Talk:Olavo de Carvalho/Archive 2

Extremely low quality, should be deleted.

This article is nothing but a collection of slanders published by various tabloid-level activist (and, in some cases, extremist) sources and far-left pundits from a country undergoing a process of political polarization (which distorts public discourse and lowers its quality), and whose neutrality is highly dubious at best, demonstrably nonexistent at worst. It is truly shameful that Wikipedia allows such a trashy disinformation piece to stay up. Even worse, edits aiming at making the article slightly less one-sided are quickly reversed by a group of users who patrol the page aiming at controlling the narrative that it conveys. Certainly, this article is in gross violation of Wikipedia's policy that states the following:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Any literate and cognitively enabled person who reads the content of this page should immediately realize that the last thing that is being done is "representing the subject fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", much less exposing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". One of the most blatant signs of that lack of balance is the absence of non-left leaning sources in the bibliography section. There is plenty of available content on the web from centrist and center-right sources with ample recognition and wide-reaching influence in Brazil, and yet the supremacy of the far-left point of view in this page is near total.

This page should therefore be deleted. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extremist agitation pamphlet nor a Pravda-like stalinstic propaganda machine. It is supposed to be a neutral source of information open for the contributions of all users, irrespective of their political and ideological orientation. Lukesson (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Fair" does not mean one should suppress criticism. Since every knowledgeable person says this guy is full of shit, and all those who agree with him are not known for their adherence to the truth, there is nothing we can do except quoting the criticism. See your own quote all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Your "everybody who disagrees with me is Stalin" canard is just a variation of the more common "everybody who disagrees with me is Hitler". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The alleged "criticism" presented in this article and references is 90% political slander, disregarding they are political posturing the sources presented are secondary at best. They mostly have absolutelly nothing to do with fact-apt analysis or reporting.

Only two alegations on his scientific stances are partially true, and one heavily distorts OC's position still (concerning HEK cells use in sweeteners research).

Honestly the editors to this article don't know the differences between a theory for the center OF THE UNIVERSE (Heliocentrism) and the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM, which are wholy different things. Of course they will not understand OC positions on meta-science and theories of knowledge which are actually not discrepant from mainstream physics and special natural disciplines current methodologies, paradigm and status quaestionis.

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.

OC is not anti-intelectual or obscurantist, and despite his criticism on veiled marxists OCs positions on the corruption of Academy are both congruent and consilient with most post-modernist leftist philosophers, the discrepancy is in Teleology not in their instrumental conclusions.

The reason this article doesn't quote and links OCs statements and content directly, which is freely and abundantly avaliabe online, is the fact this article is the most absurd fabrication. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Even OC's commentary on Newton directly is not about modern physics, but about meta-science and theory of knowledge. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OCs positions on the corruption of Academy are both congruent and consilient with most post-modernist leftist philosophers Agreeing with those people is just one more indication of scientific incompetence. Not that it was needed.

You need to give reliable sources in order to change the article. Your own misguided opinion is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Gadling, instrumental analysis and terminal prescriptions are not the same thing.

It seems you don't understand there is no actual consensus or evidence regarding justification of knowledge in Academia at all, and that science is understood differently among different fields and even internally to each field.

It is called The Ortogonality Problem, and The Consilience Problem.

Authority and Political Justifications are not what is being discussed here, but the fact OC's positions are actually mainstream in academia, political pundits just didn't go deep enough to understand it. 189.6.252.118 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2972

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199708213370806

Attacks on OC's scientifical stances are identical to terminal attacks from Social Studies Schollars on Evolutionary Psychology instrumental analysis. 189.6.252.118 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for improving the article about that guy, not for trying to convince other users that that guy was right about something.

I checked your first link to a Nature article, and it does not mention Carvalho. Therefore, it is not useable for Wikipedia. I conclude that the rest of your links are also useless since you obviously do not understand how Wikipedia works. Go read WP:RS.

All of Carvalho's ideas about science which are listed in the article are so incredibly ignorant that even if all except one are misrepresented, he still sounds like a data point from the far, far left end of the Dunning-Kruger curve. But of course, you have not given us one single RS to show that they are indeed misrepresented. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How the hell the page will be improved if you as institution is pushing fake news and character assassination based purelly on the distortion of political stance and the individual's discourse? 189.6.250.135 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The links presented are substantiation/corroboration of OC's views by Academic sources themselves.

You are admiting not only you dont't know his work or stances but also the fact you are giving credit to falsities from hearsay. 189.6.250.135 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop misusing this page as a forum. Everything you say is meaningless noise until you give us reliable sources that support what you say about Carvalho. Since this article is about Carvalho, only sources that talk about Carvalho can be used to improve the article about Carvalho. Reading links that are not about Carvalho and drawing conclusions about Carvalho is called original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Do you get it now? If not, please stop it anyway. Maybe you can go and get someone to explain it to you very slowly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Denoucing the article's "extremism" and "political skew" only demonstrates your skews and preferences. There is not a single thing that is a lie in the article. 177.18.46.57 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You just admited you have no knowledge on OC's stances and are making your own stance based on secondary and politically motivated sources. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Locked the page; discussion needed

I have locked the page from editing because of the repeated edit warring and adding of unsourced material by User:Gl0betr0tter00. I will post on their talk page and explain to them the need to discuss new material on the talk page rather than add it to the article. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2022 (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 astrólogo.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating on a vague sentence

At some point it mentions he wrote about 32 books, many being collections of earlier articles.

I consider this too vague for an easily verifiable information in an encyclopedia.

I took a look on a list of his writings. It seems like there were anthologies of newspaper articles, "seminaries" (I am borrowing the word from Lacan) and some full length books. I think it would be useful to just add this simple quantified breakdown. 2804:14C:6588:8151:6D8E:11FA:AEB0:F732 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a list of his books at the end of the article. Any number at that point in the article may quickly become inaccurate if Ronald Robson makes posthumous publications of more of Olavo's works, so I have attributed the number to the source and left this at that.Thiagovscoelho (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

There are some strange sentences in this article that jump out to me: calling him a "self-proclaimed philosopher" and stating that his views were "rejected by philosophers." I cannot read Portugese however so I don't understand if there is some nuances in the sources I'm missing. In what way does a "self-proclaimed philosopher," one who publishes in journals and such, differ from an unqualified philosopher? Further more, philosophers aren't exactly a group known for their propensity to agree with each other. Is there something I'm missing? Otherwise it seems like a pretty blatant violation of NPOV. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the definition of who can call yourself a "philosopher" can differ, but one thing that the sources can attest to is the fact that, first he has no recognition by his 'peers', ie, philosophers in general not only reject what he says but his methodology.Right now i'm referring more academic than anything else, cuz the sources don't go beyond that. Being a philosopher is not necessary someone who "philosophies", but we're talking in a more academic sense. So, it's not about philosophers agreeing with what he is saying, that is not the point, the point is more about accepting him as a peer or if he has any academic credentials (not talking about diploma but if things that he say are accepted in that field, regardless if people judge it as correct or not).

There are some "professions" that do not require a credential for a person to be that very thing, so we tend to go with peer recognition (again, not judging if what he says is correct or not, people can disagree with what others say but mostly they disagree with him because of his methodology and the fact that his publications are mostly from the time he was a journalist and not any academic stuff, which he does not have). Coltsfan (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You say that one thing that the sources can attest to is the fact that, first he has no recognition by his 'peers', ie, philosophers in general not only reject what he says but his methodology and I find this dubious. Musing on what a philosopher is or isn't is fine and dandy (even if I find your argument lacking -- confusing the propositional aspect of philosophy with the greater philosophical enterprise). Do you read Portuguese? What do the sources actually say? Your last point, that "philosophers" reject him on the grounds that his publications are mostly from the time he was a journalist and not any academic stuff, seems to be false since he's published monographs in seemingly kosher venues (i.e., not self-published or anything). Seems he's published in Portuguese Literary and Cultural Studies and presented at UNILOG '05 too. I don't particularly care personally whether he's a philosopher or not, but what do the sources actually say in this case? As it stands, the statements I've mentioned seem dubious and a violation of WP:NPOV, unless, as I said, there is some underlying reason in the Portuguese sources that I'm not seeing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, what the sources actually say, let's see. And yes, i can read portuguese (not 100%, but more than enough for this case). The first source calls him, for instance, "self-taught", another one calls him a "fraud". Source 6, for instance, quotes philosopher Sebastião Nery, who calls him a fake when it comes to his credentials. Source number 8 calls his works and findings "fake" and disputes his credentials, as the other source does. So, without making any judgment value, the sources strictly says he has no academic background on the area, no peer reviewed work, and, at least according to the sources. I can't find a single independent source that shows anyone with academic credentials or published papers that calls him a philosopher (the only person who calls him as such is himself, apparently). And here is my opinion and why, using the sources as a base, i find it right to say he is a "self-proclaimed" philosopher. Anyone can claim to be a philosopher. Literally anyone. I can't say who is a philosopher or not or that his works and papers are "fakes" (term used by source 6 and 8). But the WP:RS in the article, which quotes several actual philosophers, all says that he is not. This is not an interpretation, as one of the sources has a university teacher calling him a fake and his work a forgery. Thus, the "self proclaimed". Ps: As for his work on the "Portuguese Literary & Cultural Studies", it was a literary work, nothing related to his work as a "philosopher". Like i said, i had a really hard time finding any sources that contradict what is in the article. Coltsfan (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

the statement that his peers do not recognize him as a philosopher is simply false. some most-famous Brazilian philosophers, writers, and scholars have praised him as a great philosopher

ps: I'm not gonna put the links here (not willing to add one by one), but they can be easily founded on google.

Olavo de Carvalho is the author of priceless philosophical reflections.” (CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER, O Estado de S. Paulo, Jan. 19th. 1999.) *

“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 his 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.)

“The most brilliant and controversial Brazilian thinker.” (MONICA GRIGORESCU, Rompress ~ Romanian National News Agency, July 3rd, 1997). *

“A man of intellectual courage.” (JARBAS PASSARINHO, former Minister of Education, O Estado de S. Paulo, June 19th, 1988.)

“Olavo de Carvalho goes right to the founders of Western philosophical tradition.” (PAULO FRANCIS, O Globo, January 5th, 1997.

“Inexhaustible erudition and unflinching intellectual honesty. The trumpet call for the resurrection of Brazilian independent thought.” (BRUNO TOLENTINO, prominent Brazilian poet, in the preface to The Garden of Afflictions.)

A wonderful book, a burst of light in the darkness.” (LEOPOLDO SERRAN, Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, September 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.)

some awards

Awards Green Card, under the category of alien with extraordinary ability, granted by the American government (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), in March, 2010.

Pacifier Medal, awarded by the Brazilian Army on August 25, 1999. “Santos Dumont” Merit Medal, awarded by the Brazilian Air Force on July 20, 2001.

Commander of Romania’s National Order of Merit, medal granted under decree by Romanian president Emil Constantinescu on December 5, 2000.

First Prize in the Essay Contest sponsored by the Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain in Brasilia to celebrate the birth centennial of the Spanish Philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1985).

First Prize in the Essay Contest on Islamic History sponsored by the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudy Arabia (1986). Commander of Romania’s National Order of Merit, medal granted under decree by Romanian President Emil Constantinescu, Dec. 5, 2000

just remembering: these are top Brazilian intellectuals Toxicvic (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

This article if a parade of absurdity and misinformation.

Honestly you could keep criticism about his political views, but most of the content presented concerning his scientific criticism and his philosophy is just regurgitated slander. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed previously a couple of times before. Sources used here are valid and reliable, used across many articles. Calling what you don't like to read "slander" without any actual good points (the topic above is mostly just blabbering) is not how things are done here. Again, this was discussed and rejected. Nothing more, nothing less. Coltsfan (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless you demonstrate politics as fact-apt and cognitive there is nothing reliable about these sources.

They don't touch OC's analysis and theory. They pick a few phrases and spin it intentionally out of context. 189.6.252.118 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)