Jump to content

Talk:Aleksandr Dugin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 20 September 2022 (Removing expired RFC template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Dugin isn't a fascist 2

If I talk about how I think Italy is basically a fascist country in spirit, with so many people (no matter how they describe themselves) who share a worldview and behaviours that are an evolution of the Italian fascism, would I become a fascist myself because I am Italian? Or just because I am talking about it? So, how the citation of the first ref supports the claim of Dugin being fascist? Unclear.

Moreover: is it very smart of wikipedians to use mainly western sources and sources of antirussian worlds to confirm the truth about a claim on a living figure like Dugin? Sure it isn't liked by westerns and by all those political parties, inside or outside Russia, which see him as a (political as well as ideological, or whatever) enemy. US is one of the most fascist-filled country, starting with ex potuses and current potus... If this idea gets around the world of antiamerican countries, and you use those sources to support the claim of fascism in a page about, say, an adviser of a president (and you put this at the very beginning, because of course is a specific feature of the character...), would you either use those sources, or disregard them as propaganda? Or would you rather contrast them with other opinions in a section of its own? I bet that you can find tons of sources which does not support this description of Dugin, yet we "choose" to pick some of the tons which does (apparently... given the first one, I expect to find at least another source which shouldn't be there). What should we call this? Encyclopedic knowledge and understanding? Ittakezou0 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dugin isn't a fascist

source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSsIrcUS8JM

Remove the propaganda claim that Dugin is a fascist. What kind of references are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snate28 (talkcontribs) 12:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he says he isn't, doesn't mean he isn't. GliderMaven (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is a communist not a fascist. He even said himself he is on the side of Stalin and the Soviet Union. I understand that everything your average american disagrees with is "fascist", but this guy is a communist (which is not any better). 193.145.14.195 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's absolutely not, he's right wing. He likes the totalitarian aspects of Stalin and the Soviet Union and how big the empire was. It's true that he was one of the founder members of the National Bolshevik party, which is pretty left wing. This confused me too for a while, because everything he says is right wing. While it's absolutely true that he was a member- he pulled it right. It went very far left as soon as he was no longer a member. GliderMaven (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Liking totalitarianism" doesn't equal fascist, and his position as a founding member of the National Bolshevik party definitely makes a pretty strong case against your assertion of his fascism. What exactly convinces you he is a fascist as opposed to a Bolshevist or Stalinist like his resume would make one presume? 2600:6C52:7E3F:E659:A039:29BA:7434:89A1 (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because western propaganda says he's fascist, it doesn't mean he is. 95.238.32.198 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a good look at what Dugin actually has to say and what the far right thinks about him. The vast majority of the present days fascists/ ultra far right despise Dugin and Dugin despises them. Dugins political theory circles around his idea of 'the fourth political theory' as the title of one of his main books is, so against the left, right and third position (fascists included in the latter.) His main theory is a world order outside of the United states paradigm and neo soviet expansionist Eurasian ruling policy, where he states that the Eurasian peoples should be combined into one big multi cultural mix. He has also very clearly condemned both fascism and racism multiple times. Just because some one is authoritarian doesn't make them a fascist. It really isn't very convincing that a fascist should be a huge proponent of multiculturalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A61:C632:35E7:B:2986:7653 (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing his claims of being a fascist or saying he’s a fascist label it as “characterized as fascist”, this should be a good equalizer between people on this talk as he never called himself a fascist but people still consider him one Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed countless times before and we go by what sources say. Volunteer Marek 07:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not clearly describe him as a Fascist, and it should not be one of the the first sentences in the lede. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 12:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. Check the archives. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In line with discussion here I have changed "fascist" to "far right" in the lede. Looking at the rest of the article it seems to me that there is an over emphasis on claims of Fascism. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Volunteer Marek has stated, this has been discussed many times before and we go by what sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek I have checked, and this has not been discussed countless times before. Please provide examples of sources that state that he is "knowm for views widely characterized as fascist". Generalrelative I have checked and this has not been discussed many times before. Please explain your edit in the context of this discussion. Describing a political philosopher whose views are, according to the article, complex, as " widely characterized as fascist" in the first sentence is extreme.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 13:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have not checked the archive. I count at least eight discussions. And I count seven sources backing the "fascist" label. Even if you want to quibble about one or two of them, that is more than enough. Generalrelative (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've substituted out some of the weaker sources for stronger ones, and added quotes. There is no doubt that "fascist" is a very common way for RS to describe this person's views. Generalrelative (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative eight discussions are not countless, and I would dispute that they are many. Having read them, I see no clear consensus or conclusion. Only one is about the first sentence. Of the 7 references given in the first sentence, number 12, 13 doesn't mention fascist at all, 11 mentions it once, but is an opinion piece, 10 describes him as a "radical rightwing politician" and says "Dugin can in certain ways be considered a neo-fascist as well as a geopolitician. " 9 describes him as "Russian political thinker and, by his own words, geopolitician,", and 8 is an interview in Polish which doesn't seem to either call him a Fascist, or feature him calling himself a Fascist. Here is a BBC article from today which doesn't mention fascist - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62621509 I have opened an RFC further down the page. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative have you been looking at sources to see how they describe him, or searching for sources that describe him as a Fascist? Even if it were very common for reliable sources to describe him as "Fascist", which I dispute, I think it would need to be nearly universal to include the description in the first sentence.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the above comments show a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy: WP:CON and WP:V respectively. Note too that L'Origine du monde appears to be arguing against previous sources, rather than the updated ones. All seven of the present sources definitely identify Dugin's views as fascist. Generalrelative (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative Please check my comments against the current sources, as they mostly still apply. None of the sources given characterise him or his views as Fascist in the first line. Most of the sources given are obscure. Few, if any, of the sources describe his views as solely Fascist, and cherrypicking sections that do from, for example, an article interviewing a columnist entitled "Russian intellectual Aleksandr Dugin is also commonly known as 'Putin's brain'" doesn't mean that the claim should be in the first section of the article. More to the point, if you read the article as it is currently written, "far right" is a far more accurate description.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, at this point it should be clear that I think you're wildly off base here. Let's allow others to weigh in. No need to ping me every time you comment. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative I understand that you think I am wrong, although I do not understand what you meant by simply naming wiki policies. What I would like you to do is explain why fascist should be in the first line in the RFC I started below. I understand that you think you have explained this before, but my request is not whether you can find sources that call his views Fascist, or that you claim this was agreed before, but that you actually explain why "known for views widely characterized as fascist." belongs in the first line.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pinging me. My argument is that the description is clearly both verifiable and due. Being "known for views widely characterized as fascist" is by far one of the most salient things reliable sources say about this person. Also: learn how to properly indent your comments. I am tired of reformatting every time I respond to you. Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do a better cherry-picking. You could learn languages other than English (or just use automatic translators), so you have a wider pool of sources you can cherry-pick from to describe Dugin as he needs to be described, just to make clear who's who. Or, you can drop this opinionated classification entirely from the first paragraph, and maybe put it in a "disputed" opinions section. Because he being this or that without a deeper analysis and understanding of what he's really said, is what it is: just an opinion based on what is very likely propaganda which needs to build a certain imagine for its own purposes - and you all become just a blind (or accomplice) tool. Real encyclopediae suffer very much less because of this problem. Wikipedia about current living characters in a challenged propaganda-filled world (more so starting from between 2004 and 2008)... well, really disappointing. Smart and honest contributors should leave, or avoid this kind of the-only-sources-I-can-know-say-so political labels, keep just facts and leave disputed opinions at the bottom. 95.238.32.198 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative please stop re-formatting my comments. Please can you make your argument, rather than describing its virtues. Why is "Fascist" more salient than "far right", if either is necessary? Google gives 22,100 results for ""Aleksandr Dugin" facist" and 517,000 results for "Aleksandr Dugin" .♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a description of him from today from the Guardian. It doesn't call his views Fascist - Alexander Dugin: who is Putin ally and apparent car bombing target? [[1]].♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It call his views fascist twice:"he continued writing and lecturing, further developing the concept of Eurasianism, the Russian-flavoured, fascist political doctrine" and "Dugin co-founded the National Bolshevik party with the novelist Eduard Limonov, merging fascist and communist-nostalgic rhetoric and symbolism." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It calls his views "ultranationalist", "anti-liberal and ultranationalist", "radical anti-western thoughts", "illiberal totalitarian ideas" and "Russian nationalism". Those two mentions are not directly of his views.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 17:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were JUST given direct quotes which contradict your claim and then you shamelessly repeat the false claim again. This is WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dugin is someone discussed by high-quality scholarly sources, so I'd prefer to know if they commonly use the descriptor. I searched Google Scholar using "Alexander Dugin", since that spelling is most common in English language sources. I get:
Of course, raw search results like this come with many flaws, but less so with a Scholar search than a normal Google search. Assuming we want to say something about Dugin's views (which are a focus of RS coverage), "fascist" seems like a prime contender, being about as common as his being a "philosopher". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers I thought we should prefer general sources such as the Guardian to obscure scholarly sources. Your research suggests that less than half the scholarly articles about him mention in any context the highly emotive and subjective term Fascist, so why should it be in the first sentence? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reasonable argument to be had over whether a descriptor found (perhaps) in half of the best available sources can be labeled "widely characterized". By my reading of policy, it can. I think it's sensible to argue otherwise. I'm interested to see how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
""Aleksandr dugin" neo eurasianism " gets 1570 hits, which is almost as many, and much more specific in meaning. Traditionalism gets 2140 hits, "nationalist" 2,000 results. For some reason "ultra nationalist" has been added to the sentence. That gets only 393 hits. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get 592 hits for "neo-eurasianism" and 440 for "traditionalism", both of which need quote marks to avoid unwanted results. Neo eurasianism will return hits for just "Eurasian", and traditionalism finds results including just "traditional". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not an expert at this. I can clearly see that most articles about him do not start, as this article does, by stating that he has Fascist views. The Guardian article from today doesn't explicitly say that his views are fascist, but that a doctine he developed is Fascist. I clearly gave examples of 5 other formulations the Guardian explicitly used to describe his views. I would add that Fascist is not a useful contemporary description as it's meaning is very unclear and largely pejorative. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 19:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not use Guardian articles for anlysis of political ideology, because they have no expertise in that area and policy says that their analysis is not a reliable source for facts unless written by an expert rather than someone with a BA in PoliSci. The main scholars of fascism treat it as an historical phenomenon that died in 1945 and refer to its current proponents as neo-fascists, which is type of subtle distinction usually seen lacking in news articles. It certainly shouldn't mean anyone who the U.S. doesn't like.
Dugin developed a "Fourth Political Theory" as an alternative to liberalism, communism and fascism, disowning all three of them. But that does not mean he is not fascist or neo-fascist, that is something for which we require expert opinion that says what the consensus view is.
We might also wish to re-vist the Putin's brain meme. As Marlène Laruelle pointed out in a source used for this article, "Contrary to the belief of those Western commentators who view him as "Putin's guru," Dugin has little direct access to the highest echelons of the presidential administration." (Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy)
TFD (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An academic counterpoint to this would be historian Timothy Snyder, who calls explicitly for both Dugin and the Putin state to be referred to explicitly as fascist: In the Russia of the 21st century, “anti-fascism” simply became the right of a Russian leader to define national enemies. Actual Russian fascists, such as Aleksandr Dugin and Aleksandr Prokhanov, were given time in mass media. And Mr. Putin himself has drawn on the work of the interwar Russian fascist Ivan Ilyin. For the president, a “fascist” or a “Nazi” is simply someone who opposes him or his plan to destroy Ukraine. Ukrainians are “Nazis” because they do not accept that they are Russians and resist. A time traveler from the 1930s would have no difficulty identifying the Putin regime as fascist. [2] (emphasis added) Generalrelative (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snyder is not a fascism scholar and has little influence as an historian other than to popularize unconventional views for a wide audience. Your link is to an opinion piece, not an academic paper. If it were, then we could see what if any reception it had.
It trivializes fascism to call every foreign leader who has disputes with the West a fascist. Where are the colored shirts, the Putin youth, the concentration camps, the extra-legal courts, the omnipresent party, the murders of thousands of political opponents, the leader's manifesto?
Stalinists defined fascism as authoritarian capitalism, but while many may use that definition, it's not generally accepted today.
TFD (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, you and I have disagreed about this in the past. Snyder is indeed an expert on fascism in the Eastern European context. Dismissive comments about the scholarly influence of someone who holds a named chair at Yale only serve to undercut your credibility. In any case, I'm not interested in going back and forth with you on that. If others would like to weigh in I will be happy to respond. Generalrelative (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say he is not an expert, just that he is not an expert on fascism. I will quote Richard J. Evans, who is an expert on fascism: "But few who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder. The majority of genuine specialists, including the historians Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, agree that whatever else he is, Trump is not a fascist."[3] And if his opinions had weight, then they would mentioned in textbooks about fascism, which they aren't.
Being an expert in a field means that you have submited your research and conclusions to academic publication, which Snyder has not done. And please read the commentary by Laruelle, who is Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at George Washington University, and an expert (i.e., published in academic papers and books), about the rise of populism in Europe. She actually had her book Is Russia Fascist? published by the Cornell University Press.
It should be obvious to anyone that has studied any subject, that the people who write the texts that students are told to read in university courses are more reliable and closer to academic consensus than newspaper editorials.
TFD (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One might not expect it, judging from the tone, but this is actually a productive exchange. Leaving aside the question of who counts as a fascism expert (I won't rehash our previous argument, or the context of Evans' sour grapes –– interested parties can search the Fascism talk page –– or list the extensive peer-reviewed work that Snyder has done on the Holocaust), it is especially noteworthy that Marlène Laruelle, whom you correctly cite as a critic of Snyder and others who see the Putin regime as fascist, does in fact readily describe Aleksandr Dugin as holding fascist views –– per the source I cited below [4]. When academics who disagree quite vociferously on a number of related matters can agree on this, that's pretty strong evidence that Dugin is "widely seen" in this way. Generalrelative (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of Snyder's scholarly writings from his website. Not all of the works were published by the academic press or peer-reviewed. I don't know if you could say he has extensive peer reviewed work on the Holocaust, but being a Holocaust expert does not make one an expert on fascism or vice versa.
Laruelle begins the section "FASCISM, CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM" by saying, "The connections between Dugin’s ideas and fascism have been a subject of much debate." She then attempts to explain what the connection is.
I do not doubt that Dugin is heavily influenced by fascism, praises fascism and has views similar to their's. That should all be in the article. But iz think we should avoid calling someone a fascist when that is a minority opinion at best in reliable sources.
I think the attempt to label people fascist is often used as an argumentum ad hominem. Fascism after all is a threat that must be destroyed at all costs. So we see the term used more liberally in polemical writing than in academic literature, so it comes to mean any anti-democrat who isn't a communist. But that robs us of a unique term to describe the inter-war regimes of central Europe.
TFD (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. We established there are 20,000 articles about this guy. How does "an academic counterpoint" help? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 22:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the correct approach. Googling and counting results does not mean much. Perhaps some of them mentioned fascist to discuss the concept without actually saying he was a fascist. Taking good scholars that express a view is a good approach to verify a view and properly attribute the view in a concrete manner. This allows to actually read the context and see whether the scholars consider that he is so much known for his fascist views that it deserves to be mentioned as the first sentence in the lead. Of course, and perhaps this is what L'Origine du monde has in mind, we must also consider what other scholars have said and make sure that due weight is respected. In particular, what TFD wrote suggests that Snyder is not representative of other scholars. Still, the idea is to look what specific scholars have written. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFD simply asserted that Snyder is not representative of other scholars. I assert that TFD is incorrect. Sorting this out would require a bit of exposition. First of all, we currently have Anton Shekhovtsov (both [5] and [6]), Alan Ingram [7] and John B. Dunlop [8] cited in the article where we say that Dugin's views are widely characterized as fascist. To this could be added Andreas Umland, a rather more prominent scholar than the previous three (see e.g. [9] and [10]; quote from the latter: Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent advocate of fascist and anti-Western views, has risen from a fringe ideologueto deeply penetrate into Russian governmental offices, mass media, civil society and academia in ways that many in the West do not realize or understand.) Indeed, even Marlène Laruelle, whom TFD cites approvingly above, takes the view that Dugin therefore advances a positive reading of fascism, and does not denounce Nazism, even though he condemns its racism. [11] There is some salutary nuance to her argument, but on the whole she comes down on the side of historians who see substantive continuity between Dugin’s thought and historical fascism. I’m going to leave off for now because I have other things to do. More will be forthcoming if there is any serious question as to whether these views represent mainstream scholarship. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that Snyder's views were not representative of "other" fascism scholars, I said he is not a fascism scholar. Furthermore, whether or not is views on Dugin are shared by experts is a red herring. I might agree with fascism experts that Mussolini was a fascist. That doesn't make me an expert. TFD (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not arguing that Snyder's take on Dugin is in some way fringe, what is your point? I'm highly dubious that the community at large would agree with you that Snyder isn't an expert on this topic –– he is, rather, the kind of gold-standard source we look to per WP:RS –– but in any case it seems perhaps we can leave that argument aside if it isn't germane to the present debate. Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that TFD is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Snyder is published in a journal that reliably represents a scientific body (if we decide to restrict the article to that kind of sources). For example, if scholars (not only one) presented a POV in well known Russian journals, this POV would be admissible. Of course, the fact that the journals are Russian, etc. should be part of the attribution so that the readers can make their own opinion. The general point here is that the POVs on Dugin might not be unifonorm among scholars. There might not be a single POV that represents mainstream scholarship. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:L'Origine du monde, articles by non-experts are not reliable sources for the conclusions they reach. While they are reliable sources for the opinions of their writers, they lack weight for inclusion in this article unless cited in secondary sources. Furthermore, as a BLP, poorly sourced material should be immediately removed. TFD (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what you mean about experts. I thought Wikipedia was based on concensus as represented in reliable sources, such as newspapers. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 00:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: It should be obvious to anyone that has studied any subject, that the people who write the texts that students are told to read in university courses are more reliable and closer to academic consensus than newspaper editorials. Perhaps you only meant to say that the article should rely on academic sources, because you feel that it should not be about opinions given in news media. I agree that some subjects are best covered by academic sources, but I don't think there is a general rule to decide when that is the case. It is something that editors must decide among themselves. I feel too that this subject would be best covered by academic sources, but I disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as an academic consensus: even in the academic world, there might exist various opinions on a subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is academic consensus on many things, and these can be treated as facts in articles. There are of course cases where there is academic debate, in which case articles say something like "most experts consider/do not consider Dugin to be fascist." I am not saying we should only rely on academic sources, but that we should follow policy and guidelines. WP:NEWSORG for example says that newspaper columns (which is where Snyder published his views), even if published in reputable news sources such as the New York Times, are rarely reliable for facts. An exception might be if it is written by an expert, but Snyder isn't a fascism expert.
If on the other hand we treat Snyder's conclusions as an opinion, then WP:WEIGHT requires us to explain how accepted his opinion on Dugin is, which should be sourced to secondary sources. We could say for example that Snyder has popularized the view of Dugin as a fascist.
I think it is very important to distinguish the possible things we can say:
Dugin is a fascist.
Dugin is generally considered to be a fascist.
Some experts consider Dugin to be a fascist.
Dugin is often described as a fascist in news reporting, although that view has little support among actual fascism experts.
TFD (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I agree with TFD that academic consensus is a real thing. Obviously. Per e.g. WP:YESPOV we avoid stating facts as though they were opinions.
2) I'm not convinced that the academic consensus here is strong enough for "Dugin's views are fascist" but I think I've made it clear –– even with the very incomplete sampling of some of the literature I presented above –– that we can establish using only peer-reviewed academic sources that his views are "widely characterized" as such. That's a slightly lower bar and it is easily met in this case. I'm okay with including some newspaper sources too, or not. But that's really beside the point. The status quo language is both verifiable and due.
3) TFD, constantly repeating the claim that Snyder is not a "fascism expert" is beginning to feel like WP:POINTy editing. But whatever. You do you. Ignoring all the other references I've presented –– including one of your own favored sources, Marlène Laruelle –– is not going to be a persuasive strategy however. As I stated above, when two scholars such as Snyder and Laruelle, who disagree vociferously on a number of closely related topics, can agree on this, that's a sign that it's the mainstream view. Generalrelative (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to recognize that there are fascism experts who among other things have developed definitions of the subject that are widely accepted not just by them but among historians and social scientists generally. In Political Ideologies (OUP 2017), which is a textbook, the fascism scholar Aristotle Kallis refers to Roger Griffin's "now classic definition of generic fascism": "an ideology of 'palingenetic populist right ultra-nationalism.'"[12] He and other experts have then tried to determine which ideologies and movements fall within this so-called "consensus theory of fascism," which again determine how the subject is taught in schools.
Of course other writers can and do question their definition or what should be included, but I don't expect that we should provide as much weight to their views unless they publish academic papers and gain acceptance from other experts. I really do think there is more rigor in a paper published in a major journal and a column in the New York Times. In fact the discussion has come up with various public intellectuals including Paul Krugman, Sean Wilentz, Arthur C. Brooks, Michael Ignatieff, Noam Chomsky and others, who all contributed substantially to their areas of expertise. And most editors thought that their academic writings were preferable to their articles and books written for the popular press.
I mentioned Laruelle because she is perhaps the leading expert on Dugin. In fact rather than Google search and cherry-pick, I looked for the most relevant book on the subject and first came upon Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. Until today, I was not familiar with Dugin or Laruelle, although I was aware of National Bolshevism and fascism claims against Putin. But that's what I do if I what to know more about a subject, look for a source that is accurate, relatively unbiased and recognized as such by other experts, rather than newspaper opinion pieces or the analysis of news reporters.
Having said that, news analysis, opinion pieces and popularized non-fiction play an important role in introducing people to topics and stimulating debate. When I was a teenager, I read H.G. Wells' world history, the Durants' world history series and Shirer's book on the Third Reich. And although they were better written than any of my textbooks, they were not as reliable or neutral.
TFD (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lengthy discussion with several different warring ideas, but to a general Wiki-layman such as myself I think it'd be best to change the formatting of the phrase to something in passive voice (uncertain if this is a huge faux pas), such as "generally considered to be a fascist", as it doesn't sound so definite but still carries weight. Especially compared to open Nazis like Francis Parker Yockey, and especially in a BLP. Lucksash (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 35 mentions of Fascist or Fascism in the article, and 12 mentions of Communist or Communism. A priori this seems an excessive use of Fascist/Fascism. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firefangledfeathers I suddenly thought to do to your google scholar search what you did to mine. "Alexander Dugin" "fascist" gives only 920 results, as opposed to 3.390 for "Alexander Dugin". Does that mean that 73% of articles that mention Alexander Dugin don't mention Fascist? If so, would you agree that this article uses Fascist too much?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 00:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the derivative words of "fascist" are potential worthwhile hits: fascism, fascistic, etc. That's what distinguishes it from "traditionalism" and "neo-Eurasianism". Again, all of these suffer from the usual ills of evidence based on search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers in that case I don't understand why derivative words of "traditionalism" and "neo-Eurasianism" aren't worthwhile. We have established, I think, that less than half the articles which mention Dugin mention any form of Fascist word in any context, and that less than 27% call him a fascist.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 04:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Traditional", "tradition", "Eurasia", and "Eurasian" are unwanted results. If you add [OR "traditionalist] you get up to 655 results. Adding [OR "neo-Eurasianist"], that results increase to 638. I wouldn't say that Google tests like this "establish" much in this case, but they can help focus our attention on areas where a rigorous source review is worthwhile. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

transcript from dugin's controversial interview

Since youtube deletes it for allegedly being hate speech.

Фразы "Украинцев нужно убивать, убивать и убивать" на видео нет, это вброс. Реальная стенограмма:"Вот эти погибшие герои в доме профсоюзов, они уже решение своё сделали. Они пали за свободу Юго-Востока Украины от неонацисткой киевской мрази. Я думаю что Украинцем сегодня быть, честно говоря, после этого, я сам украинец, вы знаете? У меня есть... У меня предки из Полтавы. Мне стыдно. Просто мне стыдно за ту, но всё же существенную часть своей крови. Я хочу чтоб эта кровь была очищена кровью мрази, киевской хунты, и я на самом деле не могу носить в себе эту украинскую кровь пока я не увижу казнённых ублюдков творивших беззаконие 2-го мая. Это серьёзно. Это голос крови. На самом деле я бы не шутил с такими вещами. И я полагаю что никакого права эта гадина на какую-то западную украинскую государственность с центром Киевом. Я понимаю что Юго-Восток не будет никогда в этом ублюдочном государстве. Но никакого права эти люди контролировать даже западную Украину не имеют. И им, пока они на земле, пока всё зло что мы видим творится, никто спокойно спать не будет. Поэтому на самом деле только нормальные люди должны править эти прекрасным, на самом деле, некогда прекрасным украинским народом, это замечательной страной, с которой нас связывает всё. Просто пока Киев, пока в Киеве гниды, на самом деле, русский человек, человек который родом из киевской Руси, это наши корни, спокойно существовать не может. Либо действительно надо стереть с лица земли и заново построить, либо на самом деле люди должны придти в себя. Я думаю что в Украине, необходимо тотальное, на всех её территориях, на всех её областях, народное восстание. Вооружённое восстание против хунты. Не только на Юго-Востоке. Иначе, ведь тоже самое может произойти в Ужгороде, а русинов уже оккупировали такие же молодцы, оккупировали русинский дом где они собрались для решения своих совершенно спокойных проблем. Тоже самое уже нависло над венграми, в Подкарпатской Руси, над русскими, над всеми, на самом деле. Так и над Украинцами. Помните ведь над кем издевался Саня Билый, покойный? Над такими же украинцами как он, на самом деле это совершенно не какие-то инородцы. И что он начал творить? Его остановили. Но сейчас пришли ещё более страшные люди, — мы не видели зверств Сани Билого, он просто за галстук потаскал какого-то, очень безобразная была сцена. Но то что мы видим 2-го мая, это уже выходит за все пределы. И я думаю убивать, убивать и убивать. Больше разговоров никаких не должно быть. Как профессор я так считаю.

While Dugin calls Ukraine "bastard state" (this his position is well known), he calls for execution of "bastards who perpetrated lawlessness in May 2nd" and speaks of "more horrible people" who abuse Ukrainians themselves. - Altenmann >talk 04:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that he is an idiot for a professor and his removal was correct. - Altenmann >talk 04:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, he suggests to "wipe from the face of the Earth" [Ukraine] ("надо стереть с лица земли") and "kill, kill, kill" ("убивать, убивать и убивать") [Ukrainians]. Yes, he means Ukrainians, quite obviously from this text. In brief, this quotation is an anti-Ukrainian hate speech. Please do not interpret my comment as "anti-Russian". There are "political strategists" (aka "dirty tricksters") just like him in many countries. Sometimes, they even work together to achieve their common geopolitical ambitions. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious from context that he is talking about the perpetrators of the massacre in the Trade Union building in Odessa. It is ridiculous to extrapolate that to mean all Ukrainians. I mean, the Berkut at Maidan were also Ukrainian citizens and they were set on fire by the right-wing radicals in the square who also said repeatedly they should be liquidated ... so that means all Ukrainians, too? 67.187.30.225 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He tells "kill, kill, kill!", etc. Kill whom? He tells "У меня есть... У меня предки из Полтавы. Мне стыдно. Просто мне стыдно за ту, но всё же существенную часть своей крови. Я хочу чтоб эта кровь была очищена кровью мрази, киевской хунты, и я на самом деле не могу носить в себе эту украинскую кровь...". All this talk about the Ukrainian "blood" or ancestry he is ashamed of, the "voice of blood" (his expression) is exactly like talking about the blood purity by Nazi. This is not just Russian nationalism. This is a lot worse. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Close ties to the Kremlin and Russian military"

The whole Dugin hysteria was cooked up by Western media in response to the Crimea question and since then has in some circles been still held however its questionable whether Dugin has strong influence, if at all in Russian political circles.

A RAND study writes - "while Dugin is reported to have connections and ties with Russian officials, including the Russian military leadership, and although Russian leaders may cite his work or ideas, it does not appear that he is directly influential in Russian policymaking. He is perhaps best thought of as an extremist provocateur with some limited and peripheral impact than as an influential analyst with a direct impact on policy. He does not appear to have direct involvement with the major political parties—such as United Russia, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, and Rodina" PailSimon (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd like to see this brought up in the article somewhere. Maskettaman (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2012 he claimed to be having frequent meetings with Putin. Unless he was lying about these meetings it would be odd if he had frequent meetings but that these had no impact. GliderMaven (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PailSimon thank you for this info. I think RAND is a good source here 2603:8000:9600:9D30:205C:FCE:FED6:DA57 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 5 does not support the claim that Dugin has fascist views

Looks like he is talking about fascism, but talking about it does not equate support. Where does he endorse fascism in this quote?

"In Russian Orthodox [C]hristianity a person is a part of the Church, part of the collective organism, just like a leg. So how can a person be responsible for himself? Can a leg be responsible for itself? Here is where the idea of state, total state originates from. Also because of this, Russians, since they are Orthodox, can be the true fascists, unlike artificial Italian fascists: of Gentile type or their Hegelians. The true Hegelianism is Ivan Peresvetov – the man who in 16th century invented the oprichnina for Ivan the Terrible. He was the true creator of Russian fascism. He created the idea that state is everything and an individual is nothing". 2600:6C44:5500:30:5119:4392:EB45:AA2B (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MindWar Operative

What the hell is a "MindWar" operative and where are the sources for that claim? All I could find on it was conspiracy websites.

2600:1702:D30:24E0:C4DE:EACE:1C88:B43C (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gadojsb 2409:4054:206:4FD6:E558:9C59:14A1:743D (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Assassination Attempt?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11130731/Daughter-Ukraine-war-mastermind-blown-pieces-Moscow-car-bomb.html

So either they aimed at him, but got his daughter instead, or she was the target to punish him?2603:7080:CB3F:5032:ACD6:B8DE:A625:A04 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). So far the reliably sourced facts appear to be that Dugin's daughter died in a car explosion. If you or anyone else has a reliable source giving more detail, we can add it. But going beyond what reliable sources state would be a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Generalrelative (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1111:5940:BDF9:9A61:6629:EEF6 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. It might be big enough to warrant its own article? What do other people think? AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's the WP:NOTINHERITED and ONEEVENT issue. If folks can find reliable sources that predate her recent death then she might pass notability. Otherwise this is the place for any info on her. Volunteer Marek 09:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, I'm not talking about an article on Darya Dugin, but the assassination attempt on Aleksandr Dugin and the killing of Darya Dugin, so I don't think neither NOTINHERITED or ONEEVENT apply after reading both. Let me know what you think. I'm going to create a (very crude) draft on my sandbox in a bit, will link it here. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the (still completely undone) draft. Still completely a stub, but I have a feeling more info will come out, specially for the "aftermath" section. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources say definitely that "it was an assassination attempt on Dugin". They present this as a possibility/speculation. Too little is known at this point, even if it was in fact an assassination and by whom. Hence no, this belongs to page Darya Dugina. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, that page was recently created and I wasn't aware it existed when I made the comment, so I agree, if she has an article it might be better suited there. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, quick search does bring sources calling it an assassination attempt though:

Until this weekend, the most high-profile assassination attempt to have taken place in Russia in recent years was [...]
— NYT

— AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62621509
  2. ^ https://www.the-sun.com/news/6044224/darya-dugina-sanctioned-daughter-putins-spiritual-guide-car-bomb/
  3. ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/darya-dugina-daughter-of-putin-propagandist-alexander-dugin-killed-in-car-bomb-reports-say
  4. ^ "Daughter of Putin ally Alexander Dugin killed by car bomb — investigators". DW. Reuters, AP, dpa. 21 August 2022.
  5. ^ Sands, Leo (21 August 2022). "Darya Dugina: Daughter of Putin ally killed in Moscow bomb". BBC News.
  6. ^ Harding, Luke (21 August 2022). "Daughter of Putin ally Alexander Dugin killed in car bomb in Moscow". The Guardian.
  7. ^ Osborne, Samuel (21 August 2022). "Daughter of Russian ultra-nationalist killed in suspected car bomb attack". Sky News.
  8. ^ Colás, Xavier (21 August 2022). "Muere en un atentado la hija de Dugin, el ideólogo de la revolución conservadora rusa". El Mundo.
  9. ^ "Muere en un supuesto ataque la hija de Alexander Dugin, ideólogo que inspira a Putin". El País. Reuters. 21 August 2022.
  10. ^ "Car bomb kills daughter of 'spiritual guide' to Putin's Ukraine invasion - Russian media". CNN. 21 August 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  11. ^ "Car explosion kills daughter of key Putin ally Alexander Dugin, Russia says". Washington Post. 21 August 2022. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  12. ^ Stubley, Peter (21 August 2022). "Darya Dugina, daughter of Russian nationalist linked to Putin, 'killed in car bomb'". The Sunday Times.

She was sanctioned by multiple governments before being blown up. Worked as a respected journalist. Probably deserves an article - maybe translate the Russian one as a start? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 13:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on his family

He may have not had a wife, but he dfeinately had a daughter. Rustygecko (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much attention

As a resident of Russia, I can say that Western journalists and politicians show an absurdly high attention to Dugin. His influence on Putin is close to zero, and in the country itself he is practically unknown. His views are extremely marginal and are not seriously discussed by anyone, and his work is little known even among the far right. The current policy of the country and some of Dugin's ideas just happened to coincide and nothing more. Dugin is not the inventor of Russian imperialism and revanchism; these ideas smoldered in society for a long time after losing the Cold War and the devastation of the 90s. 5.228.202.229 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - should " known for views widely characterized as fascist." end the first sentence of the article?

Should the first line read "Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian political philosopher,[6] analyst, and strategist, known for views widely characterized as fascist". ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 13:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion from 2016 - [13]♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many previous discussions of this –– at least eight –– including an active one at the top of this page. Why highlight only that one from 2016? Generalrelative (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative if there have been other specific discussions about the first sentence, or that you consider relevant, please link to them here. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait and see if others take this RfC seriously before participating substantively myself. It seems rather premature to me. Generalrelative (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As discussed below, this RfC is malformed and should probably be closed. However, since bolded quasi-!voting has begun, I've weighed in with some sources. Generalrelative (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed RFC: It's incredibly important context that the status quo is to describe him as known for his fascist views in Wikivoice. The RFC as proposed is to *soften* the language of the lead to views widely characterized as fascist. But people down in the comments are voting blind to that context, as if the RFC is to *harden* the language of the lead. This makes the RFC useless, since the question at issue is not clear. Loki (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Loki I think it is clear from the responses that most people can understand that the RFC is about including Fascist views in the first sentence. Unfortunately some people have been editing the first sentence while this discussion has been going on. If this is really unclear, I am happy to propose a new RFC - Should the first sentence avoid using the words Fascist, Nazi, Neo-Facist. or Neo-Nazi?'♥ L'Origine du monde ♥' Talk 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's obviously unclear from the responses what this RFC was about. The new question you've proposed isn't even the same thing as the question of this RFC, so clearly even you're confused about what you're asking. Loki (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions RfC 21 August 2022

  • I think it's a bit too generic. Maybe something like "associated with Russian neo-nationalism, and according to some authors neo-fascist" FelipeFritschF (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was shocked to see the description as Fascist, backed by 7 cherrypicked sources, in the first sentences. The sources given do not give "Fascist views" as a primary description of Dugin, most RS do not describe his views as Fascist, and it is clear from the article body that he has views that are not Fascist. Google gives 22,100 results for ""Aleksandr Dugin" facist" and 517,000 results for "Aleksandr Dugin". If a characterisation of his views is needed in the first sentence, "far Right" would be more accurate and less emotive, although I think "Aleksandr Dugin is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist." sufficient for the first line. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. The quotes are provided in the citations. Stop denying reality. Stop trying to gaslight other editors. The very reason there's "excessive citations" - in other words, a ton of citations - is precisely because editors like you keep coming to this page and making ridiculous claims that sources don't call his views "fascist" when there's a ton of sources that do! This is ALSO why we keep having this absurd conversation over and over again, because some editors simply do not wish to follow our policies. Frankly, I think you should be topic banned for wasting our time with this WP:TENDENTIOUS RfC. Enough is enough. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek the quotes do not give "Fascist views" as a primary description of Dugin. That some sources describe his views as Fascist at some point is not the same thing at all.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 22:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re fine with just saying “a fascist philosopher” or “known for his fascist views”? What’s the point of view of this RfC then since that (second one) is the current wording? Volunteer Marek 03:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek as I wrote above "If a characterisation of his views is needed in the first sentence, "far Right" would be more accurate and less emotive, although I think "Aleksandr Dugin is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist." sufficient for the first line."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 04:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what you think. What I'm questioning is WHY you think it or what basis does your position have in either Wikipedia policy or just reality. There's a dozen sources that calls his views fascists. You keep trying to pretend that there aren't. Quotes are provided to you. You start deflecting and start talking about "characterizations" and try to claim with a straight face that if "sources describe his views as Fascist" then that's not the same thing "at all" as... sources describing his views as fascist. ??? ??? ??? Please stop wasting other editors' time. This is WP:NOTHERE territory. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek I do not see the connection between 12 sources describing his views as Fascist and the need for that to appear in the first sentence. There are thousands of sources on this philosopher and I think most of them don't mention Fascist at all. I think somebody has specially searched for sources that they think describe his views as Fascist.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 06:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the connection between 12 sources describing his views as Fascist and the need for that to appear in the first sentence Yeah. That's the whole freakin' problem. What you are saying is that you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTHERE (and no, there are not "thousands of sources on this philosopher" and what you think they do or do not mention is irrelevant if you don't provide evidence) Volunteer Marek 06:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the meme says, "why not both"? He's both. Fascist. And ultranationalist. Sources call him both. We'll use both. Both. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a generalization cannot be expressed in WP voice. In that sentence, WP is saying in its own voice "... known for views ...", but known by who? Do all far right people know him as a fascist? The term "fascist" is not neutral, because it is typically used in a pejorative manner (though not always). POVs that are not neutral are admissible, of course, but they must be properly attributed. The sentence "... known for views ..." does not do it. Moreover, the information should be complete otherwise there is a lost of neutrality by omission. Say, if a source presents Dugin as a fascist in a positive manner, then, for completeness, this should be conveyed in the article. The idea is that if being more complete in the way we report a source conveys a totally different perspective on Dugin, then it's not neutral to only provide the partial information. (A source can be discarded as non relevant, but if it used, the essence of what the source says should be respected.) Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh ffs. Of course we can express it in WP voice because that's what reliable sources say. This is WP:V, WP:RS 101.22:15, User:Volunteer Marek 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, sure. That is what he is known for. As was discussed previously on this talk page and according to sources, Dugin is "a good old-fashioned mystical fascist of the sort that kind of flourished after World War I" [14]. Moreover, he is pretty much a self-defined fascist. If someone openly says "Heil Waffen SS!", there is little we can do about it. For example, as noted here [15] (a convenient source on "fringe" and pseudoscience), "The open devotion to Nazism in Dugin’s thought is remarkable. In his writings he celebrates the Waffen SS—murderers of millions of Russians during the war—as an ideal organization." and so on. Adding more details about his views in the lead - yes, why not? My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a majority views him that way, it must still be attributed. It is a political and social non neutral opinion that must be attributed accordingly. If the term used was more neutral, happily used by most far right people to describe Dugin's views in this WP article, the need for attribution would be smaller. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead does not say "he is a fascist" (I agree: it would not be appropriate). It says: he "is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist, known for his fascist and ultranationalist views" [refs]. That is a fair description. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "... known for his fascist ...", but known by who? It's not really an attribution. It's almost equivalent to say "..., with fascist ...", because there is no real attribution. If "he is a fascist" is not appropriate, "he has fascist views" is not better. The purpose of the attribution is to make it neutral, but there must be a real attribution. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest to rephrase? How exactly? This RfC is meaningless because it does not propose any alternative text. If the answer is "no", i.e. the current text should be modified (sure, every version is wrong version), then what should we do? Apparently, nothing. Just removing this phrase will create nonsense in the lead.My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us propose one. I did that before. I think it's presumptious to jump at a fascist attribution, even if it is a significant one. Note him being an ultranationalist (I don't think many people dispute that), then add that he is also seen by some as fascist, while sourcing it appropriately. Maybe neo-imperialist too. Notably, Dugin denies being a nationalist. I'd argue he only does that because ironically enough within contemporary Russian nationalist discourse, "nationalism" is a bad word since it is almost necessarily associated with [ethnic] separatist nationalism, particularly from the Russian ethnic minorities and republics. We might want to make note of this somewhat. FelipeFritschF (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking more at sources and listening views by historians (e.g. [16]), it is pretty obvious that Dugin is simply a fascist, and he always was a fascist starting from his young years. He defines himself as a fascist (see above); this is not just views by others. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it has been discussed before, perhaps a new one is ideal as there are a lot of new articles now. Mellk (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC- should " known for views widely characterized as fascist." end the first sentence of the article proposes deleting the political description from the end of the description in the first sentence. Is this unclear? Should I edit the text at the beginning? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 20:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you need to propose and discuss with others new suggested text prior to posting new RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably no - Since there is a plurality of ways in which he is described by RSs, maybe his ideology should not appear at all in the first sentence, and instead a separate sentence early in the lede can more fully explain the labels academic and media sources use when discussing him. PraiseVivec (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. I was checking the sources, and they don't mention (at least the ones I checked, I didn't check all of them there are too many), that he is known for his fascist views. I would either change it to mention that his views are ultranationalist or something like that, if sources support it. Specially this being a bio article, per MOS:LABEL I think it should be removed.

    The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."
    — George Orwell, 1946

    AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adrian, I can see that you're giving yourself a bit of wiggle room by saying "I didn't check them all of them" but as has been pointed out many many many .... many many many many many times it is simply NOT TRUE that the sources "don't mention" his "fascist views". There were direct quotes provided in this discussion (among many others). There are quotes in the citations! The sources mention his fascist views all over the place! It's right there in plain black and white. And it has been provided to you on a platter to see. The fact that both you and the initiator of this RfC, User:User:L'Origine du monde, are both sitting there and pretending like sources don't say it is about as blatant and obnoxious engagement in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEND as I've ever seen. This kind of behavior really is into blockable territory since it's impossible to have a good faith discussion with people who will just sit there and shamelessly deny reality when it's right there, stark and obvious, and easy for every one to see. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek please calm down and avoid personal attacks. AdrianHObradors said that the sources don't mention "that he is known for his fascist views."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 22:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a discussion in the archives from ... 2016 [17]. Here is my comment in that discussion, from 2016 [18]: This has also been discussed to death before.. I made that comment six years ago! Did I mention this has been discussed to death? User:Volunteer Marek 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek 6 years ago you said this has also been discussed to death before. It hadn't and that is not an healthy approach to editing. Please briefly explain why you think the first sentence should refer to Fascist views, assuming that is the point you are trying to make.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been explained many times. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell this is the first RFC about this issue. Please explain how using "Fascist views" as a label for a Russian thinker in the 21st Century is simple or direct language.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."
— George Orwell, 1946

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 23:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An irrelevant, out-of-context quotes from Orwell only serves to highlight that this RFC is farce. Reliable sources have described Dugin's views as fascist. Neither fascism in general nor Dugin's barely differentiated version of fascism are coherent or falsifiable. Therefore, any attempt by editors to dispute reliable sources is especially misguided, at best. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, fascism "signifies" what reliable sources say it does. No more, no less. Don't ping me again, please. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell if you would engage with this RFC in simple or direct language perhaps we could reduce the farce. Nobody is disputing that a minority of reliable sources have described Dugin's views as fascist somewhere in their texts. This RFC is about whether "Fascist views" should be in the first sentence of this article. Please explain why you think it should.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 00:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that a minority of reliable sources have... You just made that "minority" part up. There is a ton of sources here, an objective, observable fact that you keep denying with a straight face. THIS why the text has had "excessive citations" - because some people show up and simply try to deny reality so you have to make sure it's right there and obvious by including more citations than is necessary. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the sources describe him as a fascist directly so it should just call him a fascist directly rather than dance around the label like in the proposal. Keep in mind it's irrelevant if you disagree with the label of fascist, it's up to RS to qualify him as one not random editors. XeCyranium (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No' I don't see the necessary sources for a serious claim like this. One editor quotes an interview with David von Drehle, who is a journalist with an MA in literature, who calls him "a good old-fashioned mystical fascist of the sort that kind of flourished after World War I." I think we should appreciate that fascism studies is a serious academic field with a body of literature published by the academic press which we should and must prefer to comments made by journalists in interviews. So I agree the sources provided are cherry-picked. TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the fact that you've been introduced in the section above to numerous peer-reviewed academic sources –– including one of the "fascism experts" you attempted to trot out –– explicitly describing Dugin's views as fascist, this !vote verges on WP:IDHT territory. And picking out what "one editor quotes" while ignoring the stronger arguments above is pretty transparently a form of cherry-picking. Generalrelative (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes  Are you kidding? This “philosopher” called for genocide for “political” reasons. “Ukrainians must be killed, killed, killed! I tell you this as a professor.” There is no more extreme degree of nationalist/right/far-right/ultra-right/fascist expression than this. —Michael Z. 02:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true, judging from the transcript which has been posted above on this talk page, in 2014 he said, in response to the death of 42 anti-Maidan protestors in the Trade Unions House fire "And I think to kill and kill and kill. There shouldn't be any more talk. As a professor, I think so." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s true, judging from the transcript. His May 2014 speech is full of disinformation and denigration of Ukrainians, saying while there are these nits in Kyiv, Russian people cannot exist in peace and needs to wipe them off the face of the earth, and ends with: “kill, kill, kill. There should be no more talking. As a professor, this is how I think.” His university fired him for it.
    • And to dispel any doubt in kind people like yourself, in August 2014: “Ukraine should be cleared of the idiots. Genocide of the cretins is suggested. The evil cretins are closed to the Voice of the Logos, and deadly with all their incredible stupidity. I do not believe that these are Ukrainians. Ukrainians are beautiful Slavic people. This kind of appeared out of manholes as a bastard race.
    • He was also a founding member of the National Bolshevik Party before it was outlawed, and convener of extremist conferences. There is no more fascist figure in modern Russian fascism.
    • Rashism: Dugin “argued that Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning", "no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness", "[its] certain territorial ambitions represen[t] an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics".”
    • “Dugin hailed what he saw as the arrival of a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism" in Russia, in an article titled "Fascism – Borderless and Red"; previously in 1992, he had in another article defended "fascism" as not having anything to do with "the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism", stating in contrast that "Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes."”
    Is there a single living Russian more fascist than Dugin? —Michael Z. 20:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there is a widely recognised inherent correlation between opposition to Ukrainian independence and Fascism. The fact that he wrote about Fascism doesn't make him a Fascist either IMO. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - ok, it seems that now there’s a bit of a bait and switch being attempted with this RfC. A couple editors - Adrian, L’origin du Monte and TFD - are claiming to oppose the wording “characterized as fascist” (or “described as fascist”). Apparently because the sources … characterize Dugin’s views as fascist rather than state “his views have been characterized as fascist”. In light of this argument it seems pertinent to ask these editors - are they fine with simply describing Dugin or Dugin’s views as “fascist”, without the qualifier “characterized as”? Yes? Ok, then why the RfC since that is actually the current wording? No? Then it’s obvious that this is just WP:GAME bad faithed argument, and the actual objection is to the word “fascist” appearing at all. Since it’s impossible to deny that a whole lotta sources describe Dugin’s views as fascist (though that was tried above too) the argument becomes a not-so-sneaky piece of sophistry that we should remove any description as fascists because sources… characterize Dugin’s views as fascist but don’t say that the views have been characterized as fascist. Yes, I know that’s a total logical pretzels which is why the whole thing is so ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 03:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek this RFC is about Fascist being mentioned in the first line. That is, I hope, clear to other editors from the title.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you trying to pretend that sources don’t call his views fascist? Like, explicitly. The quotes are provided and are right there for everyone to see yet you and a couple others are playing this stupid game where the argument is “well sources say his views ARE fascist but they don’t say that they are ‘characterized’ as fascists so we can’t put in fascist at all”. Come on. Why are we wasting our time - again, for like a millionth time - on this? Volunteer Marek 06:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this RFC is about Fascist being mentioned in the first line Then reword (or actually start a new one, since this one's screwed) the RfC appropriately. Like I said, it very much looks like you ask ONE question in the RfC, essentially misleading potential commentators, and then interpret the RfC in a DIFFERENT way. Volunteer Marek 06:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Let's examine some of the sources already discussed above and/or quoted in the article.
    1) Marlène Laruelle, “Aleksandr Dugin: A Russian Version of the European Radical Right?” Kennan Institute Occasional Papers 294 (2006): Dugin therefore advances a positive reading of fascism, and does not denounce Nazism, even though he condemns its racism. [19]
    2) Andreas Umland, "Fascist Tendencies in Russia's Political Establishment: The Rise of the International Eurasian Movement", Russian Analytical Digest, 60 (2009): Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent advocate of fascist and anti-Western views, has risen from a fringe ideologue to deeply penetrate into Russian governmental offices, mass media, civil society and academia in ways that many in the West do not realize or understand. [20]
    3) Anton Shekhovtsov, "The Palingenetic Thrust of Russian Neo-Eurasianism: Ideas of Rebirth in Aleksandr Dugin's Worldview", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 9/4 (2008) Numerous studies reveal Dugin – with different degrees of academic cogency – as a champion of fascist and ultranationalist ideas, a geopolitician, an 'integral Traditionalist', or a specialist in the history of religions. . . . This paper is not aimed at offering an entirely new conception of Dugin and his political views, though it will, hopefully, contribute to a scholarly vision of this political figure as a carrying agent of fascist Weltanschauung. [21]
    4) Alan Ingram, "Alexander Dugin: geopolitics and neo-fascism in post-Soviet Russia", Political Geography 20/8 (2001): Although his overall worldview is still defined by neo-fascist concerns, he has been able to perform the role of the ‘geopolitical expert’ within the Russian Duma and for sections of the Russian media, and it is noteworthy that elements of his Eurasianism have found their way into public discourse. [22]
    5) John B. Dunlop, Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics, The Europe Center, Stanford University / Demokratizatsiya 12/1 (2004): By summer 2001, Aleksandr Dugin, a neo-fascist ideologue, had managed to approach the center of power in Moscow, having formed close ties with elements in the presidential administration, the secret services, the Russian military, and the leadership of the state Duma.
    Emphasis added. Note too that each of these academic sources predates the Trump administration and the supposed contemporary "panic" over Putinism. This is, rather, just mainstream scholarship. Generalrelative (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of sources most of which don't call him a fascist. 1 of these sources seems to call him a neo-Fascist, not a Fascist another says that he has neo-fascist concerns. The first doesn't seem to say that his ideas are fascist, and the remaining 2 use fascist in combination with other descriptions. Can you explain why you want to include "Fascist views" in the first sentence?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 04:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the first article. It doesn't say that he has Fascist views - here is the conclusion. "His originality lies precisely in his attempt to create a revolutionary nationalism refreshed by the achievements of 20th century Western thought, fully accepting the political role these ideas played between the two world wars. Therefore, in his opposition to American globalization, Dugin unintentionally contributes to the internationalization of identity discourse and to the uniformization of those theories that attempt to resist globalization."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 05:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're pretending that the requirement is that ALL sources must call his views fascist to be included rather than the Wikipedia policy threshold that there are a non-trivial amount of sources that do so. And offer some empty assertions about "thousands of sources" (really? which ones?) which apparently you've read, all thousand of them, and concluded that "most" don't call his views fascist. Thousand sources, huh? You must have a spreadsheet and must have spend a decade reading them. Of course, we're expected to just take your word for it. Not how this works.
And then on top of that, you have the audacity to claim that a source which EXPLICITLY calls his views "fascist", after you've been provided with a quote, "doesn't say that he has fascist views". Here it is again: Dugin therefore advances a positive reading of fascism, and does not denounce Nazism, even though he condemns its racism. The whole article is about how Dugin's views are fascist with some subtleties (since there are several flavors of fascism). You. Are. Trying. To. Gas. Light. Us. Stop it. Volunteer Marek 06:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek please direct me to the Wikipedia policy that says that anything mentioned by a non-trivial amount of sources must be mentioned in the first sentence of the lede. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 06:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV. WP:LEDE. WP:V. WP:RS. I'm not interested in playing stupid games. Volunteer Marek 06:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to explicitly exclude contentious labels from the first sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies'_first_sentence
The first sentence should usually state:
  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also WP:NCNOB). Handling of the subject's name is covered under MOS:NAMES.
  2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
  3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
  4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
  5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)
♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 07:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels
=== Contentious labels ===

{Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial ...

}}
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 07:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, can you please refrain from trying to make your comments "bigger" than everyone else. I'm tempted to simply remove your comment as you making it SUPER BIG is a clear violation of WP:TALK but I'll give you a chance to make the correction first. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another academic source which is explicitly devoted to describing how Dugin is a fascist and his views are fascist [23] Aleksandr Dugin’s transformation from a lunatic fringe figure into a mainstream political publicist, 1980–1998: A case study in the rise of late and post-Soviet Russian fascism in Journal of Eurasian Studies. Why do we have to go through this again and again and again? Volunteer Marek 06:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek have you read that article? The text doesn't call him a Fascist, it is only in the title, and it ends "This brief survey is neither an intellectual biography nor a discourse analysis. It aims to make a contribution to the growing literature on the Russian “New Right” by way of detailing some of the circumstances within which its leading ideologist Aleksandr Dugin made his first steps as a translator, writer and publisher."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 06:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ffs, the text 100% calls him a fascist! The whole freakin article is about his fascism! It's about how he developed his fascist ideas! Stop. Gaslighting. People. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the guy wrote a manifesto titled Fascism - Borderless and Red where he "critiques" "past fascisms" (Italy Spain etc) for not being "pure" enough and lays out his framework for his new, Russian, "pure" fascism. [24]. None of this is in any way in dispute in serious sources - only people who pretend Dugin isn't a fascist are his internet fanboys - nor is it in any way controversial. That's why the million discussions we've had over this for 8 years running are such a colossal waste of time. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marek, you've convinced me! I hadn't been aware of this text. Unless it's inauthentic or something, the first sentence does indeed need to say "known for his fascist views" rather than e.g. "known for views characterized as fascist" as I'd previously advocated. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "fan boy", but I know that biographical wikipedia articles are not supposed to start with contentious terms like Fascist. It reads wrong. That is why people have been arguing with you for 8 years, because you have been pushing a point of view in a way which goes against policy.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 08:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "contentious". There's a dozen reliable, academic, sources which say it. You're just pretending otherwise. What does "it reads wrong" mean? WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? You can look through the accounts that have been arguing similarly to you over the past 8 years. Most of them are either fly-by-night-SPA's or they're banned. Volunteer Marek 12:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Fascist is specifically listed as a contentious term in the manual of style. Such terms should be avoided, and should only be used with in-text attribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies'_first_sentence. If you don't understand what is meant by contentious, please read the manual of style where it is explained. It reads wrong means that it doesn't follow wikipedia style, as clearly explained in the manual.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 14:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s “to be avoided” IF there aren’t more than a dozen sources which say exactly this!!! Volunteer Marek 06:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style does not say that you can use a contentious term in the first sentence of a biography if you can find 12 sources that used it somewhere in an article about the subject. It says you can use a contentious term with attribution.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 20:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit it with these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerable sympathy for Volunteer Marek's frustration. This issue, in reality, seems incredibly simple. Dugin does expouse fascist views. That is the clear and overwhelming consensus one gets from a fair reading of the sources. I can detect no real dispute or debate about this. Indeed, it seems that Dugin himself openly aligns himself with fascism (leaving aside nuances as to what particular kind of fascism he aligns himself with). This article should therefore say that Dugin is "known for his fascist views" (as it currently does) because that is what the sources clearly establish.Telanian7790 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sourcing is sufficient is call his views fascist, but the sourcing is not sufficient to state that he is known for fascist views. Is he notable for simply having fascist views? No, this needs to be clarified. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I'm not a fan of "known for" formulations. Something like "with views widely characterized as fascist" would be better. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, or something quite close. This RfC seems flawed, but the wording is OK and broadly supported by scholarly sources. As per Firefangledfeathers, something like "with views widely characterized as fascist" would be best. This does not require us to verify that this is what he is "known for". Yes, not every scholarly article defines him as fascist, but the most authoritative ones do and I don't really see any offered here that refute that. He might also be characterised in other ways too (traditionalist, neo-traditionalist, ultra-nationalist, etc) but that's as well not instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense, I haven't seen sources disputing the "fascist" label (if there are, then if someone could present it would be useful), but it might also be preferable to include other labels alongside "fascist", e.g. "with views widely characterized as fascist or ultranationalist". Mellk (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with including "ultranationalist" in addition to "fascist" is that the latter entails the former according to pretty much every mainstream definition. So "fascist and ultranationalist" is not wrong, it's just redundant. Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Generalrelative, I agree with you that it is redundant, yet I think adding only ultranationalist keeps the article free of using WP:CONTENTIOUS labels, and still provides the same information. That is why I would err to that side, as the word fascist (even if the guy is an actual fascist), as George Orwell said, has nowadays lost all meaning and will probably be perceived more as a loaded term to any reader that comes than as an actual definition. Having many other words that don't have that problem and still classify him as a fascist and define him well, I think we should use them instead.
    Also I do have a bit of a problem with "known for his * views". Is that what he is known for? I would rather put "with * views". — AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that Dugin being a fascist is actually contentious among scholars. So in this case avoiding the term would be a violation of policy, i.e. WP:NPOV –– whereas WP:CONTENTIOUS is simply a guideline, exceptions to which we should expected to see from time to time. Can you (or anyone here) show us a serious academic source that considers this question and doesn't come down on the side of "yeah, dude is a fascist"? If so, we can have a discussion about how best to balance competing perspectives. But if not, this really is an open-and-shut case. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Generalrelative, I don't think we should avoid the word fascist on the whole article, as as you said among scholars Dugin is considered fascist. We should, as the WP:CONTENTIOUS says, use in-text attribution. I believe it to be the simplest and most elegant solution. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't always find a direct denial of a false claim. His views are complex and different sources describe them differently- here are three descriptions from scholarly articles. "Here I argue that, despite the historically conflictual relationships between geopolitics and fascism, Dugin can in certain ways be considered a neo-fascist as well as a geopolitician." It also mentions his reliance on Alaistair Crowley - I hope it will not be suggested to add Satanist to the first line. [[25]] This article . Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? "Neo-Eurasianism" and Perennial Philosophy. Russian Review, 68(4), 662–678. doi:10.2307/20621114 Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland (2009) doesn't seem to call him a fascist, but says "Sedgwick's book was the first extensive scholarly attempt to analyze Duginism through the lens of Integral Traditionalism, and this explains why his conclusions have been reproduced in subsequent scholarly studies of Dugin and "neo-Eurasianism." do not think that equates to the simplicity of "known for his Fascist views" in the first line, although it leaves plenty of room to enlarge the article. My third example Confronting the International Political Sociology of the New Right Rita Abrahamsen, Jean-François Drolet, Alexandra Gheciu, Karin Narita, Srdjan Vucetic, Michael WilliamsInternational Political Sociology, Volume 14, Issue 1, March 2020, Pages 94–107, https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olaa001Published: 11 February 2020 "Alexander Dugin, a leading Russian conservative intellectual, captures this desire to transcend an outdatedleft/right dichotomy in favor of an all-consuming struggle against global liberalism.A “possible anti-globalist and anti-imperialist front,” he argues, should include all “the forces that struggle against the West, the United States, against liberal democracy, and against modernity and post-modernity . . . This means Muslims and Christians, Russians and Chinese, both Leftists and Rightists, the Hindus and Jews whochallenge the present state of affairs, globalization and American imperialism" They are thus all virtually friends and allies” Generalrelative why do you believe that Fascist belongs in the very first line of this article, despite policy opposing such an inclusion, and the complex nature of Dugin's political beliefs? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 20:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I have already answered your question several times above. My view is that describing Dugin as a fascist is required by policy, i.e. WP:NPOV because this is overwhelmingly how reliable academic sources describe him. It is one of the most salient points of his notability, while simply being a traditionalist or a nationalist is not. In the future, please refrain from asking loaded questions such as why do you believe that Fascist belongs in the very first line of this article, despite policy opposing such an inclusion.
    2) I have now asked you several times, both here and on your talk page, to stop pinging me. Another editor has pointed out to you (on your talk page) that this is improper as well, since I have made it clear that I do not wish to be pinged.
    3) Please refer to WP:BLUDGEON. Repeatedly asking the same question of me can be considered disruptive editing. If others find my argument unpersuasive, then all the better for you. But repeating your point over and over makes it less persuasive and disrupts the process for the rest of us. Generalrelative (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the tagging - you are the only user who has ever asked me not to tag them in 15 years of editing so it's hard to remember. Thank you for starting to justify your position - which exact bit of WP:NPOV do you have in mind? Perhaps "Impartial tone"? I cited a specific passage from the style manual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies'_first_sentence One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.'. You have claimed over and over again over the course of 8 years that he is a Fascist, and have covered this RFC that I created when you reverted my editwith your comments, seemingly asked an other editor to help you edit war about this [[26]], and accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 21:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have claimed over and over again over the course of 8 years that he is a Fascist. What are you talking about? I've been editing Wikipedia for ~4.5 years, and the present article was not even on my radar until very recently. At this point, I'm not sure if your problem is unwillingness or inability to engage in productive discussion, but from here on out I'm simply going to refrain from responding to you as far as possible. My silence should in no case be confused for consent. Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Generalrelative apologies for compressing time and confusing you with User:Volunteer Marek. Your references from the beginning to this already having been debated many times made me think that you must have contributed on one side or the other since I had read the previous discussions and they did not come to firm conclusions. If there is a cogent argument based on policy explaining why a political slur, of doubtful meaning and suitabilty, should be included in the first sentence I can not understand why you don't share it instead of trying to shut down discussion by changing to points that you can win, or pointing to the fact that this mistake has lasted for 8 years. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 23:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 22:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think it violates NPOV and summarizes him a bit too pointedly.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is Russian fascism.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the lead sentence should be changed. It does not reflect the general way he is known ideologically as given in the most recent reliable sources. Therefore, as the sentence is currently written it is a violation of WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL for the introduction sentence of a wikipedia article. I would suggest going with a compromise lead sentence as suggested by AdrianHObradors such as:
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist, known for his ultranationalist views.
OR
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist, known for his far right and nationalist views.
Below is a survey of current reliable sources on Dugin's "as he is known for" label. From a random sampling of 20 articles, I've taken the intro descriptor sentence for Aleksandr Dugin. Parenthese contain any later ideological/descriptor mentions. Articles were randomly clicked on from a list of google news search result for the word "Dugin". The results were: no ideology (1), nationalist/far right (8), ultranationalist (8), fascist (3). --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Survey of sources for ideology label for Aleksandr Dugin
1. The daughter of a Russian political philosopher was killed in a car bomb Saturday night that was meant for him, officials said.

FOX


2. Darya Dugina, the 29-year-old daughter of prominent nationalist ideologue Alexander Dugin, Independent

3. Daria Dugina, 29, exploded Saturday night and killed the TV commentator who was the daughter of Alexander Dugin, a nationalist philosopher and writer. CBS

4. At a ceremony in Moscow, hundreds of people, roses in hand, lined up to say farewell to Daria Dugina, the murdered daughter of Russian nationalist ideologue, Aleksandr Dugin. Euronews

5. — the daughter of prominent nationalist philosopher and writer Alexander Dugin. DW

6. Some have even labelled the far-right philosopher “Putin’s brain” or “Rasputin”. Financial Times

7. Hundreds of people lined up Tuesday to pay tribute to the daughter of a leading right-wing Russian political thinker killed in a car bombing that Moscow blamed on Ukrainian intelligence. AP

8. the daughter of a prominent right-wing political thinker in Russia, at her funeral after she was killed in a car bombing, hailing her as a martyr. Al Jazeera

9. So he has really been able to develop networks of international, transnational, far-right people, up to Latin America. NPR


10. Alexander Dugin, whose daughter Darya was killed Saturday by a car bomb, is the high priest of a virulent brand of Russian nationalism that has become increasingly influential in Moscow. CNN

11. Darya Dugina, the daughter of ultra-nationalist Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin, was killed in a suspected car bomb attack outside Moscow on Saturday evening. Reuters

12. Mr Dugin is a prominent ultra-nationalist ideologue who is believed to be close to the Russian president. BBC

13. A car bomb in a Moscow suburb killed the adult daughter of a Russian ultranationalist who helped lay the ideological foundation for President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, New York Times

14. Hundreds gathered Tuesday for the Moscow funeral of Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent ultranationalist intellectual who was killed in a car bombing that Russia blames on Ukraine. AFP

15. Russian authorities said Sunday a car bomb killed the adult daughter of Alexander Dugin, a ‘’’national political theorist’’’ and staunch supporter of President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. (An ultranationalist, Dugin is a prominent proponent of the "Russian world" concept espoused by Putin, a spiritual and political ideology that emphasizes traditional values, restoration of Russia's power and the unity of all ethnic Russians throughout the world. Dugin is often referred to as “Putin’s brain.”) VOA

16. Aleksandr Dugin, 60, is a Russian political thinker sometimes called “Putin’s philosopher” who has been a leading advocate for conquest of Ukraine. Mr. Dugin long occupied an ultranationalist fringe that in recent years moved closer to Russia’s political mainstream. New York Times

17. The death of Darya Dugina, the daughter of ultranationalist Russian ideologue and Vladimir Putin ally Alexander Dugin, has shocked Russia. El Pais


18. The daughter of an ultranationalist Russian ideologue and ally of Vladimir Putin has been killed in a car bomb on the outskirts of Moscow. (He has been described as a Russian fascist and is a well-known conspiracy theorist.) The Guardian

19. The daughter of a prominent Russian fascist was killed in a car bombing in Moscow. Atlantic

20. The daughter of a Russian political philosopher and strategist close to President Vladimir Putin was killed Saturday evening when her car exploded near Moscow, Russian media reported Sunday. (In the past, Dugin has helped form ultranationalist political parties and has endorsed the idea of a united state for all Russian-speaking peoples and the formation of a Euro-Asian empire, something others have also accused of being infused with fascist ideology.)

Jerusalem Post
I question the "randomness" of these results. And besides there's absolutely no reason why we can't describe him as BOTH "fascist" and "nationalist" (since he is obviously both). And a reminder that the guy has written a fascist manifesto, entitled Fascism—Borderless and Red. It can't get any clearer than that. Anyway, here's oodles of recent sources calling him fascist:
And so on and so forth. To deny that he's frequently described as fascist (and even that he himself has called himself that) is, frankly, bizarre. Yes, he is also described by several related words, such as "nationalist". But that's why we should include BOTH. Volunteer Marek 15:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the list that you presented above is that it suffers from confirmation bias. To generate the list above a google search of the word "dugin" and "fascis" was done. Then sources labeling the individual fascist were found as the researcher expected the individual to be labelled. This sort of targeted list can generally always be done. A better method that avoids confirmation bias is to do a search that does not contain the label sought, but rather simply the individual's name as was done in my list above. Then when the list of articles is generated open them in a random fashion and you will be able to parse the distribution for different ideological labels for the individual. The weighting of the label is what is important for determining whether a label is of due weight as is required by npov policy. If people do not believe the distribution result that I got from twenty new articles, they can do the experiment themselves and share their results. The more data points the better the due weight of a contentious label can be determined. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do the groups intersect? How about "Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist, known for his controversial views." ?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ Yea, no freakin' way we are weaseling this by describing his views as "controversial". His views are "fascist" and that's how they're described by reliable sources. He himself has written a manifesto for fascism. This isn't hard. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm fully behind describing him as a fascist in Wikivoice. There are few people who are more clearly fascist alive today. Weasel-wording him would be completely nuts. Loki (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not in wikivoice First of all, it should be noted that here we are taking about an author who called for an authentic, real, radically revolutionary and consistent fascism, a fascist fascism ("Fascism: Borderless and Red", 1997); an author who described himself as a disciple of the Italian archi-fascist Julius Evola. While in recent years Dugin has tried to present himself as conservative and/or as the exponent of a "fourth way" alongside liberalism, communism and fascism, scholars continue to highlight the revolutionary-ultranationalist, that is, fascist agenda underlying his publishing activities.[1] It is vital that in the lead section we say clearly that his views have widely [been] characterized as fascist, as proposed in the RfC: this is essential information. Note that the 2014 book Fascism past and present contains a whole section on Dugin and fascism, with two scholars (Andreas Umland and James Gregor) debating if and in what sense Dugin is a fascist (according to Umland, there is a mainstream opinion in the research community that Dugin is a fascist; Gregor disagrees).[2] The association between Dugin and (a contemporary reinterpretation of) fascism is too well-established and notable, both in academic literature and in public debates, to be swept under the carpet.
However, as the word "fascism" can be conceptualized in different ways and is often polemical, disparaging and vague, I wouldn't label Dugin as a fascist in wikivoice, and I don't particularly like known for his fascist views, as one reads now in the lead. To me this looks like a silly intellectual shortcut for the lazy reader. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little silly to say that "fascist" is polemical or disparaging about someone who has described himself as a fascist. Presumably he didn't think it was disparaging, right? Loki (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I myself would call him a fascist without hesitation. But we cannot say so in Wikivoice. For instance, A. James Gregor, in the book above quoted at p. 470, writes:

Dugin may think of himself as a "fascist," but there appears to be little reason why we should. His political notions are certainly quaint, but hardly fascist.

So the matter is open for scholarly debate and we cannot and should not use wikivoice here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in that case we should call him a "self-described fascist", and that that fact itself is notable enough that we should include it in the lead. Loki (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three points:
  1. The problem with calling him a "self-described fascist" in the lead is that he invoked fascism in the 1990s but then, as Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland say, In recent years Dugin has been trying to establish himself as a mainstream pundit by presenting his ideology as "conservative." So we can and we should say (as we already do in the section "Publishing career") that he described himself as a fascist at the end of the 1990s, but we cannot say it in the lead because we'd need to provide more information, that is, that he now describes himself as a conservative/traditionalist.
  2. Quoting from the book "Fascism past and present", I made a mistake. I wrote here above according to Umland, there is a mainstream opinion in the research community that Dugin is a fascist; Gregor disagrees. What I intended to say is that Gregor doesn't believe that Dugin is a fascist; however, he agrees that the mainstream scholarly view is that Dugin is a fascist: so at p. 466 he writes

    How do we know that Dugin is a fascist? Well, for one thing, Dugin apparently tells us so. For another, a lot of scholars seem to think so.

    Therefore the sentence ... known for views widely characterized as fascist is entirely correct: it refers to the prevailing although not unanimous view in the academic community at around 2014, as reported by both Umland and Gregor.
  3. I would remove the nasty "citation overkill" from the lead and replace it with a quotation from Umland's essay in "Past and present", and I would also add a reference to this essay, where the relation between Dugin and fascism is discussed at length: Ingram, Alan (2001). "Alexander Dugin: geopolitics and neo-fascism in post-Soviet Russia". Political Geography. 20 (8). Elsevier BV: 1029–1051. doi:10.1016/s0962-6298(01)00043-9. ISSN 0962-6298. Ingram believes that Dugin should be seen as a neo-fascist because of the organic nature of Dugin’s Russian community, the absolute opposition to liberalism and the reference to mysticism and occult forms of knowledge.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, since even the person who disagrees with the scholarly consensus on Dugin acknowledges that it is the consensus, we should just describe him as a fascist. "Views widely characterized as fascist" is, IMO, for cases where there is some real reason to doubt whether or not he is a fascist. Loki (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording is fine - RFC is malformed, but the current wording "known for his fascist views." is sufficiently supported by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - I don’t think that’s quite accurate, and also think it is not desirable per MOS:FIRST and WP:LABEL, plus think when one starts with a generic judgemental declaration of the “said to be” sort it just comes off as sensationalist and meaningless bias. Instead start with something neutrally worded, e.g. “Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian political theorist with controversial views and ideas.” Then go to factual specifics of what things he is known for, such as the books written and positions held, or political parties organized, and what controversy happened when, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Shekhovtsov, Anton; Umland, Andreas (2009). "Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist?". The Russian Review. 68 (4): 662–678. JSTOR 20621114. Retrieved 2022-08-30.
  2. ^ Griffin, Roger; Loh, Werner; Umland, Andreas; Laqueur, Walter; Baker, David (2014). Fascism past and present, West and East : an international debate on concepts and cases in the comparative study of the extreme right. Stuttgart, Germany. ISBN 978-3-8382-5674-0. OCLC 903954684.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Spelling

Why is his name spelled on Wik with 'ks' instead of 'x'? At least on this talk page, all the sources given use 'x.' 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:E1CB:5C5A:B188:39 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an official transliteration method. No difference in meaning or sound. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 15:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is because in Russian Cyrillic, it is spelled Александр (<к>=[k], <с>=[s]). I believe this is the official romanization that goes on passports? Biktor627 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the "influences/influenced" section?

The infobox contains some possible influences/"people that were influenced" that are not sourced, such as Evola and Richard B. Spencer - these names warrant a source for every one of them, as the accusation that he was influenced by a fascist anti-semitic mysticist (edit 21:59: not a 'fascist', still very unsavoury) and influenced a noted white supremacist can't be made lightly. Lucksash (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made this comment using the Wikipedia Android app, which does not properly convey sources. On the browser version of Wikipedia, sources are conveyed - disregard this. Lucksash (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Putin's brain"

Is there any source about who refers to or knows Aleksandr Dugin as "Putin's brain". So far I've only found sources saying that he is known as such, but not by whom. Should we just put "sometimes referred to as 'Putin's brain' by the media" or something like that? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a journalistic distortion. Should not be on the page. He is not Putin's brain. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources themselves are notable, then in that case it is fine to write that according to these sources he is "known to be Putin's brain". In that case, the attribution is to these sources and if they say "he is known ...", then we can report it. But, of course, these sources must be notable. We should not expect to have a uniform POV over all sources about Dugin. On the contrary, we should expect that there will be a lot of contradictory POVs about Dugin. There is no need also that the sources are neutral. It is sufficient that they are notable. We report what the notable sources say. We can restrict ourselves to scholars that publish in reliable journals, but then we do it systematically for all polemic POVs. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes referred to as Putin's brain by elements of the media sounds perfect. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 00:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least much better than it was. I've added that text in. Thank you AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Миша Карелин, you removed the tag {{by whom}} in this edit, but did not fix the problem. If the source does reference who refers to Dugin as "Putin's brain", do remove the tag and update the text, don't just remove the tag saying "read the source". Anyway, I had read the source, which says:

You wrote that Dugin is commonly referred to as, quote, "Putin's brain." Can you give us a sense of Dugin's ideology?
— Rascoe

So we know that David Von Drehle has written that Dugin is commonly referred to as "Putin's brain". But by whom? The media? The people? Most sources I've seen just mention that he is commonly referred as that, and don't actually call him that. I think putting what L'Origine du monde said is the best way to go. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we have He has no official ties to the Kremlin, but is sometimes referred to as "Putin's brain". The problem remains - we know that BBC says that He has been labelled the brains behind President Putin's wildly popular annexation of Crimea and we know that NPR says that he is known as "Putin's Brain," but we don't know who called it that way. To me all this sounds like unsubstantiated journalistic "colour": if someone said that he is or has been influential on Putin, we should be able to name the source, otherwise it's all hearsay and slander. I see that Alan Ingram (quoted above) says that it would be difficult to argue that Dugin’s writings have influenced Russian foreign policy directly; however, as his essay is from 2001, I don't think it's worth mentioning. We'd better look for more recent and equally authoritative sources on his influence, or lack of influence, on the Russian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: NPR says that he is commonly known as "Putin's brain". If you want to know who else calls him this, you could just Google it. I did, and got a huge number of hits. And yes, all of them are about Dugin. Here is just a small sample that basically use "Putin's brain" as Dugin's WP:COMMONNAME: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Looks like one could make the case for a redirect here (i.e. "Putin's brain" redirecting to this article). Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shekhovtsov, Anton. "Putin's Brain? (on Aleksandr Dugin)." New Eastern Europe (2014), is also worth considering, with a nice quotation by Dugin: I think that Putin is increasingly becoming Dugin, which however cannot be taken at face value, according to Shekhovtsov, as the differences between the two are relevant and direct influence or coordination can be ruled out (in 2014). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative, the problem is that all of those sources except one say "Putin's brain" in quotes, and while it is in the title, the only other mention of is, for almost all of them, "often referred to", "often called", "often referred to as" and "who is often referred to as". You did find two good ones though. One at least gives us more clue:

Dugin has no direct link to Russian foreign policy. But the numerous references to him in the international press as "Putin's brain" appear to be well founded.
— euronews


And one promising, but that sadly I can't access, Putin's Brain — Foreign Affairs. This one doesn't use quotes, so it is actually referring to Dugin as Putin's Brain.
Either way, if we say "He is often referred to as "Putin's Brain", we should say by who. And I don't think we can cite press that doesn't say by whom, only that he is. Because it could perfectly well be what @Gitz6666, says, "unsubstantiated journalist 'colour'". Or maybe just one person called him that once and then it just got reported over and over, who knows? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super attached to this issue, so I won't keep on arguing, but I do think it's pretty clear that language like often referred to as "Putin's brain" is well founded and well sourced –– and indeed probably required by WP:NPOV. We really only need attribution when it is a particular person or group of people saying something. When it is common practice, it's certainly encyclopedic (and correct per WP:YESPOV) to simply say that he is "often called..." and then cite a representative sample of sources. That said, I'm not super bothered if others decide to cut it. This is a very different level of concern to what I have with the issue above, where I believe Dugin being a fascist is a cornerstone of his notability. Generalrelative (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative, I think we should keep it, but would be great to have some attribution. Otherwise it is pretty vague. A fix was the "by elements of the media", which was kinda true, but definitely not the best one. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of digging and found that the Foreign Affairs article may be the initial source for this phrase. And the two authors of that piece aren't exactly journalists but rather (or also) policy analysts. At least that's how they are referred to in this 2016 peer-reviewed article in Russian History: [34] Dugin ... has attracted a great deal of publicity since the annexation of Crimea, with analysts even describing him as “Putin’s brain.” So it looks like it wouldn't be correct to simply chalk this up to media hyperbole. I've added these sources to support the statement in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative, thanks for the digging, but I still would put some attribution. Perhaps "by policy analysts" or something? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that attribution is only necessary / helpful when there is any doubt about who holds a view or uses a term, but the citations here clearly illustrate that the term has become common currency. For better or worse, "Putin's brain" has become Dugin's nickname in the West (and indeed, perhaps more well known than his actual name, which is why a strong case could be made for a redirect). It's good that we point out that he has no official government role, and that his actual influence on Putin is disputed, but simply saying that he is often called this is what is proper –– in my view –– per WP:YESPOV. In any case, I feel that I've said my piece. I'll be happy to go with whatever the community decides from here on out. Generalrelative (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about replacing but is sometimes referred to as "Putin's brain" with but is often referred to in the media as "Putin's brain"? Plus, I would shorten the citation overkill to a few selected references. This makes sense to me because the phrase "Putin's brain" is very very common in news oulets - so we could say "often" instead of "sometimes" - but, on the other side, it also looks at odds with what scholarly sources say about him: that there are no significant ties with Putin, who likely got him sacked from the Moscow University; that he is useful to Putin, because he helps creating an environment hostile to "Western values" (liberalism), but he is also an outcast, a marginal figure who has no standing in Russian academia and a marginal role in Russian politics. To sum up, "Putin's brain" is likely an hoax, not supported by scholarly sources but only by the media grapevine, and adding in the media, or something similar, might be sensible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Studying by himself, he learned to speak Italian, German, French, English

Should be removed. Generally notable people speak several languages. It is unimportant how they have learned them. Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First wife, "black order of the SS"

According to her they were members of "black order of the SS". Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. According to this, Dugin was a member of the circle started, in the late 1970s, calling itself “Black Order of the [Waffen] SS,” and its leader Evgenii Golovin Reichsführer SS." My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're alleged perpetrators.

Russia claims to have solved the case, which they say was committed by a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vovk, with her 12 year old daughter[failed verification], using a remote control bomb, the alleged perpetrators later escaping next day in their Mini Cooper to Estonia. There's been no evidence provided that they are who did this. 2600:4040:2523:D200:7526:49F8:59CF:ABF0 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]