This article is nothing but a collection of slanders published by various tabloid-level activist (and, in some cases, extremist) sources and far-left pundits from a country undergoing a process of political polarization (which distorts public discourse and lowers its quality), and whose neutrality is highly dubious at best, demonstrably nonexistent at worst. It is truly shameful that Wikipedia allows such a trashy disinformation piece to stay up. Even worse, edits aiming at making the article slightly less one-sided are quickly reversed by a group of users who patrol the page aiming at controlling the narrative that it conveys. Certainly, this article is in gross violation of Wikipedia's policy that states the following:
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Any literate and cognitively enabled person who reads the content of this page should immediately realize that the last thing that is being done is "representing the subject fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", much less exposing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". One of the most blatant signs of that lack of balance is the absence of non-left leaning sources in the bibliography section. There is plenty of available content on the web from centrist and center-right sources with ample recognition and wide-reaching influence in Brazil, and yet the supremacy of the far-left point of view in this page is near total.
This page should therefore be deleted. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extremist agitation pamphlet nor a Pravda-like stalinstic propaganda machine. It is supposed to be a neutral source of information open for the contributions of all users, irrespective of their political and ideological orientation. Lukesson ( talk) 15:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
OCs positions on the corruption of Academy are both congruent and consilient with most post-modernist leftist philosophersAgreeing with those people is just one more indication of scientific incompetence. Not that it was needed.
I have locked the page from editing because of the repeated edit warring and adding of unsourced material by User:Gl0betr0tter00. I will post on their talk page and explain to them the need to discuss new material on the talk page rather than add it to the article. MelanieN ( talk) 23:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
At some point it mentions he wrote about 32 books, many being collections of earlier articles.
I consider this too vague for an easily verifiable information in an encyclopedia.
I took a look on a list of his writings. It seems like there were anthologies of newspaper articles, "seminaries" (I am borrowing the word from Lacan) and some full length books. I think it would be useful to just add this simple quantified breakdown. 2804:14C:6588:8151:6D8E:11FA:AEB0:F732 ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
There are some strange sentences in this article that jump out to me: calling him a "self-proclaimed philosopher" and stating that his views were "rejected by philosophers." I cannot read Portugese however so I don't understand if there is some nuances in the sources I'm missing. In what way does a "self-proclaimed philosopher," one who publishes in journals and such, differ from an unqualified philosopher? Further more, philosophers aren't exactly a group known for their propensity to agree with each other. Is there something I'm missing? Otherwise it seems like a pretty blatant violation of NPOV. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!( talk or whatever) 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
one thing that the sources can attest to is the fact that, first he has no recognition by his 'peers', ie, philosophers in general not only reject what he says but his methodologyand I find this dubious. Musing on what a philosopher is or isn't is fine and dandy (even if I find your argument lacking -- confusing the propositional aspect of philosophy with the greater philosophical enterprise). Do you read Portuguese? What do the sources actually say? Your last point, that "philosophers" reject him on the grounds
that his publications are mostly from the time he was a journalist and not any academic stuff, seems to be false since he's published monographs in seemingly kosher venues (i.e., not self-published or anything). [1] [2] [3] Seems he's published in Portuguese Literary and Cultural Studies and presented at UNILOG '05 too. [4] [5] I don't particularly care personally whether he's a philosopher or not, but what do the sources actually say in this case? As it stands, the statements I've mentioned seem dubious and a violation of WP:NPOV, unless, as I said, there is some underlying reason in the Portuguese sources that I'm not seeing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!( talk or whatever) 18:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Honestly you could keep criticism about his political views, but most of the content presented concerning his scientific criticism and his philosophy is just regurgitated slander. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 ( talk) 01:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In response to feedback here, I have removed Olavo's "Controversial and misinformed views" on Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Cantor, geocentrism, evolution, and climate change, all of which were only sourced either to primary sources or to Fernando Seboncini's personal blog, and for which I could not find better sources.
I have removed the claim that the book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" does indeed defend that Einstein was a plagiarist, since it is obvious from the book's title, and editors above have seen issues with citing either the book itself for the claim (since the book is not reliable) or a review of the book in Infinite Energy Magazine (which, I see now, might not be very good, since it is run by cold fusion supporters). I have kept only the claim that Olavo's accusation against Einstein rested on this book, which is straightforwardly supported by his lecture. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 20:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
a succession of editors' efforts, it is often encouraged to first tag problems, try to find better sources yourself, or reduce the wording, instead of immediately removing all content. Because it was longstanding, I restored the climate change portion and tagged it for improvements. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I am removing two citations I had previously added from Recanto das Letras, a Brazilian website. This is because I have read its Editorial Policy page, translated here, and determined that it is one of those "websites whose content is largely user-generated", whose content "is generally unacceptable" according to WP:UGC. I am noting this here because removing them at the same time without warning might otherwise have been seen as motivated by a desire to hide criticisms of Olavo de Carvalho's theories, which is a desire I do not have. So, as a show of good faith, I am linking them here.
This article is nothing but a collection of slanders published by various tabloid-level activist (and, in some cases, extremist) sources and far-left pundits from a country undergoing a process of political polarization (which distorts public discourse and lowers its quality), and whose neutrality is highly dubious at best, demonstrably nonexistent at worst. It is truly shameful that Wikipedia allows such a trashy disinformation piece to stay up. Even worse, edits aiming at making the article slightly less one-sided are quickly reversed by a group of users who patrol the page aiming at controlling the narrative that it conveys. Certainly, this article is in gross violation of Wikipedia's policy that states the following:
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Any literate and cognitively enabled person who reads the content of this page should immediately realize that the last thing that is being done is "representing the subject fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", much less exposing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". One of the most blatant signs of that lack of balance is the absence of non-left leaning sources in the bibliography section. There is plenty of available content on the web from centrist and center-right sources with ample recognition and wide-reaching influence in Brazil, and yet the supremacy of the far-left point of view in this page is near total.
This page should therefore be deleted. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extremist agitation pamphlet nor a Pravda-like stalinstic propaganda machine. It is supposed to be a neutral source of information open for the contributions of all users, irrespective of their political and ideological orientation. Lukesson ( talk) 15:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
OCs positions on the corruption of Academy are both congruent and consilient with most post-modernist leftist philosophersAgreeing with those people is just one more indication of scientific incompetence. Not that it was needed.
I have locked the page from editing because of the repeated edit warring and adding of unsourced material by User:Gl0betr0tter00. I will post on their talk page and explain to them the need to discuss new material on the talk page rather than add it to the article. MelanieN ( talk) 23:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
At some point it mentions he wrote about 32 books, many being collections of earlier articles.
I consider this too vague for an easily verifiable information in an encyclopedia.
I took a look on a list of his writings. It seems like there were anthologies of newspaper articles, "seminaries" (I am borrowing the word from Lacan) and some full length books. I think it would be useful to just add this simple quantified breakdown. 2804:14C:6588:8151:6D8E:11FA:AEB0:F732 ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
There are some strange sentences in this article that jump out to me: calling him a "self-proclaimed philosopher" and stating that his views were "rejected by philosophers." I cannot read Portugese however so I don't understand if there is some nuances in the sources I'm missing. In what way does a "self-proclaimed philosopher," one who publishes in journals and such, differ from an unqualified philosopher? Further more, philosophers aren't exactly a group known for their propensity to agree with each other. Is there something I'm missing? Otherwise it seems like a pretty blatant violation of NPOV. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!( talk or whatever) 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
one thing that the sources can attest to is the fact that, first he has no recognition by his 'peers', ie, philosophers in general not only reject what he says but his methodologyand I find this dubious. Musing on what a philosopher is or isn't is fine and dandy (even if I find your argument lacking -- confusing the propositional aspect of philosophy with the greater philosophical enterprise). Do you read Portuguese? What do the sources actually say? Your last point, that "philosophers" reject him on the grounds
that his publications are mostly from the time he was a journalist and not any academic stuff, seems to be false since he's published monographs in seemingly kosher venues (i.e., not self-published or anything). [1] [2] [3] Seems he's published in Portuguese Literary and Cultural Studies and presented at UNILOG '05 too. [4] [5] I don't particularly care personally whether he's a philosopher or not, but what do the sources actually say in this case? As it stands, the statements I've mentioned seem dubious and a violation of WP:NPOV, unless, as I said, there is some underlying reason in the Portuguese sources that I'm not seeing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!( talk or whatever) 18:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Honestly you could keep criticism about his political views, but most of the content presented concerning his scientific criticism and his philosophy is just regurgitated slander. 2804:18:836:D771:1:0:6C2B:BEE7 ( talk) 01:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In response to feedback here, I have removed Olavo's "Controversial and misinformed views" on Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Cantor, geocentrism, evolution, and climate change, all of which were only sourced either to primary sources or to Fernando Seboncini's personal blog, and for which I could not find better sources.
I have removed the claim that the book "Albert Einstein: the incorrigible plagiarist" does indeed defend that Einstein was a plagiarist, since it is obvious from the book's title, and editors above have seen issues with citing either the book itself for the claim (since the book is not reliable) or a review of the book in Infinite Energy Magazine (which, I see now, might not be very good, since it is run by cold fusion supporters). I have kept only the claim that Olavo's accusation against Einstein rested on this book, which is straightforwardly supported by his lecture. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 20:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
a succession of editors' efforts, it is often encouraged to first tag problems, try to find better sources yourself, or reduce the wording, instead of immediately removing all content. Because it was longstanding, I restored the climate change portion and tagged it for improvements. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I am removing two citations I had previously added from Recanto das Letras, a Brazilian website. This is because I have read its Editorial Policy page, translated here, and determined that it is one of those "websites whose content is largely user-generated", whose content "is generally unacceptable" according to WP:UGC. I am noting this here because removing them at the same time without warning might otherwise have been seen as motivated by a desire to hide criticisms of Olavo de Carvalho's theories, which is a desire I do not have. So, as a show of good faith, I am linking them here.