Talk:Olavo de Carvalho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Olavo de Carvalho: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] First thread

    • The article is sheer propaganda. I`ve tried to eliminate some obvious utterances from fans and admirers but yet the article is still very flawed. --201.6.11.61 17:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree the text was poor regarding to the NPOV, tried to improve on it, but I'm not satisfied with the result yet either. --Spharion 05:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm going to delete the part comparing Brazillian newspaper's (and Carvalho's) articles to those of American's (either Conservative or Liberal). They can hardly be compared, even less with such amount of generalization. --cjalmeida 01:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] Oh Boy, Let's delete it!

    This article is really sheer propaganda, isn't? I think O.C. himself wrote it.

    Then edit the article to reflect a neutral point of view. Vandalism is not acceptable.

    [edit] revert

    The article has been suffered new mutilations, again. Reverting to the previous version [07:34, 21 Nov 2004 D6]

    [edit] full reconstruction

    The last modification prior 2005 Jan 03 was completely deleted because his content was absolutely false, depreciative and constructed with a low level language. Remaking and altering would be impossible. 200.158.82.145

    [edit] Vandalism

    I got to this page by random page, so I really do not know anything about this subject. But this page is not neutral, is even offensive. Someone who is more an expert as I am about this person should delete these texts and replace them for a previous version. The current texts are really impossible.

    [edit] Lock now!

    The current version (19:15, 31 Jan 2005) is as good as one can expect. Lock it now before it gets vandalized again! -200.195.79.32

    Come on, people, this is getting ridiculous, lock this page now. -200.195.79.32
    Quite, done. --fvw* 23:57, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

    [edit] NPOV

    Wikipedia's official policy is to edit articles to reflect a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you disagree with the content of an article, you can edit it, but try to avoid edit wars and remember the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Simply defacing and vandalizing the article is not acceptable, especially as part of a vandalism spree. Doing so will get you blocked without any further warning.

    [edit] Author here

    Propaganda my ass. It was I that created the article and it´s a real shame now I myself can´t add things to it. Stupid vandals who simply cannot admit opinions contrary to theirs, in a sign of both imaturity and also their own dissatifaction with the concept of FREE SPEECH - which hints at their political line of thinking - are to blame. Yeah, you made a really good impression of Brazilians in Wikipedia. Thanks, morons.Doidimais Brasil 07:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, and that is - not by coincidence - a thing Olavo talks about quite frequently on his articles: the Brazilian left-wing's inability to deal with any opposing point of view by reasoning. Their tools are slander, vandalism, intimidation, and violence. - 200.195.79.32
    I don’t think that Doidimais' aggressive and overemotional stance on the criticisms of his article, which was just a temporary draft liable to be constantly improved and bettered with regard to the NPOV, as well as ruthlessly and mercilessly criticized, as it happens to the whole Wiki’s content, qualifies him as an unflinching, untiring free speech defender who is sadly entangled in a bold attempt at saving Brazil’s reputation vis a vis the world and – more important, presumably – the American community by teaching ignorant Brazilians a lesson as to how to behave properly and by showing that some, or at least one of, our natural born thinkers is also able to reason as the Americans do. I can assure you that the article is much more neutral and sensible now, bar the last unfortunate sentence, than it was before undergoing some, in my humble opinion, unavoidable changes, which are not as much about Olavo’s own merits as about the bracing open-minded neutral policy espoused by the website’s general guidance. I’d characterize mr. Doidimais' original version as the admirer’s sincere effort to portray as best he can the general thrust of the works with which he clearly identifies himself rather than writing it off as propaganda.

    [edit] Author here again

    Olavo was fired from O Globo in July 4. That should be included. Doidimais Brasil July 9, 2005 03:31 (UTC)

    [edit] Page must be protected for eternity

    Page was vandalized again. Judding by the size and elaboratedness of it, vandalizers are too strong. We´ve lost the fight. Let´s admit it. There are too many hateful and stupid Brazilians who cannot support other points of view besides Guevarism. Administrators, please protect the page forever. And ever. Very few people edit the page for adding new facts anyway. The page is updated 95% of times for vandalism and then editing it back. Let´s give up, and protect the page forever. Thanks for the understanding Doidimais Brasil 06:03, July 24, 2005 (UTC).

    [edit] Barely comprehensible

    After undergoing so many heavy-handed cuts and changes without being complemented by the necessary adjustments which would enrich its content and preserve its information value, the article is barely comprehensible. I dare to say it is now meaningless, as it is. One can hardly make an idea of what this guy is really about by reading it. I'm sure you're able to agree on a neutral, final and meaningful version - even the articles on such hot issues as political conflicts and scientific controversies are more readable and organized than this (sorry) crap. The guy can't be so important as to deserve this steady, uncivilized and inconclusive edit-battle.

    [edit] Begging

    I beg you to stop vandalizing this article. I’m not acquainted with the guy’s work, but I do know what the wiki policies are and I ask the vandals to show at least some respect for the encyclopedia, which has, deservingly so, a very good reputation among web users precisely in account of its seriousness and soberness. It’s hard to believe that there are people out there conspiring against such a great and amazing project as the Wikipedia. Instead of being intent on destroying the encyclopedia, you could start participating in it as intelligent and civilized human beings.

    The article's subject is a very controversial person in Brazil, more or less the Brazilian William F. Buckley Jr. (or Ann Coulter, for a more modern reference). Sadly, it is to be expected there will be both vandalism from detractors and supporters. Personally, I'm not a fan at all of his ideas, but respect his right to express them and understand the need for a respectful encyclopedia article. Thus, I'll hope to assist in whatever debates emerge in this talk page. --Jacob 201.38.53.251 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dispute?

    There´s a warning on the article about dispute on the "O Globo" firing. But there is nothing here on the talk page. Who is contesting the paragraph? Will he or she be so kind as to let us know what the issue is? Doidimais Brasil 00:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] What does "radically differs" mean?

    Changed "radically differs" to a more explanatory phrase (about Brazil's "leftist press" as Olavo de Carvalho would like it to be called).


    [edit] *sigh*

    The sentence "Today, Olavo de Carvalho lives in Virginia, USA state, looking for some job" is both drerogatory and false. Carvalho still writes and published articles in the Brazilian media from the USA. It´s deeply sad that Brazilian guevarists are as intolerant as the anti-cartoon Islamic leaders Doidimais Brasil 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] also

    also, why is there no picture anymore? Anyone offended by a black-and-white photo of a man in his fifties? is that too conservative? Doidimais Brasil 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    ah, I see now. pic removed because it´s unsourced. I can fix that Doidimais Brasil 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Philosopher?

    Hardly. You can call Carvalho an essayist, a jornalist, a sociologist or whatever, but he hasn't published in philosophical journals, doesn't teach philosophy in any institution and hasn't published any works acknowledged by the philosophical community (not even of Brazil). --Kripkenstein 02:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Even tough he doesn' publish in philosophical journals, he publishes philosphical articles in the newspapers and magazines he writes for. Saying he "doesn't teach philosophy in any institution" is wrong. He does and did. Finally, he is called a "philosopher" by some sources other than his official website. Because I do not have them in hand and I really don´t care on whether he is named a philosopher or not, I´ll let that like that for now Doidimais Brasil 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
    Olavo de Carvalho is a philosopher to a number of thinkers (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/critica.htm) even tough his official site does not define him as so (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/bio.htm). Doidimais Brasil 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hard is to believe that semi-intellectual individuals like yourself feel so free to criticize the man without even knowing what he does. Of course he has taught and teaches philosophy. And, by the way, in order for someone to be a "philosopher" does he need the knowledge or a medal of recognition from the herd? Your concept of "philosophy" is very strange indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.1.137.140 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

    As far as I know, one can be recognized a philosopher without a degree even in a Brazilian university, where one can be acknowledged the equivalent of a Ph.D on the ground of being "notoriousy knowledgeable". But, degree or not, absolutely nowhere can one be acknowledged an expertise in a given field without having one's work reviewed by _his intelectual peers_, not by self-styling oneself as an expert in one's personal propaganda site, which is IMHO the problem with the subject of this article.

    [edit] Hangon!

    Let's instead merge it with Powerpuff Girls. --Zpb52 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Blatant Vandalism

    This article was blatantly vandalized, including claiming the subject is Nazi, gay, and changing the name of his site, 'Mídia Sem Máscara' to 'Piroca Sem Máscara', a Portuguese expression that should not be translated.

    After that, some people reverted some minor details of the vandalism, but left unchanged the offending word.

    I have just reverted it.

    I'll be watching, but if it is vandalized again, it must be locked.

    Also, since I've seen so much obvious vandalism, I don't trust the rest of the article ; not all vandalism is obvious. I'll try to verify the facts, but I don't know much about the subject.

    Know everyone that this article is not to be trusted.

    Update: I forgot to sign my comment. Jorge Peixoto 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    "Piroca Sem Máscara", hahahahaha. 201.50.232.123 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    someone linked national vanguard with the wrong url - and if that made any sense, well, it had the clear purpose to extend the time of the short-lived allsomuchwronginformation. mahotsukai 22:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lock the article

    I suggest this article to be locked to contributions only by registered Wikipedia members, since all the vandalism have come from anonymous editors. --LuisGuilherme (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Answering the request...

    Hello, idiot! Then it wants to say that its "master" Olavo was born in day April 26 th, 1949?! (sic)

    Disrespecting the fact of this article to need a beautiful update, you still it wants to censure the such article...

    Wide of being donkey because this son of bitch is so without favour that obtains to be worse that the comedians of the "Zorra Total".

    The truth is that it does not give to understand as an idiot of these has a dedicated page it in the Wikipédia in English...

    Or better, until it gives if we will be to consider that it has a page on the Maranhão of the South in the Wikipédia in Portuguese. --Paulo Montgomery Never Burns (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


          What the hell is this guy trying to say?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.34.80.136 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] Silly criticism

    Someone is trying to insert ths shameless ad hominem attack as "criticism": "According to writer and jornalist Janer Cristaldo, Olavo de Carvalho is an astrologer and pseudo-philosopher" If you want to add some criticisms, feel free to add relevant ones.143.107.183.46 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    This is not an ad hominem attack. This is a valid critiscism and can only be expanded. Janer Cristaldo frequently publishes critiques of Olavo's works and activities and have experienced working in close proximity to Olavo himself. The following is just one of his critiques in portuguese (http://www.agenciabaguete.com.br/colunasDetalhes.php?id=2639). He argues that Olavo's many published works mix theology, philosophy and astrology, and thus he regards Olavo as an astrologer and pseudo-philosopher. There are many other works discussing Olavo's works by Janer Cristaldo. And as I said there can only be expansion on this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.7.134 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)