User talk:OasisSEP

Welcome
 Hello OasisSEP, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

OasisSEP, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Copa do Brasil Finals, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBF and Nilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Career statistics
Please do not add friendlies in career statistics, as you did with Matheus Sales, Jonatan Cristaldo and others. Thank you, MYS  77  ✉ 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you four your understanding. Happy weekend, MYS  77  ✉ 17:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Allianz Parque
Hi. By adding new content, click first on "Show preview" option instead of "Save page". After checking the text, save the page. Do not forget to mark the otion "minor edit" for minor edits. Regards. Montolive 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montolive (talk • contribs)

Brasileiro Série A clean sheets
Hi - why did you remove Walter from the most clean sheets in the infobox? He has been the goalkeeper in all four Corinthians clean sheets this season: |R1 |R3 |R4 |R5. Please consider re-adding. Thanks, Gricehead (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're correct Gricehead, I thought Cássio played one of these matches without conceiving a goal. I'll re-add it. OasisSEP 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC).


 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Gricehead (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Brazil national football team, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've put a reliable source now Mattythewhite, thanks for your notice. OasisSEP 21:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC).

July 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Luan Michel de Louzã, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 07:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leandro Pereira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuca. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Warning!
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at article. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Do not remove information that is backed by WP:RS. This is considered WP:Vandalism. Plus, pay attention to WP:POINTy. Coltsfan (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The main problem here is that this article is completely biased. Only one point of view is shown in the text. If only I had the right of demonstrating that there are completely different views on this person, who by the way I’m very familiar with, together with different interpretations of his work and actions, the public view on the article would most likely lose the classification of biased article. In a few days I’m going to edit it again, and this time with consistent references from other reliable sources, and I would like if, for the first time, my edition would be considered, and not completely ignored as it happens all the time in this page. if, at least, someone could consider that there are different opinions about this person, or simply read what I changed in my last edition, the accusation that I practiced vandalism or made unconstructive edits would never be considered. OasisSEP (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, your edits are biased themselves. Like when you wrote in the article that "he has been accused by the Left", when that's not true. Opinions on him tend to be polarizing in both the left and the right, with criticism often coming from both sides of the spectrum. Another example is when You removed the part where it's said that he has being known for spreading misinformation. Multiple neutral sources have accused him of doing that, again, both on the left and the right. Then you wrote, when it comes to the flat earth business: "This statement has been used in many misleading ways by Olavo's non-sympathizers, in order to generate more confusion and distrust on his behalf." That in itself is very bias, let alone not true, since, in that section, most information used there are direct quotes from him, thus not open to interpretations. You clearly are thinking of editing this article according to your own bias (i think it's pretty obvious you are a supporter of him by the way you talk). I've been trying to keep that article as neutral as possible, removing information about him that's not backed by WP:RS (like when people tried to add that he was antissemit, when there was no evidence of that). So my warning to you is, if you again try to use the article to WP:POINTy or if the info is not in accordance to WP:Neutral, ii'm letting you know that you will be reverted again and this time sanctions might be applied (like blocking). This is not a case of oversight, since you have received ample warning about this behaviour. Just letting you know beforehand. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am a supporter of him and read many of his books, and that’s the reason I’m dissatisfied with many of these ridiculous informations and sources. They are indeed sources from well-known media channels, but also are clearly open critics of him since at least mid 2018 (like in the case of The Intercept, Folha de S. Paulo, and Globo). Anyway, there is no point in arguing with you about certain opinions about him, since I’ve only edited the article to look less derogatory, and therefore, more neutral. You can see that I didn’t remove many of the accusations on him. I know I didn’t provide any sources, and next time this is what I’m going to provide. It seems that, in many ways, you just allow offensive information about him to stay intact on the page, and does not allow space for other points of view that have the sole purpose of neutralizing the content of the entire article. In short, it is clear that there is no need for proof that the article is, at this moment, very biased and only derogatory, and even has a warning about its neutrality being contested. Also, since you thought of me as his supporter (which I am, and it doesn’t mean I’d only allow a partial opinion about him), I would say that you are obviously a critic and non-sympathizer. I understand that you removed the accusation that he’d be antissemitic, but I don’t agree that he spreads misinformation, because one of the things that he defends most is the proper education of the population. Many of the points of this supposed “misinformation” are solely his own opinion on matters, and not pure misinformation. In relation to the flat Earth, I also have direct sources written by himself, proving the veracity of what I wrote, and I will provide the sources next time, so that you can also see another point that’s not open to interpretations either. As I mentioned before, writing good things about him is just to balance the content of this article, with the intention of making it more fair, and not to maintain an image that this person is a type of criminal monster. Just to clarify that, as you know, this person doesn’t have a university degree in philosophy, but he is undoubtedly a professor of philosophy and has many books written on that subject. Please see that he offers online philosophy courses on his website: https://www.seminariodefilosofia.org/o-curso-online-de-filosofia/. Therefore, I don’t understand the reason for removing this fact as one of his occupations. OasisSEP (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Lets break it down. Your admission that you are a supporter of him is troubling. That immediately distorts your objectivity. I couldn't care less for him, as a person, either way, i didn't add those infos there, but i did pay attention if all material added had a reliable source attached to em. What you call "derogatory" is actually information backed by reputed sources about things he actually said. And if you know his career like you said do, then you know that he had putted forward debunked conspiracy theories, like AIDs not posing a risk to heterosexuals, the flat earth thing, the pepsi fetus, etc. And that is spreading misinformation, by definition. And again, i can stress this enough, criticism of him comes from both sides of the political spectrum.
 * Articles are supposed to be neutral, correct. But they also should reflect reality. It doesn't have to be 50/50 (50 good, 50 bad). Like it or not, this man made most of his career and his name by making controversial statements (some praise him for it, most don't, but that's besides the point). And about him being a philosopher, sorry but he ain't. Anyone can claim to be anything they want. If i start a psychology online course and write a book about it, that hardly makes me a psychologist. So, yes, you don't have technically to have a degree in philosophy to be a philosopher, but you have to have at least a general recognition by peers (which he doesn't). Now, to the last part about, what you call "offensive information", again, that is open to interpretation. When you like someone, a politician, a sport athlete, or a singer/musician, any information that is not a compliment can be perceived seen as "offensive". That's why usually it's not a good idea for you to write yourself about people or ideologies you like, cuz, no matter how neutral one claim to be, his or hers objectivity is compromised.
 * Another thing: the reason why the article is considered not to be 100% neutral is because of the section "Personal life", that's built on conflicting information. As for all the other information in the article, "derogatory" or not, they are backed by WP:RS and a lot of them are direct quotes. It's easy for him or his supporters (like yourself) to come around later on and say "well, that wasn't what he meant" or "that's not the full picture". That doesn't really matter much. I dealt with the same thing when i was editing about the article of president Lula. Some people (supporters of him) thought the article was bias against him for the "disproportionate" attention given to the controversies in his career (like the corruption allegation). I'll tell you what i said to them: it doesn't matter what you, me or him think. Again, articles should be neutral, but they also should and have to portray reality. And sometimes, reality can not be to someone's satisfaction.
 * As WP:NEUTRAL states: "We consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Coltsfan (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it's a problem that I support him and do some editing of his content. Would you say that a person that supports a specific action/sports team/political party/thesis/study can’t ever write about it on this website? My objectivity can be distorted by the fact that I support him, but I also accept honest criticism. However, this doesn’t make me prohibited from contributing to articles of things I like or admire, as long as I provide the basis and sources for what I am writing. It is precisely the interests of each person in particular that make articles richer and more complete. These personal interests is what makes people search for more information and more content. When you deal with any possible subject in the world, you will find biased and partial opinions everywhere, because people are like that naturally, that is the way of things. Everyone has personal preferences and interests in all matters encompassed by life in general. On the specific issue of what I called derogatory, It doesn't matter if the source is reputed or not, even a very reliable source can treat a person in a derogatory way, and that's exactly what they do, so what I said is completely indisputable. We should all try and find sources with as few attacks and depreciations as possible just not to make disputed or uninteresting articles. The conspiracy theories to which you refer to are nothing more than specific cutouts of situations where he mentioned those things in the most varied of contexts. In none of his books, articles, classes or videos does he defends such points. And as I said, I don't need to discuss and prove these facts for you, I’ll find good and reliable sources and put them here in the future. When I said the word “balance”, I didn’t mean that the articles should be 50% good and 50% bad, but wanted to show in my edition that he isn’t just that person portrayed in that article, which is completely directed to a side that only rejects or says bad things about him. I find it strange that you said that I called him a philosopher, at no time did I say he was a philosopher, I just said that he offers philosophy classes, so that makes him a philosophy professor, not a philosopher. Just as school teachers that teach on various subjects, in this case they don’t have an university degree in all subjects they teach, but they are teachers of those subjects nevertheless. I'm not giving my opinion here, I'm just describing a reality. Sorry, but I will not be convinced that this article is impartial and only portrays this person's life in reality. You speak as if I’m just not enjoying the indisputable realities written about him, when in fact, all the sources mentioned here are from media channels that have always openly criticized him for years. You also speak as if these references were the sole holders of the truth, and it really appears that they’re not opened to debates or counter arguments on your part. You say that it is not open to debate whether he really defends conspiracy theories or these other absurd claims, that this is a reality and that I should know this because I know his career. And I’m telling you that, precisely because I know him and his career, that I know these informations are false or cut-out of a larger context. I don't expect you to believe in what I’m saying, but I will demonstrate through other sources that these things that you believe to be a reality are in fact disguised falsehoods. It is not only because these sources are well-known, or “reputed” as you say, that they necessarily bring only indisputable truths. These media channels often use distorted narratives and cut-outs of specific situations to satisfy their own interests. What is indisputed here is that these sources act as if they were the only ones holding true sincerity, but they just say bad things about this person, on and on again. What I truly expect is that this article represents the greatest reality possible. I don’t run from reality, I embrace it, and point it where I don’t see it. I have the right to do what I’m doing. And what I see here is that you don’t consider that other interpretations of the truth may exist. OasisSEP (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you missed all the points entirely. You are not forbidden to edit in articles of interest to you, however, when you declare yourself openly that you support him and like him personally, that creates a WP:COI situation, as it is written: Conflict of interest (COI) editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. For instance, my namesake (Coltsfan) alludes to the Indianapolis Colts football team, my favorite sports team. As a result, i openly avoid as much as possible to edit in articles related to said team, in order to avoid any accusations of conflict of interest.
 * You say "I don't run from reality", while your edits show otherwise. You removed information that is backed by WP:RS (and yes, all the sources in the article are considered reliable and currently being used in thousands of articles) and you altered things that are not true (like when you said that criticism towards him comes from the Left only, when it couldn't be further from the truth. And the fact that he teaches or taught philosophy at some point don't make him either a philosopher or a teacher in this field for, again, he lacks recognition of peers or any other means.
 * And again, you say things lack context, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories, however, again, that's not true, for instance, he has double down, directly, on things like the earth being flat as being something "yet not refuted" (source here). So i'll be paying close attention to your edits in the article. If they are fair and fine, they will stay where they are. However, if they violate WP:Neutral in any way, they can be removed. But remember you can use the talk page in the article as much as you want, and show other users why me or them are wrong. But, i'd suggest you don't engage in WP:EW, as you know what the consequences would be. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn’t miss all the points entirely. You and I simply aren’t going to understand each other, because we think differently about what a true reliable source is (and I’m saying it in general, not just in accordance to Wikipedia). I don’t consider these references you’ve shown me or the ones I’ve deleted to be neutral sources, that’s the issue. And what you have shared with me doesn’t prove that these informations are actually true just because a website (one you probably like) published it. I know you’re only taking actions in relation to what is being done on this website, but it looks like you think Olavo’s article is the most correct and accurate as it can be. Before he became linked to President Bolsonaro, his article here was completely different, and I apologize but I think this isn’t a decent thing to do, even here on Wikipedia. Can you speak portuguese? I’m going to send you some external links where you can see most of the information on his article will become disputed if linked to it. I’ll be more precise and in accordance to WP:RS next time I edit something, since that are the website’s guidelines and policies. I’m guessing you don’t like him, but I’d still appreciate if you took seriously the links and sources I'm sending you. And as I’m not forbidden to edit about it, and being aware that I’ll not only write positive things about him, because as much as I like him, I can also discern constructive criticisms (which are salutary) from intentionally derogatory insults. And it seems like you don't really care about those things. It looks like you're purposefully making things difficult. In fact, if you don't care about him (as you said earlier), why are you so sure and know with such propriety about the things he says or the criticisms imposed against him? Wouldn’t you ever consider allowing a different opinion from the one written in his article? I know you had trouble accepting what I wrote about criticism on him coming from the Left, and I’m aware other right-wing people don’t agree with him, but I only forgot to write that this criticism comes “mainly” from the Left. I suggest you read some of his books, if you can speak portuguese, before claiming to have solid truths about him, but it seems that, unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t take direct knowledge of matters into account. I'm sure that if someone changed many of the sources about the Colts, and started writing very controversial things about the team, that you wouldn't feel good about it, and would feel compelled to change those sources. OasisSEP (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My portuguese is pretty good. I actually have fluency in both english and portuguese. But again, i don't have an opinion on him. But i don't need to read his books. That's irrelevant. Remember, he writes his own books, so he can write anything he wants. A man can say one thing, and do other. I can write a book and say that i'm a saint, but in reality i'm the devil. That's why primary sources have to be avoided, if possible (per WP:PSTS).
 * It's funny that you accuse me of bias when you made a very bias editing and now claimed here, openly, that you are a supporter of his. I find this amusing... Anyway, back to the point. No, the article is not perfect. Far from it. There is no such thing as a perfect article. However, what worries me is that won't respect WP:Neutral. How can i be sure? Well, you already did that. So, when you, a supporter, comes and says "i'll show his real side cuz i know him", sorry, but you seem like a smart person, so i think you at least should see where i'm coming from. Again, take me as an example. I don't like Trump and i didn't like Obama either. Thus, i never edit their page. I like Gary Johnson though (even voted for him), thus for, i ALSO never edit his page. Just like i like my Indianapolis Colts, and Peyton Manning is my hero. Again, i never edited these pages either. So, there is no rule that forbids you, however, since you are a declared supporter of the man, your editing will be under some serious scrutinizing. I'm sure you understand why. Coltsfan (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that through it’s own book a person can write and claim whatever it wants about anything. But I don't think it makes much sense for us to give more value or consider it safer that a source which, in a way, is also giving its own impressions about a certain person. So, when referring to you to read his books, I’m simply stating that your own impressions of the author’s writings will in fact be your best indicators. But of course, we’ll never be able to inform ourselves directly about everything using primary sources, and there lies the importance of looking for more than only one source that seems reliable to us, and always re-evaluate their reliability. Anyway, as I said, I had changed some of the information in the article simply to ease the attacks on him, making them less explicit that they were, so as to create a sense of greater scope in the different possible interpretations on his behalf. I believe that for this reason, it is normal that I wanted to edit his page to revert some contested subjects, and this time following the guidelines correctly. This is actually just to demonstrate that there are different views on him, many that we can find in other sources, and that at the present moment, nothing of this is shown on his article. I have no intention to keep editing with certain frequency most of the articles here, especially those that I’d be more likely to bias. And by taking your examples into account, this wouldn’t be a recurring concern of mine, I just see this article now as a complete mess and it’s text seems to be focused solely on the purpose of viewing him as a charlatan without any possible quality that deserves more attention. It is one thing to edit a page of someone you admire simply to add new facts or information, and another thing is to correct injustices taken in an exaggerated way inside the big media environment. I didn’t say that you yourself biased this article, but that many of the sources that you considered to be reliable were actually biased themselves. If Wikipedia considers those sources to be reliable, I really can’t do much about it other than continuing to seek other improvements. Since the condition of editing articles by people who have a conflict of interest are better to be avoided, I hope that the same is considered for people who openly dislike and are against the person described in the article. Here I’ll share some links about those points that you argued that were uncontested truths about him: • •  •  •  •  is just to show a broad picture of the facts attributed to him by most media channels. No specific refutations, just an overview

Anyways, I appreciate your sincerity and your commitment by showing me your examples. Cheers. OasisSEP (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the links went wrong. • https://www.boletimdaliberdade.com.br/2019/01/14/olavo-de-carvalho-diz-que-nao-emite-opinioes-sobre-teoria-da-terra-plana/ (About the flat Earth) • https://reflexocultural.blogspot.com/2019/06/olavo-de-carvalho-e-terra-plana.html?m=1 (Flat Earth) • https://sensoincomum.org/2019/12/05/pepsi-desfez-senomy/ (About human fetus in Pepsi) • https://sensoincomum.org/2017/04/29/largue-frescurite-ler-olavo-de-carvalho/ (Pepsi) • https://www.estudosnacionais.com/10290/assassinos-da-verdade-a-reles-campanha-de-difamacao-contra-olavo-de-carvalho/ (This is just to show a broad picture of the facts attributed to him by most media channels. No specific refutations, just an overview) OasisSEP (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you question the sources in the article, but they are in current use in hundreds if not thousands of articles across wikis in multiple languages. So your case about they "don't like him" or whatever, well, not only this alone is up for debate but that in itself doesn't disqualify those websites as valid sources (not according to the rules, that is). And the "attacks", again, they are not necessarily attacks. Most is, like i told you before, direct quotes from him. And his accusation of spreading misinformation and anti intellectualism, those are wide spread, on right wing and left wing circles. But, i do understand you 100% when you feel bad about reading something that you don't like about someone you admire. That's why i was talking about conflict of interest. If you like something or someone, a politician or a an athlete, and you read criticism on the matter, that clouds a bit of your judgment. Now, i could say i was making an assumption, but i've seen you doing that, so i have reason to doubt your objectivity on this matter. But moving on.
 * Now, for your sources, they don't say much. In no moment in the article, for instance, it's claimed that Olavo believes in the flat earth theory. To direct quote the article, "In 2018, on Facebook, he stated that he had no "definitive answer" to many "questions", such as whether the Earth is spherical or flat". As you can see, your sources don't contradict that. Quite the contrary, they confirm it. As for the Fetus and Pepsi, again, your source doesn't say Olavo backtracked on his statements. But, at least here in the USA, Olavo became well know for supporting the hoax of Pepsi using cells from aborted fetuses to sweeten soft drinks something that, like the article says, it has been debunked for years by now (see here and here). But the main point is that, at one point, Olavo subscribed this theory for years and so far he has not retracted entirely, only changed the narrative a bit.
 * In short, i can see that you actually did your research on the matter, which is very very good, but still, it's a bit shady. A lot of the sources you shown me are blogs and they are not considered WP:RS, per rules. Others are websites that can be used as source, depending on the context. For instance this Senso Incomum website is also known in Brazil for spreading conspiracy theoris (a lot of them debunked), like a global conspiracy to impose a global government through the UN, COVID-19 being created by China, etc. So, it's objectivity can be questioned (and since they openly admire Olavo, that also compromises their own neutrality to filter informations. This website can, in certain situations, be used as a primary source, with direct quotations, but it's disputed at best.
 * But here is the thing. Olavo, at least outside of brazil and outside of the conservative circle, is mostly known for his controversial statements. Like it or not, he is a controversial figure and is his lack of compliance with political correctness and the establishment that helped build his name apart from being an accomplished writer in his own right. If most of the time he is on the media is because of controversial statements, there is nothing we can do about it. Coltsfan (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously there is no denying that he is a controversial figure, especially outside of Brazil and of the conservative circle. I understand that many of those quotes are things he directly said, so there’s really nothing to oppose them in an objective way. And of course my judgement is compromised on this matter, and I’m honestly trying the best I can to understand what you’ve shown me about why the article is the way it is. The thing is, and not everyone agrees with this view, which is my own, Olavo is very responsible for many of the changes that have occurred in Brazil in recent years, he has predicted many things that came to happen and most people don’t realize it. This is one of the reasons that made many people talk about him without knowing for sure the reason for so much widespread repercussion, like the known phrase in Brazil: “Olavo tem razão”. I mean, this shows us the level of influence he had here. And in the end we really don’t need the media to confirm this influence, because even they don’t understand why or how it happened. Now that he is 73 years old, he has lost more of his patience when speaking, and this has not helped, either. I think that one example of what could be in the article and is not, is exactly what you wrote, the fact that he is an accomplished writer in his own right. So in this case, if I use a primary source just to complete the text of the article, without deleting sources or texts that are already there, I wouldn’t have any kind of restriction. This is merely to show what Olavo himself says about some of these matters. And, as I told you before, I don't intend to keep editing this article continuously. I intend to show what other views on him say, other than those I’ve shared with you, and the personal responses there are to many of these sources already in the article. OasisSEP (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I know Olavo is, with intention or not, reshaped the brazilian conservative movement. Though i think he rejects this notion (if i remember right)?! Anyway, his career as a writer is under represented in the article to a degree but that is mainly do to the lack of sources on the matter. But most sources about his writing career comes from his blog or websites of his supporters (primary sources), this not that reliable.
 * The thing is, yes, sources tend to split on Olavo's importance on the rebirth of the brazilian right. He certainly holds a lot of influence on the current president of Brazil, but all of this is disputed, even by Olavo himself. This is what makes research someone like Olavo, cuz most of the things we know about him is what comes from his supporters or himself, and that makes it unreliable.
 * But one thing that struck me is the fact that you make it sound like Olavo is beloved or at least well liked through the entire Brazilian conservative scenario. As i think you are aware, since this is making international headlines, the Brazilian government is currently facing a political crisis and Olavo is calling for the firing of a few ministers (like the man who used to run the health ministry and that Moro fellow). Even the current brazilian vice-president has had a fallen out of sorts with Olavo (see here). Things are not so cut and dried as you are trying to say.I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind or thinking or anything, not my job to do that, but it's something for you to keep it in mind about political divisiveness. The bubble we're in usually makes us believe that everybody thinks the way we do and those who don't are the "enemy". It's not like that. Things are more plural than one can imagine.
 * As for the primary sources, they have to be used carefully. Especially when said sources openly supports X or Y. The editorial is one thing, but if they are openly biased even on the "news room", that makes their objectivity goes down the drain. That's why users are advised to avoid primary sources, of possible. It can lead to a lot of discussions (like the one we're just in). Coltsfan (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What he rejects is being referred to as the main representative of the so called "Brazilian New Right" in general, that was born by his influence. He acknowledges being the one responsible for the birth of many right-wing groups and articulators that appeared here in Brazil in the mid 2010s, but he says he is not a political coordinator or leader of any kind of organized movement, which he in fact isn't (Source). The fact that he doesn't have many references or official articles from the major newspapers and media channels in Brazil, these being the considered reliable sources, that talk about his writtings, shows that most of these sources don't recognize or even refuse to know his work or his importance in any way, and this is precisely one of his criticisms, that most of these channels don't actually know his work and only react to loose statements of his part. He doesn't really aspire to any official political position and doesn't actively participates as a member of the Bolsonaro government, as he never participated in any government office in his life. He is indeed a friend of the president, and surely gives personal advices to him, holding a certain influence on him aswell. About what you said, you're correct, Olavo isn't really beloved by all brazilian conservatives. Many conservatives who were already known in the country, before Olavo started to become more prominent again in this past decade, didn't admire him before and continue to disagree with many of his positions. But none of those conservatives had much to say about him, either. What he did, and this may not be widely recognized or documented, and especially by those who didn't value him very much, was to open up enough space for a more open public debate between the right and the left, in general. This even culminated in the election of the first openly conservative president in the country after a 33-year period. Before Olavo started to make national headlines, we had a serious problem about what was considered to be conservatism in Brazil, because people who identified themselves as being conservative (at least internally) were afraid to show themselves as such for reasons of disapproval in almost all public circles. Being seen as a conservative in Brazil, at least among ordinary citizens, and especially in universities and in the media, was a cause for shame and considered as a political extremism, not taken seriously at all (note that I'm talking about regular conservatism here, and not about the far-right). These things are different in the United States, and I admire your country for that. My point is that the left had dominated the political environment from the end of the military dictatorship in 1985 until the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in 2016. Many of the politicians and political parties considered to be centrists were actually liberal, and many of those considered to be conservatives were from the center. To give you an idea of how things were here, the PSDB party, which disputed the elections with the Workers' Party (PT) in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, was seen as the maximum acceptable limit of conservatism in the country. And PSDB isn't even a right-wing party, it is in it's name also (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) and many of it's members identify themselves with the left, including ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The discredit generated by the corruption scandals (Mensalão and Lava Jato) of the Lula and Dilma governments also played a very important role in Brazil's internal political opening aswell, besides that of Olavo's influence. Again, this is all my own perception of things, I'm telling you this because I personally witnessed these scenario from high school to the end of college. Of course you don't have to agree with what I said here, but someday it may be worth searching things deeper on this matter to see if it makes sense, if you ever have the interest. Anyway, about our current political crisis, the only thing I can assure you is that there's a kind of "open war" going on between the old brazilian establishment (including our Supreme Court, that was almost entirely nominated by PT) and mainstream media against Bolsonaro's government. That’s why the president is so heavily criticized for every single step he takes, it's pretty exaggerated, and no one has to truly understand politics to see that it is. The conflict intensified with the coronavirus pandemic. About this matter, we'll still have to wait longer to see what happens, but I can tell you that the only support that the current government has comes from the people, the small alternative media (these two not entirely, of course) and Olavo himself. This is the only reason why the government still has the strength to face the old politics and its entire structure. The decision of firing the two past ministers was a matter of non-alignment with the current government views and policies. These ministers did not endorse the actions of the government which they were chosen to be a part of. So, as controversial as these demissions may seem, especially in the case of Moro, they are justified as normal actions within a government. Olavo may have had an influence on that, but that's up for debate as it seems it was a decision from Bolsonaro himself. In the case of the vice-president, I believe it was a mere provocation made by Olavo in the face of an attempt by Mourão to obtain greater prominence than the president himself, this all happened just after Bolsonaro has begun his term. Olavo has a tendency to react in this way that sounds disrespectful to many. Personally, I'm not a fan of Bolsonaro, but I don't have anything against him as well. He has his positive and negatives points. But as you said it yourself, things are more plural than that, this is only my point of view. What is true is that Olavo is a figure that has caused a great impact in Brazil in recent times, and for someone to draw so much attention, whether from the people or the political class, indicates that he probably did something relevant, even though its true value may be hidden in some way. There lies the problem we all face, even more in these days, of knowing in who and what we can really trust. OasisSEP (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source I forgot to send. Editing from my phone is still tricky... OasisSEP (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)