Talk:Aleksandr Dugin/Archive 1

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Formation of Eurasia Party/Movement
The article by Dunlop states that the Eurasia Party/Movement was officially recognized on May 31, 2001, making the former statement that it was formed in 2002 an impossibility. I've changed this to reflect the date is was recognized, as I do not currently have the sources or information to state when it was formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.131 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2010

His quotes
In his 1997 article “Fascism – Borderless and Red,” Dugin hailed the arrival in Russia of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.”

Dugin called Reinhard Heydrich, an organizer of the Holocaust a “convinced Eurasianist”. Biophys (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor title
Shouldn't the article be called Dr. Aleksandr Dugin? --188.103.25.226 (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Racist antisemite
nothing on this? he hates joos and calls obama monkey, zebra, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any source for it? Jezebel1349 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No he didn't.

208.81.93.65 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Communism Portal?
Why is Dugin in the Communism Portal? That does not make much sense as he seems to be Fascist, sees himself as Fascist and has not much to do with Communism. 141.20.180.71 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

His biography (Russian)
This needs to be translated and included in this article:



Biophys (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the full text from the external site which you included above. I see no evidence the site has released it under a CC-BY-SA compatible free licence so it's inclusion here (or for that matter any full translation) would likely be a WP:Copyvio Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts On This Article
As someone whose read Dugin's work for couple years and found much of it insightful(but lately also find him to be a mad man that will do more harm than good to the good aspects of his philosophy), I find this article biased against him and completely unhelpful because you only get to see him as a madman by his detractors. It's kind of sad his eurasianist groupies haven't fixed this yet.

I think it may(and I may be wrong) be useful to completely separate his biography describing activities of his life from his intellectual biography. At the very least, I think "Formation of the Eurasia Movement" should be changed to "Later activism and political views". There should be more links to English languages articles that give general gist of his thought. I think criticism of his thought should be separated and given it's own section.

I think there needs to be a section on exactly what ties he has with the Kremlin and with Putin. Mark Sleboda was one of the translators for his "Fourth Political Theory" book(another one was Nina Kouprianova) and he tweeted out the following claims: https://twitter.com/MarkSleboda1/status/453107676139225088
 * "Dugin has never actually met or talked to Putin and Putin has never once mentioned Dugin"
 * "Surkov specifically kept Dugin at bay"
 * BTW, Dugin constantly attacks Surkov on social media.
 * Of course, Putin actually had Surkov fired and brought him back some months later.
 * "Truth is that Dugin has never learned to stop being radical fringe philosopher and to play with the establishment."

Putin seems more enamored with guys like Konstantin Leontiev, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Ivan Ilyin than Dugin. I think it's ridiculous that there are those trying to see Dugin as the key to Putin's brain. Putin has never spoken about Dugin publicly. 208.124.113.121 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * http://cips.uottawa.ca/the-putin-book-club/
 * http://iwpr.net/report-news/putin-admires-19th-century-russian-monarchists
 * http://20committee.com/2014/04/07/putinism-and-the-anti-weird-coalition/


 * No, according to many commentators he strongly influenced political decisions on the top. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The most frequent combination of words in Dugin’s rhetoric is fifth column that is modern enemies of the people allegedly guilty of the destruction of the Soviet Union, the propagation of gay life style, the humiliation of Russians in Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, etc. The rest of people like Dugin himself, according to his rhetoric, are warm and fuzzy, and the fifth column alone does not let them live their lives the way Dugin plans out. The fifth column prevents Russia from starting a Ukrainian-Russian war, American-Russian war, European-Russian war and, by doing so, prevents Russia from becoming a great  empire. It is a very simple and handy philosophy invented by Dugin for stupid Russian politicians alone. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Some results
Some results of the struggle for the Russian world inspired by Dugin and Igor Girkin: Psychiatrick (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What is Dugin's point with Alcohol ?
What says Dugin about Russias manifest drug and alcohol problem ? Is he an abstinentist ? Can anybody tell something about Dugins statements to this major problem in Russia ? Thanks, --93.104.177.12 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your question based on a stereotype of Russians is a little funny. Dugin says almost nothing about drug and alcohol problem of Russians like nothing about bruins wearing a ushanka, telogreika, valenki and playing a balalaika when walking along the Red Square in Moscow. But somehow he says a lot about the United States as the major problem in Russia. It is a little funny too. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The same ideas from the lips of Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky
The Russian video is about how the Russian authorities want Russia to become a great-power empire. I consider the policy of imperialism as dangerous not to Europeans and Americans but to Russians themselves. It is Russians who will have to work hard to produce armament for implementing their own policy of imperialism. Thus, constructing the empire can challenge individuals and peoples not only outside but also inside Russia. Now Russia seems to be the last in the world to become a great-power empire. --Psychiatrick (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Name
The page title is "Aleksandr" but the infobox and his lede say "Alexandr." They should match. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  08:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Labeling someone as simply FASCIST!!! ?
The one source which is Allan Ingram Professor of English at Northumbria University, in Newcastle calls Dugin some kind of Neo-Fascist. I put up the more relevant source by A. James Gregor who is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, who in turn asked the question "Fascist?" but disregarded the label as overtly simplistic labelling and not really appropriate.

I know that it is in former Soviet Republics a common practice to label everything and everyone as FASCIST for this and that. Still one source is not enough to just label someone a FASCIST you require need Neutrality that  means that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints WP:WEIGHT and opinions are no stated as facts WP:YESPOV,  WP:NOTOPINION. But, when a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution - WP:ASSERT. Also avoid falling in the trap of WP:SYN i.e. Synthesis of published material that advances a position.

The problem of herr Dugin is that he is a Maverick of political theory, a bit like  the marxist counterpart Slavoj Žižek. Herr Dugin has dipped his toe everywhere and to define a Political syncretist as simply BOLSHEVIK or FASCIST is not really the right course to take. I know that the are great fears, especially among many Eastern Europeans, of people ranting nationalist ideas about the rights of Greater Russia. Still it should not effect correct encyclopedic writing and remembering a neutral and balanced tone. All the best, No Source - No Valid Source (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there's quite a number of sources there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's some more:

Also have a look at this 1998 interview in Polish quarterly "Fronda": I'm waiting for Ivan the Terrible (in Polish only, sorry). Dugin explains how Russian idea of state differs from the Western one (translation is mine): "In Russian Orthodox christianity a person is a part of the Church, part of the 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. Because of this Russians, because they are orthodox, can be the real fascists as opposed to imaginary Italian fascists such as Gentile or their hegelian. The true heglism is Ivan Peresvetov - the man who in 16th century invented the oprichnina for Ivan the Terrible. He was the true creator of Russia nfascism. He created the idea that state is everything, and an individual is nothing". If that's not fascist then I don't know what is... Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To label Political syncretist like Dugin as simply BOLSHEVIK or FASCIST is not correct. I could just say that the crude trick used in the Dugin article is totally beneath rational discourse -  YES IT' S  "PLAYING THE NAZI CARD" - http://postimg.org/image/t06j7tou7/ .... Reductio ad Hitlerum. The problem is that we have one-sided sources which are of either poor quality or biased.  Stephen Shenfield as the source belongs to the better category of the arsenal used to force through a certain point of view in the Dugin article here. Reading Stephen Shenfield webpage (http://stephenshenfield.net/) it can quite easily be concluded that he is an activist and a partisan source that does not contribute to an balanced and fair evaluation of Mr. Dugins thinking. So once again - Neutrality  that  means that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints WP:WEIGHT and opinions are no stated as facts WP:YESPOV.  Lets get started, shall we? No Source - No Valid Source (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem of having fair review of this article is the Eastern European gang (of some Polish and Ukrainian political piranhas) that hang around this wikipedia article hindering any possibility of encyclopedic writing. Yes, yes I understand your anguish and fears in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe. I'm myself of good Polish descent and name and furthermore living as a neighbor to Russia. I also know that my family went away from those Eastern regions before all civilized layers society of where either killed, purged or force out. And presently there is very little hope of the present-day reign of corruption and the coma of higher-culture (incl. moral statesmanship and academic culture) will rise up there any day soon -not even with some $ etc. from US and Sancho Panza (EU). What Stalin sowed you now reap in the Eastern parts. Like the Serbs, don't emotionalize and fetishize hate & history -it doesn't lead to good clear thinking. Your Polish friend who also knows about the good old things back home! Wishing well  No Source - No Valid Source (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, how many times, and with how many different accounts, are you going to do this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By gum, does this guy love the sound of his own pole-emic, or does he ram pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing? Speaking of Sancho Panza, it's a pity he didn't instruct him to clean up the burro droppings on his way out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not feed Kremlin trolls.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would anyone be adverse to collapsing this as pure soapboxing which is distracting those who are WP:HERE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good source

 * Good source (Russian) about Dugin and others in the context of current political events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You use Radio Liberty website, which reflects American interests alone and asserts that Putin, Dugin and their supporters are guilty of all wrongdoings around Russia. In Russia, we must better use only Russian websites, which assert that Poroshenko and his confederates like Turchinov are guilty of all wrongdoings around Russia at present. It is normal to defend Russia’s interests. Turchinov could have abstained from violence and bloodshed but started destroying Russian armed volunteers when they appeared in Ukraine, and this decision actually started the current civil war in Ukraine. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , please abstain from soapboxing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vladimir Abarionov, author of the publication, is a well known journalist, with education in History. But Dugin said everything about his views himself (translation): "We are a totalitarian party of intellectual type, focused on the eschatological takeover of the entire planet. This will be a cunning and cruel takeover.", "We are the builders of the New Empire and will not agree on anything less than world domination." Sounds familiar? Simply telling would be one thing, but he and others are actually doing just that. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Putin never said that Ukraine and other countries must belong to Russia but he did everything possible to guarantee the security and independence of Donbass. As a result, now authorities in Donbass have tanks, armored troop carriers, military aviation, rocket launchers and almost every family in Donbass has Kalashnikov submachine guns, sniper guns, mortars, grenades to defend one’s own home from Ukrainian military forces and battalions of volunteers supported by Poroshenko and other Ukrainian oligarchs. It has nothing to do with Dugin’s ideology. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Discuss sources not opinionate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2015
don't call Alexandr Dugin a fascist

176.77.35.121 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's sourced. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Does he really have THAT much influence on Putin?
I believe this article really overestimates the actual role of Dugin in the Ukraine crisis. The guy is undoubtedly a right-wing psycho, and he has some ties to Kremlin, but to what extent he actually influences Putin's decisions is anyone's guess. For instance, Zhirinovsky, who has made even more outlandish statements than Dugin, is even a PACE member (and many consider him Kremlin's servant), but he is usually seen as a mostly harmless clown who doesn't actually decide anything.

Given there's no definite evidence supporting the "Dugin as Putin's Rasputin" theory (these are just analysts' speculations, based on alleged similarities between Dugin's ideas and Putin's policies), I believe the neutral wording would be something like "Some analysts believe him to be the driving force behind Putin's decision to occupy Crimea". As of now, the article rather blatantly pumps up the recently popular myth of "Putin as Hitler/Russia as the Dark Empire seeking to start World War III". --Buzz105 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not a forum or soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to convey is that the article is not neutral in the part regarding Dugin's role in the Ukrainian crisis (i. e. it presents some analysts' speculations as the general consensus). For example, "Dugin is seen as the author of Putin's initiative..." can be replaced with something like "A number of analysts suggested that Dugin was the author of Putin's initiative..." --Buzz105 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only is it reliably sourced, it does represent the mainstream view by scholars/experts in the field (try reading all of the sources in the article). Don't be misguided into believing that this is merely promoting the Western view of his morphing variants on the same political philosophies he's been espousing for years: he's been heavily criticised by experts in Russia. The fact that there are pocketfuls of fanatics who believe him to be wonderful only demonstrates that they're the loudest voices.


 * I understand that you're new to Wikipedia, therefore are asking for changes to the content in good faith. Please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines properly. WP:NPOV does not mean softening the tone of mainstream research and reliable sources. We don't modify the views on subjects such as bios on Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or any events in history in order that it sounds 'a bit nicer'. WP:FRINGE and WP:EUPHEMISM are not used in an encyclopaedic resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the general consensus is along the lines of "Russia is a fascist state/Putin is a XXI century equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot"? --Buzz105 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the scholarly opinion certainly tilts this way.--Galassi (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It means that "Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot" are examples of people whose biographies say unfavourable things about them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit by Buzz105 seems to be cherry-picking. It uses | this source, for a quote of the opinions of the author in March 2014. Most of the article was about Dugin, saying that he had been an advisor to Putin's party for the past 14 years, and often acted as a spokesman "on behalf of Kremlin interests during the Ukraine crisis". The article ends by suggesting that Putin is cynically using Dugin's movement to cement Putin's grip on power in Russia. Buzz105's edit was not a fair representation of the article he/she cited, and given more recent events, it is not a fair representation of the opinions of the journalist either.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The "unbalanced or inaccurate" tag
Buzz105 has placed a tag saying that the section entitled Stance on Ukraine and role in Russian politics may have an unbalanced or inaccurate representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue. But Buzz105's first posting makes two important statements In the second quotation, he/she is admitting that he/she does not know the extent that Dugin influences Putin's decisions. Wikipedia policy is "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The section that Buzz105 has tagged already does that. Unless someone can present evidence (in the form of citations) of significant viewpoints published by reliable sources that ought to have been included, I propose to remove the tag.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "I believe this article really overestimates the actual role of Dugin in the Ukraine crisis."
 * "to what extent he actually influences Putin's decisions is anyone's guess."
 * Please note that I've removed Doug Saunders ref and content per WP:UNDUE., this is pure WP:CHERRY for the purposes of WP:GEVAL. The fact that the brunt of the entire piece is serious criticism of Dugin, yet the only piece pulled is whether the author of the piece actually believes that Putin takes Dugin's politics seriously or not. Even in the context of the article, it is made clear that Putin is cashing in on the new ultra-right nationalism, regardless of whether he is genuinely committed to it or not. Conclusion: why Putin is playing up to it is irrelevant because he is using Dugin's political extremism to very, very serious ends. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Arktos
Not that it matters, but the source does say: "Arktos publishes books by prominent fascists, including Dugin and others who were to attend the NPI conference, as well as handbooks on the Movement Identitaire. Some of Arktos’ works are particularly radical. Guillaume Faye and the Battle for Europe is a compilation of postings from American neo-Nazi websites including Vanguard News Network and National Vanguard. Arktos recently moved to Budapest from the United Kingdom.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The last Chinese warning to Putin
Such an impoliteness as putting his coat on Chinese First Lady Peng Liyuan can cost to Putin half the territory of the Russian Federation. Putin should be warned about the difference of cultural values in the West and those in China if he does not want to let China have Siberia and Caucasia. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page for improving Dugin's article. Please stick to the topic at hand. Thanks. -- Jprg1966   (talk)  09:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If Dugin is really a radical Russian Nationalist, he wouldnt say such nonsense. China is not that strong like people mostly think, for example there are a lot of poor Chinese people who have to work as prostitutes and unfree workers in Russia, Israel, Japan, Australia, North America and Western Europe--95.114.47.113 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why primary sources used
I used primary sources such as articles by Dugin since his ideology was poorly analyzed in secondary sources. First, there is nothing interesting to researches in his ideology, which is reactionary and anti-Western and considers the Western democracies (Europe, the USA) as the major threats, troubles and enemies to Russia while the Eastern dictatorships (North Korea, China) are considered as the highest good and the best friends to Russia, according to his ideology. Second, nobody in North Korea and China knows about Dugin and his ideology that these countries are the best friends to Russia. They have their own heroes and values that are too different from those used and proposed by Dugin. He does not understand that. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

At first Dugins Ideology is not more reactionary than the American Exceptionalism and the Ideology of the Religious Right in the USA. Secondly the USA is not a democracy since a long time, its a plutocratic Oligarchy and the EU is an undemocratic, centralistic, bureacratic and hyper-dirigistic construct. Thirdly Russia belongs to Europe, so you cant say Europe is an enemy of Russia, Belarus and Serbia are allies of Russia by the way and the USA is an ally of Saudi Arabia an extremly repressive Despoty. But your right Dugins political influence is often overrated.--95.114.47.113 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bogus citation
Our German IP-editor friend made an edit of 08:19 20 August 2015 that added a citation to [http://www.turksolu.org/127/usumezsoy127.htm Şener Üşümezsoy: "Türk Süperetnosu ekümeni ve dünya sistemi" Türk Solu Nr. 127 19. Februar 2007]. I have checked this citation, and it does not mention Dugin. The citation was added for a sentence saying that "Dugin also has a good relationsship to the Turkish national-communist Workers Party." I propose that we remove this sentence and its citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Galassi (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I see no reference to Dugin or any working relationship with the Turkish Workers' Party. Could it be that our friend has mistaken Putin for Dugin and meant to reference this article? Perhaps the article I've referenced would be useful for a relevant article illustrating the great relationship the Putin administration is trying to establish with both the Turkish government and the inalienable rights of Crimean Tartars, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

False Orwellian connotations
The article tries to depict the idea of an Eurasian intergovernmental organization, much like the EU, UNASUR, UN and countless other organizations as a crazed Orwellian idea. The article needs a more honest approach to Eurasian intergovernmental cooperation and Charles Clover's thoughts on the matter shouldn't be given as much importance as it does at the moment. Why use the fictitious map of 1984 when you could use a real one from Regional organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.195.165 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2015
 * It does? Why do you think that?


 * Also why do you imply from the comment that Orwell had crazed ideas?


 * The article has two citations to an article in the Financial Times by Charles Clover. One of those citations supported the statement "Dugin in the 1980s was a dissident", and the other supported one of many comments on the Eurasia concept.  Are you saying that only comments from Dugin's supporters should be allowed in the article?  There is a Wikipedia policy called "neutral point of view".  You appear to disagree with that policy.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying. I repeat, the article portrays the idea of regional cooperation, specifically "Eurasian", as an idea Dugin derived from Orwell, and given Orwell's reputation in the world and his association with totalitarianism, it serves to discredit this idea. But this idea is not particularly novel or Orwell's own despite featuring in his works; there have been flat-out eurasianists before it featured in his works. I believe the importance the Wikipedia article gives to Clover's analogy violates neutrality. 81.170.195.165 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for removing sourced content. Note, also, that this isn't the Eurasianism article, so you're WP:OFFTOPIC as well as WP:SOAPBOXing. Please read the guideline as to what talk pages are not for (↑ at the top of this page). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about what I like and don't like, if you think so then you're misinterpreting my argument which is that the article breaches neutrality by over-representing Clover's comparison between Orwell and Dugin/Eurasianism which was a well-established idea long before Clover's genius piece of journalism. Note that I'm not calling for the removal of his comments entirely, just a revamp of the image section which places too much focus on these comments. Stop trying to suppress my argument with Wikipedia bureaucracy. You claim "this isn't the Eurasianism article" while the subcategory in question is "Formation of the Eurasia Movement" and Dugin expression Eurasian ideas (which according to this article is an "echo of Nineteen Eighty-Four"). But whatever, you guys seem to have an agenda.81.170.195.165 (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the map and its caption, 81.170.195.165 is right. It is one thing to mention Clovers comments re Dugin and Orwell, quite another thing to use a map of Orwell's imagined world on a page about Dugin.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A question
If Dugin is so "close" to the Kremlin, how come his university fired him in 2014, ? Has Putin's evil hand not reached the MGU yet or are there any other known causes? --Dorpater (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He still continued working in MGU . Regardless, a lot of people previously close to the Kremlin were fired. What kind of argument is that? My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This barely dignifies a response after you've WP:CHERRY picked the last paragraph of the Lenta article for quotes you've now inserted into the article. For the moment, I'm just going to bite my tongue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead: unification views
There are two issues in the lead, one easy to fix and one more extensive:

He focuses on the restoration of the Russian Empire through the unification of Russian-speaking territories, which roughly corresponds to the former Soviet republics, such as Georgia and Ukraine, and unification with Russian-speaking territories, especially eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

In the bolded parts, the article has "unification of" (using Georgia and Ukraine as examples) and "unification with" (using eastern Ukraine and Crimea). These read almost as the same thing and the difference between "of" and "with" is subtle. Perhaps it should be rephrased for clarity, such as:
 * He focuses on the restoration of the Russian Empire, through bringing together the former Soviet republics, such as Georgia and Ukraine, and unification with Russian-speaking territories, especially eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Separately, the topic of Dugin's views on unification does not appear to be in the article. Is then the inclusion in the lead appropriate? His views on this should probably be expanded in the body, or this para moved into the body. The topic of "Restoration of Russian Empire" is not discussed in the body either.

Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I reworded it accordingly although the phrase "bringing together" is a bit ambiguous on its own. Bringing together with what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the phrase "fascist views" appropriate for the first sentence?
At present, the first sentence of the intro refers to Dugin's "fascist views". A beginning which has been questioned by a number of people on this talk page. It may be sourced, it may (in some sense) be true, but is it the best way to begin the article? After all, there are multiple definitions of fascism. Describing his views as "fascist" doesn't give WP users much actual information, unless we spell out which definition of fascism our sources have in mind. Even the article about Hitler does not have "fascist" in its first sentence, instead it presents basic facts like the name of the political party he led... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would "Nazi" be more appropriate?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because it would provide just as little actual information. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this observation would be an apt description of your original comment. Your proposal would be?... to remove 'fascist' because you're not satisfied with the lack of precision as to the definition of 'fascist'? It's not up to Wikipedia editors to define what flavour of 'fascist' he is because we only work as intermediaries for communicating what WP:RS tell us: and reliable sources call him a 'fascist'. So, rather than impart little actual information by removing stuff we don't like, we impart actual information about what reliable sources have to say about him, end of story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of precision is not the fault of the source, who spell out that they're using the term "fascist" in a generic sense, and do not mean that everything Dugin says is in the category of "primitive ethnocentrist" or "biological racist". No, the lack of precision is the fault of the WP editors who cherry-picked the word "fascist", stuck it in the first sentence of the article, and relegated the context to the footnotes.
 * My proposal is. firstly. that if we are going to use that source in the article, we should include enough context inline to give the reader a least some idea of what the source is actually saying. Secondly, that the first sentence of the article should be a simple, objective statement of basic points such as Dugin's nationality, occupation, and the names of the political parties he has worked with.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The main reason for keeping the adjective "fascist" in Dugin's bio is that it's precisely the word he used himself to describe his political sympathies on numerous occassions. While the meaning of "fascist" is indeed quite broad, let's leave this ambiguity to Dugin to precise if this was his preference without trying to present interpretations on what he could mean. Cloud200 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the way Dugin describes himself, doesn't his book The Fourth Political Theory present his outlook as distinct from all three earlier theories he talks about, of which fascism is one? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still can't get past the fact that the forward was written by Soral, who is described as being a left-nationalist, without know whether to bang my head against a wall until I fall into a coma, or laugh. Incompatible political theories and positions are just that: ludicrous. Just as ludicrous is the concept that Dugin has 'superseded' his fascist ideological position with... what? Super-fascist theory? A humane post-humanist rendering of fascism? Incidentally, that 'New Resistance' source being used on "The Fourth Political Theory" article is not WP:RS. It isn't even sane... er, I mean it's WP:FRINGE commenting on itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted The Fourth Political Theory to the way I had originally written the article before the neo-fascist SPS was introduced there. — Nizolan  (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was on my watchlist, but apparently not. I agree wholeheartedly with the removal of those sources. It's definitely on my watchlist now, so there'll be more of us to keep an eye out for questionable sources. Good catch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have to choose between laughing and hitting your head against a wall, then laughing would probably be healthier... I'm not going to argue with you here about the word "ludicrous", which may be a fair description of some or all of Dugin's positions. And if there is a reliable published source which says he's "ludicrous", we can mention that in the article... Even with a source, though, do you think it would be appropriate to say in the first sentence that Dugin is "known for his ludicrous fascist views"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Odious might be a better qualifier, but Dugin is still alive, and we have BLP. Therefore simply fascist will do.--Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about introducing any of the op-ed qualifiers surrounding the recurring use of 'fascist'. We're only discussing the use of 'fascist' which is a recurring description. Our function is WP:NOR: not to parse "The Fourth Political Theory" or his previous publications as we use reliable secondary sources to do the parsing for us. I've read multiple reviews (and that does include positive ones) indicating that there's been no movement away from a fascist perspective, just variations on the complexity of various themes.


 * I do think that you're confusing our accountability to the reader to understand what 'fascism' actually means with our rendering of the bio (and that, as an encyclopaedic resource, terminology like 'fascist' is not used in the vernacular). If the reader doesn't know that, for example, Winston Churchill was the first international politician to charge off to Rome and adulate Mussolini, we can't do much about that. There is a link to Fascism embedded in the sentence. That's the point at which our accountability ends. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This has also been discussed to death before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not "known due to his fascist views", but rather known due to his Eurasianist views. Dorpater (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. That is not the opinion of reliable sources. Sorry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you care to reflect on how his Eurasianist views are characterised? There is a section on "Formation of the Eurasia Movement". What this bio addresses is what he is known for in terms of the global view. By no means is he simply a sociologist writing 'interesting', if somewhat extreme and convoluted, works. There is a far broader context for the reading of his notability... and that is what is addressed in the article, starting from the lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A Google Books search reveals "Aleksandr Dugin eurasian" has twice as many hits as "Aleksandr Dugin fascist". Does not really speak in favour of your position. Dorpater (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a good way to compare since "eurasian" can mean a whole bunch of things while 'fascist' has a pretty specific meaning. Furthermore "eurasian" might simple be mentioned as Dugin's particular brand of fascism (sort of like say "Falangism"). What we base the article on is the usage in high quality scholarly sources. And numerous such sources have been provided for the use of the term "fascist". I haven't seen anything similar here for "eurasian". And lots of reputable sources, if they DO use it will put it in quotation marks indicating that it's not a truly descriptive term. Lots of neo-Nazi type organizations will deny that they're racist or white power or whatever, using all kinds of silly euphemism but that doesn't mean we buy into their crap. Same thing here. Dugin can give whatever name he wants to his views, but if the sources describe him as "fascist" so do we.
 * And yes, this was all already discussed so I'd really appreciate it not having my and others' time wasted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That was really debated to death on this talk page. One should check it from very beginning. A lot of sources have been been provided, for example here. Here is the thing: he is a self-identified fascist. Yes, he is probably different from German Nazi. He said: "The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans, ...while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes." He also said: "We are a totalitarian party of intellectual type, focused on the eschatological takeover of the entire planet. This will be a cunning and cruel takeover.", "We are the builders of the New Empire and will not agree on anything less than world domination." My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not any more, for what it's worth (he explicitly disavows it in several places). The "Fascism Borderless and Red" essay the first quote is from is from 20 years ago; I don't know where the other two quotes are from so can't comment. I'm a bit dubious about the current sources for the "fascism" claim because the two sources given label him a fascist but don't say that he's "known for his fascist views", so there's an element of OR going on. At the moment I would tend to agree with that Dugin is currently well-known as a neo-Eurasianist member of the Russian political establishment, not primarily as a fascist philosopher. Note that that doesn't constitute a judgement on whether he is a fascist or not. — Nizolan  (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If he's not anymore than you should have no problem providing reliable secondary sources which say "he's not anymore". Cuz otherwise this sounds like just OR (much more than rephrasing "his ideology is fascist" into "he's known for his fascist views").Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim I was responding to was that he is a self-identified fascist. In relation to his current beliefs, this is false, viz.: "I cannot forbid others from calling me a fascist, although I am not one." Like I said, I was not making a judgement on whether he actually is one, regardless of what he identifies as.
 * In regards to the claim that he is a fascist in general, you should be aware that this is a matter of continued academic debate. A. James Gregor is probably the most important person who argues that Dugin is not a fascist; see his response, for example, here: [Dugin's] "palingenetic, populist ultranationalism" does not seem to qualify as Fascist/fascist at all. ... 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. Notably, Gregor also rejects that we should even consider Dugin's self-identification on this matter.
 * The point is that this is not a matter of academic consensus, and indeed you are very unlikely to find any academic consensus over any sort of identification with "fascism" post-1945. Therefore describing Dugin today, unequivocally, as "fascist" reflects only one part of the literature, not all of it. — Nizolan  (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The essay WP:CONTROVERSY seems relevant here. 'An article about a controversial person, group or organization should start with facts: "According to the FBI, the XYZ faction had over 1,000 active members in 1982.[1] Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader: "According to the XYZ faction's 1983 manifesto, which was published in the New York Times, the three main aims of the faction were to..." ' Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fail to see how. First, that's an essay, not policy. Second, the guy is a political theorist. Hence, of central importance is the question 'what is his political theory'. And that, according to reliable sources, is fascism. So there's the "fact".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The source quoted in the first line does use the term fascism, but immediately goes on to say that the professor's statements are not those of a primitive ethnocentrist or biological racist. By cherry-picking the word fascist, and consigning the rest to a footnote, you misrepresent the source as well as Dugin. It means that a reader who is looking for information about Dugin (rather than an editorial about Dugin) is likely to stop reading the article after the first sentence. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you asking that editors bring every RS qualifying Dugin as a fascist be brought to the table and shoved in next to the term to satisfy your demands? Here's a must-read essay for you: WP:OVERCITE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So? And there's no "cherry-picking" here, the term "fascist" as a description of his views can be found in a wide variety of reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "does use the term fascism, but immediately goes on to say that the professor's statements are not those of a primitive ethnocentrist or biological racist" The word "but" shows that you don't quite understand what fascism is, which is typical for people of Russian culture. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of just my "demands" Iryna. (The word "demands" is yours, and seems needlessly adversarial.) Did you read  Nizolan 's very recent comment above? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is about the phrase "known for" then it's fine to change it to just "whose views have been described as".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You should simply check how he was described in secondary academic sources. There are many of them, but here is one recently quoted on another page (there is a whole journal issue on the subject). It tells:

Something along these lines would be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the qualifier "with different degrees of academic cogency" in that description there is that those descriptions are not all accurate, so it wouldn't be an appropriate basis for article text (except as a block quotation of the whole thing to describe the academic debate over Dugin's views). — Nizolan  (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is always some degree of uncertainty in any scientific statements, even in Physics. So, that means nothing. There is no doubt that someone who tells in 2014 that people of certain ethnicity should be exterminated as a "race of bastards" should be described as a fascist, Nazi, or whatever of the same variety, especially since this is exact wording used in RS (quotation above). There is no need to quote anything directly on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did Dugin ever refer to all Ukrainians as a "race of bastards" or was he talking about a certain section? I've been looking at a translation of his comment by Anton Shekhovtsov, who is an academic very critical of Dugin. "I don't believe that these are Ukrainians. Ukrainians are a fine Slavic people. [But] these are some race of bastards that emerged from the sewage" Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Shekhovtov has not chosen to read between the lines of the post. Who are Ukrainians, then, as opposed to the race of 'cretins' and 'idiots'? I'm not convinced that you know your way around irredentist Russian ideology. Suggested reading right here on Wikipedia: All-Russian nation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like Marek's suggestion that the phrase "known for" could be changed to "whose views have been described as". The source mentioned by Wishes (Taras Kuzio's article) is very relevant also. I also agree with Nizolan that we need to tell people about the range of academic descriptions. How about saying that Dugin "is a Russian political scientist whose views have been variously described as 'fascist', 'ultranationalist', and 'integral Traditionalist'."; and cite Taras Kuzio as a source? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking about "scientist", I am not even sure that he has something like a PhD degree. This should be checked. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishes, the term "political scientist" is in the current first sentence of our article, and the body text mentions that he did his PhD at Rostov-on-Don in 2004. This agrees with what Jardar Ostbo says about him in the book The New Third Rome. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Back on track, I'd also agree that "whose views have been described as" is a better qualifier. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus that "whose views have been described as" is better than the current wording with "known for"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with pigeonholing Dugin into a particular buzzword is that his views are an incredible mix of various right ideologies including outright nonsense. Even he himself describes himself differenly at different times. Moreover recently (relatively; in 2009) he became a proponent a "The Fourth Political Theory", which is neither Communism, fascism, nor liberalism. (quoting: "Такой подход есть приглашение к разработке Четвертой политической теории – по ту сторону коммунизма, фашизма и либерализма."). I guess it shows he is unfamiliar with quite a few -isms :-). Therefore the intro must mention not only fascism. And he is not even "best known" for fascism. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the idea of the first sentence mentioning fascism plus two or three other isms, Altenmann? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything, because I am not an expert in "Duginism". However as a wikipedian I have to insist that the lede must be a summary of the article. Ideally, there should be no footnotes in the lede. Especially for larger articles. Therefore before you do anything to the lede, you have to fix the mess of the article itself. For starters, WTH with the section title "Early career and political views"? Does this mean "Early career and early political views"? If yes, then why it cites him from 2012-2015? If no then the section is apples and oranges and potatoes. And so on. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Altenmann, you said earlier that the intro must mention not only fascism. Whatever its faults, the body text currently refers to Dugin's "Eurasianist ideology" and also to his "Traditionalist beliefs". As a Wikipedian, do you think the current first sentence could be improved by saying that Dugin's views have been variously described as fascist, Traditionalist, and Eurasianist? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you comprehend my last comment? I believe I clearly told you not to put carriage before the horse (or however they say this in English). Which part of this article explains in detail that his views are fascist? And what the heck is Traditionalist? This  word is only buzzed to a "book length study by J. Heiser", but not a mum on the essence. It is not enough that this or that politologist threw in a buzz-moniker. We need arguments that Dugin is a fascist, a Traditionalist, or even a "a madman" as they call him so. At the moment, looking at the article text, the only buzzword which deserves to be in the lede is "Eurasianism", whether the other two are correct or not. BTW, he is also widely described as "ultra-nationalist".- üser:Altenmann >t 06:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for his big geopolitical views, IMO they are pretty much trivial under the postulate of anti-Americanism (no wonder they were textbook for Ru Mil: even a colonel may undertstand them :-). And this is my last comment on the thread. I am not much interested to waste more time on this. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've made some valid points, Altenmann, and I'm sorry you're in such a hurry to go. I started this thread with a focus on the first sentence of the lede, but of course lede and body text should be in harmony... so I'd agree that if we retain the word "fascism" in the lede, the body text ought to say more about specifically what meaning of that term is said by who to apply to Dugin.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RE VM "Not a good way to compare since "eurasian" can mean a whole bunch of things while 'fascist' has a pretty specific meaning." - in fact the exact opposite is true . 'Fascist' can now mean virtually everything someone dislikes, depending on the person (Yeltsin supporters argued his radical opponents were 'communo-fascist'. These in turn argued Yeltsin was a 'fascist' (or perhaps 'Zionist' as well).). Eurasianism on the other hand is a specific definable trend, not a mere curse word that the term 'fascist' has deteriorated into by now.Dorpater (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be true for colloquial use but not as used in reliable, scholarly sources. Which is what we use on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholars may not use the term "fascist" as broadly as non-scholars, but that doesn't mean there is a generally agreed definition. See definitions of fascism. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would avoid using term "Eurasianism" as something very poorly defined. What is it, exactly? This is a lot of different things. Other terms are defined much better. For example, this source tells:

.My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishes, the writer you've quoted (Robert Zubrin in the National Review) uses the term "Eurasianism" repeatedly. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He tells about "Dugin’s Eurasianism". That's because Eurasianism by others would be something different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's like saying "Ayn Rand's libertarianism" or "Obama's liberalism". It's because anyone who writes or speaks about political topics put their own stamp on whatever ism they write or speak about. You don't get away from that by using the word "fascism",unless you think e.g. Julius Evola's fascism is identical to someone else's. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I just provided two typical examples of quotation by RS about him (two boxes above), first of them was academic, another by a notable author. These sources call him a "fascist", a supporter of Nazi, a "proponent of Russian messianism and anti-Western xenophobia" and "ultranationalist". That's fine, we can probably use all these qualifications. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishes, this thread is about the way the intro begins. Are you seriously suggesting the phrase ""proponent of Russian messianism and anti-Western xenophobia" should appear at the beginning, simply because one academic writer used it? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're one of the editors pushing for a more exacting, well referenced lead. You don't want 'fascist', yet you are rejecting multiple other academic descriptors... not just this one. Reminder: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a bright line between WP:BLPVIO and multiple sources critiquing a living person's views. You've made it abundantly clear that you DONTLIKEIT, but the fact remains that both Dugin and his theories are considered reprehensible by the majority of his own global academic peers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about how the lede should begin. Who does or doesn't consider Dugin reprehensible, seems hardly relevant — unless you are proposing to add the word "reprehensible" to the text? One thing I agree with you about, is that the first sentence would be improved if it had words like "whose views have been described as" instead of "is known for". On this point at least, there seems to be a consensus, since several people suggested that change and no-one has opposed it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this. Now, can we put this to rest? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm good with it, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this edit is fine. As about other improvements, they should be probably discussed separately, and I am not sure what text exactly was proposed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement. Tho I agree with Altenmann about ways in which both lede and body text can be improved. The body text needs to clearly explain how the terms used in the intro relate to Dugin, including the word "fascism" if we're going to keep it. The lede should be a concise summary of the body text. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

original research in section 'Early career and political views'
The first two sentences of the last paragraph of the Early career and political views section read like this:


 * Dugin claims to be disapproving of liberalism and the West, particularly American hegemony.[25] His assertions show that he likes Stalin and the Soviet Union: "We are on the side of Stalin and the Soviet Union".[26]

Because there's a citation, the first sentence hardly needs to have the verb 'claims' in it. It would better read


 * Dugin disapproves of liberalism and the West, particularly American hegemony.

The second sentence reads like original research.

If the cited source (26) really backs up the claim, and if it is what Wikipedia considers to be a 'reliable source', then it should read directly He likes Stalin and the Soviet Union. I don't believe it should read His assertions show that XYZ --- unless that is really what is in source (26).

(Source (26) is in Russian, and i don't know what Russian sources Wikipedia would consider to be 'reliable', but in general, if it is widely reflected in the American Main Stream Media it is considered 'reliable'.)

Son of eugene (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Son of Eugene, this is nonsense there are lot of American sources which are not reliable and Russian source which are reliable.--Theophil Luburic (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dugin Views on Trump?
After the victory of Donald Trump Dugin is not Anti-American anymore.--Theophil Luburic (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The photo in the infobox
I very much dislike the "new" photo. The photographic quality is worse than the "old" photo. It looks like one of those photos newspapers use when they want to do a hate-story about someone. The "old" photo makes Dugin look distinguished; it seems far more appropriate for a neutral point of view article on Dugin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is irrelevant (I don't see how that fits with your suggestion that we refer to him as a "Nazi", either). One is photo looks like a screenshot from YouTube, or a still from CCTV or a camera phone video, and the other, though blurry, is much less grainy, and in my opinion objectively better. It's also the one used on the corresponding Russian language article for Dugin (you can guess which of the photos I am referring to). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

lead section - "fascism" designator is not self identified
Dugin calls himself a "Neo-Eurasianist"

This essay uses the phrases "Neo-Eurasianism" and "New Right" to describe him, and his movement as anti-Atlanticist, anti-American and anti-British

To quote the article "The doctrine of Neo-Eurasianism propagated by Dugin, as well as his 'path from a marginal extremist to an ideologue of the post-Soviet academic and political elite'"

Per WP:SAY I'd propose changing the sentence to "Dugin promotes a populist right wing philosophy he calls Neo-Rusasianism, that his critics say is strongly influenced by fascism"

The reference in the lead presents an opinion on a named person "Classification of Dugin as a fascist is justified, regardless of the fact that today the MGU professor frequently speaks not as a primitive ethnocentrist or biological racist" - the WP:BLP policy says that named living people cannot be called words without couching the declaration in who says it (WP:NPOV and WP:SAY).

Also the Ingram ref says "neo-fascism" and that might be a more accurate designator than "fascism" per se.

-- Callinus (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the opening line is very questionable. He may well be fairly odious, needless to say describing him as a "fascist" is incorrect. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We describe him the way RS do.--Galassi (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which you have not done. This is not a given description, nor is it an accurate one. I would also like to point out WP:LIBEL is potentially relevant here, so I will WP:IGNORE WP:BRD if necessary. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I have read The Fourth Political Theory and he explicitly rejects fascism and all other post-Enlightenment and mono-systems.--79.31.90.89 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aleksandr Dugin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022031837/http://www.litrossia.ru/2007/15/01412.html to http://www.litrossia.ru/2007/15/01412.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820173127/http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/06/29/expanded-sanctions-list to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/06/29/expanded-sanctions-list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dugin is not fascist
The Fourth Political theory is anti-fascist per si, then Dugin could not be fascist as it is said in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.129.204.57 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Verify
If you can find that specific claim in any of the references, you can restore the content. I checked and couldn't find that claim in any of the references, which means the references cannot be used to support the claim, per WP:VERIFY. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The deleted section stated:
 * In a 1999 interview for a Polish "Fronda" Dugin explains: "In Russian Orthodox christianity 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". Source:
 * I looked at the URL, and at first I failed to spot the above quotation - then I realised that the URL is to page one of a four page article. Page two says:
 * W prawosławiu natomiast człowiek jest częścią Kościoła, częścią wspólnotowego organizmu, tak jak noga. Jak więc człowiek może odpowiadać za siebie? Czy noga może odpowiadać za siebie? Stąd wywodzi się idea państwa, totalnego państwa. Dlatego też Rosjanie, ponieważ są prawosławni, mogą być prawdziwymi faszystami, w odróżnieniu od sztucznych włoskich faszystów w rodzaju Gentile czy tamtejszych heglistów. Prawdziwy heglizm to Iwan Pereswietow - człowiek, który w XVI w. wymyślił dla Iwana Groźnego opryczninę. To był prawdziwy twórca rosyjskiego faszyzmu. On sformułował tezę, że państwo jest wszystkim, a jednostka niczym.
 * I do not speak Polish - Google translate turned this into:
 * In Orthodoxy, on the other hand, man is a part of the Church, a part of the community organism, just like a leg. So how can a man answer for himself? Can the leg answer for itself? Hence the idea of a state, a total state. Therefore, the Russians, because they are Orthodox, can be real fascists, in contrast to artificial Italian fascists such as Gentile or local Hegelians. True Hegelianism is Ivan Pereswietov - a man who in the 16th century invented oprichnina for Ivan the Terrible. This was the true creator of Russian fascism. He formulated the thesis that the state is everything and the individual is nothing.
 * So I think the answer is that it is verified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have modified the URL in the article to lead the user to page two of the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I wasn’t clear and was misunderstood. The specific claim that Dugin wants to “hasten the “end of times”” with “all out war” fails verify. None of the references which support that sentence make that claim. I deleted the reference above because, as I said, it’s a redundant WP:PRIMARY source. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that you have provided a sufficient justification for deleting the Polish citation.

Regarding the statement you now claim to be disputing:
 * and calls to hasten the "end of times" with all-out war.

I looked at old versions to see what they were originally provided for. 12:00, 13 October 2014 had the following:
 * is known for his fascist views.

So it looks as though the words were added in front of the citations originally provided for him being known for his fascist views.

The words in front of the citations were added in this edit 14:58, 14 January 2015 by IP editor 208.229.219.2. I agree that they should be deleted and have done so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Loss of department headship
There is a section in the article Aleksandr Dugin that starts:
 * During the conflict in Ukraine, Dugin also lost his post as Head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations of Moscow State University.

An edit dated 04:37, 12 January 2015 by Mikalra edited the lede to say the following (without editing the section entitled "Loss of department headship"):
 * Dugin was a professor in the Department of Sociology of International Relations of Moscow State University. In July of 2014, Dugin claimed that he had been offered the Chair of the department, only to be fired from his post and have the offer rescinded because of an alleged softening of the Russian government position on the conflict then ongoing in Ukraine. The university asserted the offer for the department chairmanship resulted from a technical error, and that he would remain a professor under his contract until September 2014. It also stated that he had been hired on a salary that was beyond its budget by the outgoing Dean. He was also the Director of the Center for Conservative Studies at the MSU Sociology Faculty.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

amazon censorship?
I never heard of this guy (Dugin) before, but some interweb commenters are saying his books are now deplatformed from Amazon US, while still available on Amazon UK. A quick web search doesn't find any RS about this issue, and does find some amazon.com book links that don't work or say the book is unavailable. The books are still available from other outlets. I thought I'd bring this up here in case anyone knows more or wants to follow it. I have no idea whether it's an actual issue of political censorship, or just a book logistic issue, or whatever. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is entirely normal for obscure books that are available on one version of Amazon to be unavailable (or much more expensive) on another version of Amazon.


 * I did some checks.
 * Amazon.co.uk stocks two of his books in English and one in Italian under the author name Alexander Dugin.
 * Amazon.com stocks five of his books in Serbian under the author name Aleksandar Dugin, and at least two of his books in Russian under the author name A Dugin, and one of his books in Italian under the author name A Dugin.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018
The word "fascist," a synonym for evil, should be removed from the article according to impartiality. Rationalizations for its use along with links to opinion pieces and various polemical sources, themselves full of erroneous information, should likewise be removed. 128.32.241.67 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. "Fascist" has a more precise meaning than "evil", even if it's popularly used that way.  Please establish a consensus for this before using .  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019
Contumulous (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The word "fascist" in connection to Dugin is a slander. And inadequately attested to. Citing to libelous articles, however numerous, is but a gratuitous sourcing of the same picayune smear.

It's clear that Dugin understands himself as Existentialist, since his chief work, Forth Political Theory, repudiates Fascism in absolute and unambiguous terms.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020
Remove "especially in the forms of Anastasianism and Ynglism. Dugin's Eurasianism is often cited as belonging to the same spectrum of these movements." This is purely speculative statement, and there is no any evidence for connection between Dugin and anastasianism or ynglism. Such speculative statement can be harmful for anastasianism and ynglism communities. 2A00:23C0:A380:3400:693B:DFD0:2B74:E3F4 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This statement is also sourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020
Remove "especially in the forms of Anastasianism and Ynglism. Dugin's Eurasianism is often cited as belonging to the same spectrum of these movements,[41]". This source [41] does not mention nor explain any connection between Anastasianism or Ynglism and Aleksander Dugin. 2A00:23C0:A380:3400:949C:B24F:389E:8E01 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The text of the source cited Neben verschiedenen eigentlichen Neopaganismus-Gruppen bedienten sich auch die Russische Nationale Einheit und insbesondere die eurasische Bewegung um Alexander Dugin vieler Ideen und Konzepte westlicher und indigener Quellen... substantiates the claim that Dugin's Eurasianism is part of the same intellectual/spiritual "spectrum' as the other new religious movements. Spectrum means a variety of positions, not all of which are closely-aligned.  Both fundamental Islam and fundamental Christianity, despite their adherents often being fierce enemies, are both part of the Abrahamaic religion spectrum, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020
Remove "known for his fascist views". Known by who? Is that the main thing Alexander Dugin is known for? Is that the appropriate description of Alexander Dugin's views? There should be broader explanation that Alexander Dugin is inspired by fascist thinkers amongst others. 2A00:23C0:A380:3400:654E:5BCB:1839:D178 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The objected-to statement is sourced to no less than 8 separate sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Out of the eight sources - four are not generally accessible, three are in the general press of geopolitical rivals, and one is some dude on YT (which elsewhere on Wikipedia, rightly or wrongly, is not considered a RS). It should be removed anyway because it is in the lead (obvious MOS:LEAD and probably WP:UNDUE, if not WP:NPOV), is written as fact, and contradicts the self-description of the subject of the entry.  There is plenty of space in the article to hold a discussion about whether he is a fascist or not.  For what it is worth, I think it is clear he *was* 25 years ago, but is no longer as he has switched from a centralist to a decentralist and pluralist view of polity comparable to that of the European New Right.  It is improper to use an encyclopædia to take opinions from negative sources and write them as FACT.  Rather, one should at the very least state it is a certain common opinion.  Note the guideline, "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." 67.187.30.225 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020
Remove "especially in the forms of Anastasianism and Ynglism. Dugin's Eurasianism is often cited as belonging to the same spectrum of these movements,[41]". The expression "often cited" refers to only one source ([41]), so there is no evidence that it has been cited anywhere else. The expression "belonging to the same spectrum of these movements" is deceptive, as Eurasianism is politically involved, while Anastasianism and Ynglism are politically neutral. Also, the source [41] is written in german language, which is not the language commonly spoken by english-language wikipedia users. 2A00:23C0:A380:3400:D2C:D0C6:785D:E533 (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Re to IP (the "fascist")
It was previously discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin/Archive_1#Is_the_phrase_%22fascist_views%22_appropriate_for_the_first_sentence? here] and partly here (see refs). I do not see anything new to change this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

"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)
 * Yeah I'd like to see this brought up in the article somewhere. Maskettaman (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * @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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Sources   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1111:5940:BDF9:9A61:6629:EEF6 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources:        . It might be big enough to warrant its own article? What do other people think? AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * My very best wishes, quick search does bring sources calling it an assassination attempt though: — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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  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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)