Jump to content

Talk:Olavo de Carvalho

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sources Too Closely Associated With the Subject

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Newton Republished in Descartes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

astrology

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

self-proclaimed philosopher??

[edit]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that most of the topics you editors discuss controversially are explained with all due sources (giving scientific evidence) in the book "Brazil, Land of the Past", chapter 6 and 7. The books is free access, for example here: https://books.google.dk/books/about/Brazil_Land_of_the_Past_The_Ideological.html?id=h3ZYEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Brasilianista (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Is there a particular change you actually want made to the page? If you're just providing a source, you don't need to use the edit request template. PianoDan (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olavo_de_Carvalho&oldid=1257621985"