinformation about Brazilian politics" in different sections, but this is a list of topics on which there is no RS interest other than the claims that he has spread misinformation. For instance, crimes are not bundled with other actions unless the other actions are related to the crimes. (That is, related by some closer relationship than being done by the same person.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of what I just said, I have moved his views on Brazilian politics to the section on his involvement with the Bolsonaro administration, since they were clearly connected. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing Recanto das Letras

I am removing two citations I had previously added from Recanto das Letras, a Brazilian website. This is because I have read its Editorial Policy page, translated here, and determined that it is one of those "websites whose content is largely user-generated", whose content "is generally unacceptable" according to WP:UGC. I am noting this here because removing them at the same time without warning might otherwise have been seen as motivated by a desire to hide criticisms of Olavo de Carvalho's theories, which is a desire I do not have. So, as a show of good faith, I am linking them here.

• Erros de Olavo de Carvalho na tentativa de "refutar" Georg Cantor (parte 1) [Errors by Olavo de Carvalho in an attempt to "refute" Georg Cantor (part 1)], by RoniPereira
• Há 12 anos, Olavo de Carvalho escreveu besteiras ao tentar mostrar que Newton estava errado (parte 1) [12 years ago, Olavo de Carvalho wrote nonsense in trying to show that Newton was wrong (part 1)], by RoniPereira

Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources Too Closely Associated With the Subject

Many different writers were cited in the templated sections, about a third of which were writing against Olavo's ideas, and they can't all have had a "too close" relationship with him. Ronald Robson edited many of his books, so that might indicate some level of relationship, but that's it, and Ronald Robson is not cited for any key claim. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have just removed the last reference to Ronald Robson that was left in those sections, and now I see no point at all to the maintenance templates. I'll give it some time before removing them. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The proportion given to each aspect must be determined by the best available independent reliable sources, per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:INDY and WP:FRIND. See WP:WTRMT about when a template can be removed. Llll5032 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that the sources given are all independent, and that there is no reason to think otherwise. You're just vaguely naming random policies again. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I notified WP:FTN that more editors may be needed for assessing Brazilian reputable sources and fringe sources. Per WP:REPUTABLE, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Llll5032 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, again, I think everything cited there is reliable. These are major newspapers and universities. I'll be surprised if anyone makes well-founded specific criticisms. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Newton Republished in Descartes

I will not dispute further the current state of "Views on Newton" beyond asking: Why remove the claim that "this essay was reproduced in his book on Descartes as an appendix"? It is supported by the book and is not interpretive, and it explains why most people would have heard of it, since his books are way more popular than his non-republished columns. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDATABASE. Does an independent reliable source say that fact is relevant? Llll5032 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Depends whether Ronald Robson is independent, since he only cited the essay as a part of Visões de Descartes, rather than by itself. I have since found more secondary sources, though, all of which cited the newspaper directly, so nevermind. I do expect secondary sources written in the future to cite the book instead, since the old newspaper is rather inaccessible, but we'll see. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

astrology

why isnt there words on how astrology is fake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.23.70 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a link to the astrology article, where the relevant exposition occurs. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

self-proclaimed philosopher??

1)not having a college degree in "philosophy" doesn't mean that you are not a philosopher. If it is so, not even Plato was a philosopher.

2) the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher: Toxicvic (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

“Olavo de Carvalho is the author of priceless philosophical reflections.” (CARLOS ALBERTO

MONTANER, O Estado de S. Paulo, Jan. 19th. 1999.)

• “A man of high competence in Philosophy, he has obtained a wide success both as a scholar and as

a professor.” (JORGE AMADO, Brazilian acclaimed novelist, in a personal letter to our common friend

Stella Caymmi.)

• “He gave us definitive proof of the seriousness of his goals and of his comprehensive philosophical

scholarship.” (ROMANO GALEFFI, Professor of Esthetics, Bahia Federal University, in an official report

on the project of my book Aristotle in a New Perspective.)

• “Indifferent to cultural show business, Olavo de Carvalho chose for himself the true intellectual

life.” (JOSÉ ENRIQUE BARREIRO, TV Educativa, Salvador BA).

• “An independent intellectual, free from any links to political groups, and the owner of a wide

philosophical culture.” (CARLOS CORDEIRO, Diário de Pernambuco, Recife, Aug. 22th, 1989.)

• “I admire in Olavo de Carvalho not only the high value of his intellectual work, but also the

polemical vigor of his combats.” (J. O. DE MEIRA PENNA, former Brazilian Ambassador to Israel and to

Poland, Jornal da Tarde, São Paulo, Oct. 10th 1996.)

• “A philosopher of great erudition.” (ROBERTO CAMPOS, Minister of Planning (1964-67), Brazilian

Ambassador to the United States and to the United Kingdom, Folha de S. Paulo, September 22nd, 1996.) Toxicvic (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requirements change over time. Nowadays, you cannot just be a philosopher by calling yourself one. At Plato's time, you could.

Of those people, only one (Galeffi) is actually a philosopher, and he did not say Carvalho was one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1) what is being a philosopher? Getting a "philosophy" bachelor degree doesn'turn you into a philosopher.

2) if your criteria is correct, then Marx, Kant, Nietszche, Karl Popper, Hume and many others can't be considered philosophers.

3) Olavo is regarded as a philosopher by the most important Brazilian intellectuals an philosophers, as will add here: Toxicvic (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

“Olavo de Carvalho goes right to the founders of Western philosophical tradition.” (PAULO

FRANCIS, O Globo, January 5th, 1997.)

• “If Voegelin had read this, he would have incorporated your thought into his own to explain how

we proceed from perception to science.” (FREDERICK WAGNER, Eric Voegelin Society , letter to the Author,

February 14th, 2005) Toxicvic (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

“If his work distinguishes itself from the shallow and pedantic prose of contemporary philosophes, it

is mainly for its lively and good humored style, for its generous erudition and for its tireless search for

intellectual honesty.” (ANTÔNIO FERNANDO BORGES, Jornal do Brasil, January 6th, 1996.)

• “Rich and profound erudition, as can be seen in his philosophical essays The Literary Genres and

Aristotle in a New Perspective, both succinct, concise, conceptually rigorous and guided by a refined logical

method.” (VAMIREH CHACON, Professor of Political Science at the University of Brasilia, Jornal de Brasília,

January 22nd., 1996.) Toxicvic (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your last wall of text required a lot of research, and most of it turned to be irrelevant fluff. I will ignore this second wall of text. Fool me once... --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

what are you talking about? The opinions of the Brazilian most preeminent intellectuals are "Irrelevant fluff"?

What is the basis of your affirmation?

You are absolutely biased lol Toxicvic (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your claim was the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher

Your list contained one philosopher, and he did not say he regarded Olavo as being a philosopher.

You are not a trustworthy source of information, and I will ignore you now. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

did you even read what I wrote?

“A philosopher of great erudition.” (ROBERTO CAMPOS, Minister of Planning (1964-67), Brazilian

Ambassador to the United States and to the United Kingdom, Folha de S. Paulo, September 22nd, 1996.)

Roberto Campos was a member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters and held a degree in... philosophy. Toxicvic (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The article reflects what reliable sources say. Wikipedia does not have, and cannot have, a principled position on what a philosopher is. If reliable sources all called Olavo a philosopher, Wikipedia would call him one. As it happens, reliable sources disagree on the issue, as a footnote points out. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)