This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olavo de Carvalho article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Many different writers were cited in the templated sections, about a third of which were writing against Olavo's ideas, and they can't all have had a "too close" relationship with him. Ronald Robson edited many of his books, so that might indicate some level of relationship, but that's it, and Ronald Robson is not cited for any key claim. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the last reference to Ronald Robson that was left in those sections, and now I see no point at all to the maintenance templates. I'll give it some time before removing them. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 16:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Llll5032 ( talk) 19:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I will not dispute further the current state of "Views on Newton" beyond asking: Why remove the claim that "this essay was reproduced in his book on Descartes as an appendix"? It is supported by the book and is not interpretive, and it explains why most people would have heard of it, since his books are way more popular than his non-republished columns. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 16:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
why isnt there words on how astrology is fake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.23.70 ( talk) 20:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
1)not having a college degree in "philosophy" doesn't mean that you are not a philosopher. If it is so, not even Plato was a philosopher.
2) the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher: Toxicvic ( talk) 12:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher
regarded Olavo as being a philosopher.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I've noticed that most of the topics you editors discuss controversially are explained with all due sources (giving scientific evidence) in the book "Brazil, Land of the Past", chapter 6 and 7. The books is free access, for example here: https://books.google.dk/books/about/Brazil_Land_of_the_Past_The_Ideological.html?id=h3ZYEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Brasilianista ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate. Is there a particular change you actually want made to the page? If you're just providing a source, you don't need to use the edit request template.
PianoDan (
talk)
16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olavo de Carvalho article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Many different writers were cited in the templated sections, about a third of which were writing against Olavo's ideas, and they can't all have had a "too close" relationship with him. Ronald Robson edited many of his books, so that might indicate some level of relationship, but that's it, and Ronald Robson is not cited for any key claim. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the last reference to Ronald Robson that was left in those sections, and now I see no point at all to the maintenance templates. I'll give it some time before removing them. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 16:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Llll5032 ( talk) 19:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I will not dispute further the current state of "Views on Newton" beyond asking: Why remove the claim that "this essay was reproduced in his book on Descartes as an appendix"? It is supported by the book and is not interpretive, and it explains why most people would have heard of it, since his books are way more popular than his non-republished columns. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 16:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
why isnt there words on how astrology is fake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.23.70 ( talk) 20:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
1)not having a college degree in "philosophy" doesn't mean that you are not a philosopher. If it is so, not even Plato was a philosopher.
2) the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher: Toxicvic ( talk) 12:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
the list of the following well-known philosophers and intellectuals regarded Olavo as being a philosopher
regarded Olavo as being a philosopher.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I've noticed that most of the topics you editors discuss controversially are explained with all due sources (giving scientific evidence) in the book "Brazil, Land of the Past", chapter 6 and 7. The books is free access, for example here: https://books.google.dk/books/about/Brazil_Land_of_the_Past_The_Ideological.html?id=h3ZYEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Brasilianista ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate. Is there a particular change you actually want made to the page? If you're just providing a source, you don't need to use the edit request template.
PianoDan (
talk)
16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)