Talk:Olavo de Carvalho/Archive 1

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 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)
 * 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.

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:

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/olavo-de-carvalho/247-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-aleksandr-dugin-i.html
 * Olavo de Carvalho Debates Alexandr Dugin (I) - Tuesday, 08 March 2011 01:08

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/olavo-de-carvalho/257-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-alexandr-dugin-ii.html
 * Olavo de Carvalho Debates Alexandr Dugin (II) - Thursday, 07 April 2011 10:42

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 : 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 - 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, 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)

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 [|reliable 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 [|Cognitive 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?&mdash;Pórokhov Порох|undefined 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.&mdash;Pórokhov Порох|undefined 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. Which of the following two statements would you say is the better assessment of what the source says?
 * Carvalho is being criticized for making attacks against specific people.
 * 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,, 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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Olavo de Carvalho, 20-09-1998.png

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.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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)

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)

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)