Talk:Aleksandr Dugin/Archive 2

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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Sourcing seems good enough to mention description of fascist, but recent news coverage seems to prefer "ultranationalist" to describe him. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I wouldn't describe "known for views widely characterized as fascist" as a WP voice statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I would add that in this case, "views widely characterized as fascist" is probably the appropriate WP:BALANCE to strike, given the fact that many or perhaps most reliable sources use this term to describe Dugin's views but not all. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 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" . 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 (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * After looking more at sources and listening views by historians (e.g. ), 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment Here is a discussion in the archives from ... 2016 . Here is my comment in that discussion, from 2016 : 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)
 * 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)
 * This has already been explained many times. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Encyclopedias are summaries. Use direct, simple language. Avoid euphemisms. Avoid WP:WEASEL and other forms of PR language. Demanding continual re-litigation of this issue is a WP:CIVILPOV issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 23:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. National Bolshevik Party flag.svg
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:NPOV. WP:LEDE. WP:V. WP:RS. I'm not interested in playing stupid games.  Volunteer Marek   06:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Name(s) and title(s), if any . Handling of the subject's name is covered under MOS:NAMES.
 * 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).
 * Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
 * One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
 * The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)
 *  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 07:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels
 * === Contentious labels ===
 * {{quote box|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|width=70%|align=center|salign=right
 * quote={Words to watch: {{strong|cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, {{nobreak|-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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

And here is another academic source which is explicitly devoted to describing how Dugin is a fascist and his views are fascist 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please quit it with these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.  Volunteer Marek   15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Probably, or something quite close. This RfC seems flawed, but the wording is OK and broadly supported by scholarly sources. As per, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. [] 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 [], and accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ' ♥ Talk ♥ 21:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No, I think it violates NPOV and summarizes him a bit too pointedly.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is Russian fascism.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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:
 * Russian fascist propagandist (Politico)
 * "Alexander Dugin, a supporter of Vladimir Putin who has espoused supposedly fascist views" (JPost)
 * "Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian neo-fascist" (WaPo, quoting Australian Strategic Policy Institute)
 * "a fascist prophet of maximal Russian empire named Aleksandr Dugin" (WaPo, again)
 * "described Dugin’s notions as fascist (Al Jazeera)
 * "a key ideologue of Russian fascism" (Haaretz)
 * "Dugin is a good old-fashioned mystical fascist" (NPR)
 * "Russian fascist thinkers such as Alexander Dugin" (The Guardian)
 * "neo-fascist philosopher Aleksandr Dugin" (ABC)
 * "Actual Russian fascists, such as Aleksandr Dugin" (New York Times)
 * "Dugin’s ideas are straight out of 1920s Italy and Germany and transplanted to 2020s Russia" (recent academic source)
 * "Dugin can in certain ways be considered a neo-fascist" (academic source)
 * "has described Dugin’s political philosophy as an attempt “to rehabilitate fascism in Russia” by stressing its nationalist orientation" (Tablet)
 * "Aleksandr Dugin's 1997 neo-fascist treatise" (academic source)
 * "For one thing, much as the word “fascist” gets frivolously thrown around, Dugin is actually a onetime self-proclaimed fascist, albeit of the “real fascism has never been tried” variety" (The Bulwark)
 * Aleksandr Dugin's 1997 neo-fascist treatise (academic source)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ^^^ 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)
 * 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)

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. 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). 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)


 * 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)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Three points:
 * 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.
 * 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 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.
 * 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 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

@Миша Карелин, you removed the tag by whom in, 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * In their Foreign Affairs article, "Putin's Brain," Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn do not use that phrase. So, if you are correct, the description 'Putin's brain' may have been coined by a headline writer. Soperd (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ideologue or philosopher?
Honestly, i find the idea to call this man a philosopher preposterous. To be called such, he needs serious academic credentials, which the man does not have.

I propose calling him "ideologue and theorist". To see why, visit the page of Alfred Rosenberg. Would you call that man's rambling philosophy? I hope not. Dugin is to be situated in that ballpark.

But a philosopher he is not. 2A02:A03F:6029:4100:C9CA:FC2D:2963:EE03 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Dugin has a weak claim on being considered a "philosopher," but we go by what reliable sources say, and they often refer to him this way. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dugin is not a fascist
Calling him such is an opinion and does not belong in a supposedly unbiased article; there is a bot which automatically reverts this edit that should be banned. 2003:C0:6F40:6C66:553B:D374:C79E:E7A7 (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dugin's fascist views are amply sourced.--Aristophile (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)