Talk:Aleksandr Dugin

Dugin isn't a fascist

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

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

Just because he says he isn't, doesn't mean he isn't. GliderMaven (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

He is a communist not a fascist. He even said himself he is on the side of Stalin and the Soviet Union. I understand that everything your average american disagrees with is "fascist", but this guy is a communist (which is not any better). 193.145.14.195 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

He's absolutely not, he's right wing. He likes the totalitarian aspects of Stalin and the Soviet Union and how big the empire was. It's true that he was one of the founder members of the National Bolshevik party, which is pretty left wing. This confused me too for a while, because everything he says is right wing. While it's absolutely true that he was a member- he pulled it right. It went very far left as soon as he was no longer a member. GliderMaven (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Liking totalitarianism" doesn't equal fascist, and his position as a founding member of the National Bolshevik party definitely makes a pretty strong case against your assertion of his fascism. What exactly convinces you he is a fascist as opposed to a Bolshevist or Stalinist like his resume would make one presume? 2600:6C52:7E3F:E659:A039:29BA:7434:89A1 (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

“He’s right wing”

Ok, how? That’s a very big and complicated claim you’re making without providing details on what makes him “right-wing” in your mind. 2A02:6B60:BD7B:0:C91B:DE4D:D8B2:1ADD (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You two have an IP address located in Germany and Italy, quite an "axis" of thought that interestingly denied an influentual Eurasian fascist version of its tendencies which by the way and i do study it are pretty much the only marginal neo fascist movement in Europe who still has sizeable followings and Duggin as its messiah of philosophy 125.163.13.151 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because western propaganda says he's fascist, it doesn't mean he is. 95.238.32.198 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You two have an IP address located in Germany and Italy, quite an "axis" of thought that interestingly denied an influentual Eurasian fascist version of its tendencies which by the way and i do study it are pretty much the only marginal neo fascist movement in Europe who still has sizeable followings and Duggin as its messiah of philosophy 125.163.13.151 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

“The sources claim he’s a fascist”

• checks sources*

…oh I see…no secrets on how this game is played. 2A02:6B60:BD7B:0:C91B:DE4D:D8B2:1ADD (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

As Volunteer Marek has stated, this has been discussed many times before and we go by what sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek I have checked, and this has not been discussed countless times before. Please provide examples of sources that state that he is "knowm for views widely characterized as fascist". Generalrelative I have checked and this has not been discussed many times before. Please explain your edit in the context of this discussion. Describing a political philosopher whose views are, according to the article, complex, as " widely characterized as fascist" in the first sentence is extreme.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you have not checked the archive. I count at least eight discussions. And I count seven sources backing the "fascist" label. Even if you want to quibble about one or two of them, that is more than enough. Generalrelative (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've substituted out some of the weaker sources for stronger ones, and added quotes. There is no doubt that "fascist" is a very common way for RS to describe this person's views. Generalrelative (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative eight discussions are not countless, and I would dispute that they are many. Having read them, I see no clear consensus or conclusion. Only one is about the first sentence. Of the 7 references given in the first sentence, number 12, 13 doesn't mention fascist at all, 11 mentions it once, but is an opinion piece, 10 describes him as a "radical rightwing politician" and says "Dugin can in certain ways be considered a neo-fascist as well as a geopolitician. " 9 describes him as "Russian political thinker and, by his own words, geopolitician,", and 8 is an interview in Polish which doesn't seem to either call him a Fascist, or feature him calling himself a Fascist. Here is a BBC article from today which doesn't mention fascist - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62621509 I have opened an RFC further down the page. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative have you been looking at sources to see how they describe him, or searching for sources that describe him as a Fascist? Even if it were very common for reliable sources to describe him as "Fascist", which I dispute, I think it would need to be nearly universal to include the description in the first sentence.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of the above comments show a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy: WP:CON and WP:V respectively. Note too that L'Origine du monde appears to be arguing against previous sources, rather than the updated ones. All seven of the present sources definitely identify Dugin's views as fascist. Generalrelative (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative Please check my comments against the current sources, as they mostly still apply. None of the sources given characterise him or his views as Fascist in the first line. Most of the sources given are obscure. Few, if any, of the sources describe his views as solely Fascist, and cherrypicking sections that do from, for example, an article interviewing a columnist entitled "Russian intellectual Aleksandr Dugin is also commonly known as 'Putin's brain'" doesn't mean that the claim should be in the first section of the article. More to the point, if you read the article as it is currently written, "far right" is a far more accurate description.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, at this point it should be clear that I think you're wildly off base here. Let's allow others to weigh in. No need to ping me every time you comment. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative I understand that you think I am wrong, although I do not understand what you meant by simply naming wiki policies. What I would like you to do is explain why fascist should be in the first line in the RFC I started below. I understand that you think you have explained this before, but my request is not whether you can find sources that call his views Fascist, or that you claim this was agreed before, but that you actually explain why "known for views widely characterized as fascist." belongs in the first line.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. My argument is that the description is clearly both verifiable and due. Being "known for views widely characterized as fascist" is by far one of the most salient things reliable sources say about this person. Also: learn how to properly indent your comments. I am tired of reformatting every time I respond to you. Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's do a better cherry-picking. You could learn languages other than English (or just use automatic translators), so you have a wider pool of sources you can cherry-pick from to describe Dugin as he needs to be described, just to make clear who's who. Or, you can drop this opinionated classification entirely from the first paragraph, and maybe put it in a "disputed" opinions section. Because he being this or that without a deeper analysis and understanding of what he's really said, is what it is: just an opinion based on what is very likely propaganda which needs to build a certain imagine for its own purposes - and you all become just a blind (or accomplice) tool. Real encyclopediae suffer very much less because of this problem. Wikipedia about current living characters in a challenged propaganda-filled world (more so starting from between 2004 and 2008)... well, really disappointing. Smart and honest contributors should leave, or avoid this kind of the-only-sources-I-can-know-say-so political labels, keep just facts and leave disputed opinions at the bottom. 95.238.32.198 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Here is a description of him from today from the Guardian. It doesn't call his views Fascist - Alexander Dugin: who is Putin ally and apparent car bombing target? [[1]].♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It call his views fascist twice:"he continued writing and lecturing, further developing the concept of Eurasianism, the Russian-flavoured, fascist political doctrine" and "Dugin co-founded the National Bolshevik party with the novelist Eduard Limonov, merging fascist and communist-nostalgic rhetoric and symbolism." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It calls his views "ultranationalist", "anti-liberal and ultranationalist", "radical anti-western thoughts", "illiberal totalitarian ideas" and "Russian nationalism". Those two mentions are not directly of his views.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 17:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You were JUST given direct quotes which contradict your claim and then you shamelessly repeat the false claim again. This is WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dugin is someone discussed by high-quality scholarly sources, so I'd prefer to know if they commonly use the descriptor. I searched Google Scholar using "Alexander Dugin", since that spelling is most common in English language sources. I get:

• 3,380 hits for just the name
• 1,680 hits +fascist
• 664 hits +"far right"
• 2,160 hits +analyst
• 1,720 hits +philosopher
• 172 hits +strategist

Of course, raw search results like this come with many flaws, but less so with a Scholar search than a normal Google search. Assuming we want to say something about Dugin's views (which are a focus of RS coverage), "fascist" seems like a prime contender, being about as common as his being a "philosopher". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I thought we should prefer general sources such as the Guardian to obscure scholarly sources. Your research suggests that less than half the scholarly articles about him mention in any context the highly emotive and subjective term Fascist, so why should it be in the first sentence? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a reasonable argument to be had over whether a descriptor found (perhaps) in half of the best available sources can be labeled "widely characterized". By my reading of policy, it can. I think it's sensible to argue otherwise. I'm interested to see how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

""Aleksandr dugin" neo eurasianism " gets 1570 hits, which is almost as many, and much more specific in meaning. Traditionalism gets 2140 hits, "nationalist" 2,000 results. For some reason "ultra nationalist" has been added to the sentence. That gets only 393 hits. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I get 592 hits for "neo-eurasianism" and 440 for "traditionalism", both of which need quote marks to avoid unwanted results. Neo eurasianism will return hits for just "Eurasian", and traditionalism finds results including just "traditional". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Personally, I would not use Guardian articles for anlysis of political ideology, because they have no expertise in that area and policy says that their analysis is not a reliable source for facts unless written by an expert rather than someone with a BA in PoliSci. The main scholars of fascism treat it as an historical phenomenon that died in 1945 and refer to its current proponents as neo-fascists, which is type of subtle distinction usually seen lacking in news articles. It certainly shouldn't mean anyone who the U.S. doesn't like.

Dugin developed a "Fourth Political Theory" as an alternative to liberalism, communism and fascism, disowning all three of them. But that does not mean he is not fascist or neo-fascist, that is something for which we require expert opinion that says what the consensus view is.

We might also wish to re-vist the Putin's brain meme. As Marlène Laruelle pointed out in a source used for this article, "Contrary to the belief of those Western commentators who view him as "Putin's guru," Dugin has little direct access to the highest echelons of the presidential administration." (Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy)

TFD (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

An academic counterpoint to this would be historian Timothy Snyder, who calls explicitly for both Dugin and the Putin state to be referred to explicitly as fascist: In the Russia of the 21st century, “anti-fascism” simply became the right of a Russian leader to define national enemies. Actual Russian fascists, such as Aleksandr Dugin and Aleksandr Prokhanov, were given time in mass media. And Mr. Putin himself has drawn on the work of the interwar Russian fascist Ivan Ilyin. For the president, a “fascist” or a “Nazi” is simply someone who opposes him or his plan to destroy Ukraine. Ukrainians are “Nazis” because they do not accept that they are Russians and resist. A time traveler from the 1930s would have no difficulty identifying the Putin regime as fascist. [2] (emphasis added) Generalrelative (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Snyder is not a fascism scholar and has little influence as an historian other than to popularize unconventional views for a wide audience. Your link is to an opinion piece, not an academic paper. If it were, then we could see what if any reception it had.

It trivializes fascism to call every foreign leader who has disputes with the West a fascist. Where are the colored shirts, the Putin youth, the concentration camps, the extra-legal courts, the omnipresent party, the murders of thousands of political opponents, the leader's manifesto?

Stalinists defined fascism as authoritarian capitalism, but while many may use that definition, it's not generally accepted today.

TFD (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD, you and I have disagreed about this in the past. Snyder is indeed an expert on fascism in the Eastern European context. Dismissive comments about the scholarly influence of someone who holds a named chair at Yale only serve to undercut your credibility. In any case, I'm not interested in going back and forth with you on that. If others would like to weigh in I will be happy to respond. Generalrelative (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not say he is not an expert, just that he is not an expert on fascism. I will quote Richard J. Evans, who is an expert on fascism: "But few who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder. The majority of genuine specialists, including the historians Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, agree that whatever else he is, Trump is not a fascist."[3] And if his opinions had weight, then they would mentioned in textbooks about fascism, which they aren't.

Being an expert in a field means that you have submited your research and conclusions to academic publication, which Snyder has not done. And please read the commentary by Laruelle, who is Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at George Washington University, and an expert (i.e., published in academic papers and books), about the rise of populism in Europe. She actually had her book Is Russia Fascist? published by the Cornell University Press.

It should be obvious to anyone that has studied any subject, that the people who write the texts that students are told to read in university courses are more reliable and closer to academic consensus than newspaper editorials.

TFD (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

One might not expect it, judging from the tone, but this is actually a productive exchange. Leaving aside the question of who counts as a fascism expert (I won't rehash our previous argument, or the context of Evans' sour grapes –– interested parties can search the Fascism talk page –– or list the extensive peer-reviewed work that Snyder has done on the Holocaust), it is especially noteworthy that Marlène Laruelle, whom you correctly cite as a critic of Snyder and others who see the Putin regime as fascist, does in fact readily describe Aleksandr Dugin as holding fascist views –– per the source I cited below [4]. When academics who disagree quite vociferously on a number of related matters can agree on this, that's pretty strong evidence that Dugin is "widely seen" in this way. Generalrelative (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a list of Snyder's scholarly writings from his website. Not all of the works were published by the academic press or peer-reviewed. I don't know if you could say he has extensive peer reviewed work on the Holocaust, but being a Holocaust expert does not make one an expert on fascism or vice versa.

Laruelle begins the section "FASCISM, CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM" by saying, "The connections between Dugin’s ideas and fascism have been a subject of much debate." She then attempts to explain what the connection is.

I do not doubt that Dugin is heavily influenced by fascism, praises fascism and has views similar to their's. That should all be in the article. But iz think we should avoid calling someone a fascist when that is a minority opinion at best in reliable sources.

I think the attempt to label people fascist is often used as an argumentum ad hominem. Fascism after all is a threat that must be destroyed at all costs. So we see the term used more liberally in polemical writing than in academic literature, so it comes to mean any anti-democrat who isn't a communist. But that robs us of a unique term to describe the inter-war regimes of central Europe.

TFD (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Actually, this is the correct approach. Googling and counting results does not mean much. Perhaps some of them mentioned fascist to discuss the concept without actually saying he was a fascist. Taking good scholars that express a view is a good approach to verify a view and properly attribute the view in a concrete manner. This allows to actually read the context and see whether the scholars consider that he is so much known for his fascist views that it deserves to be mentioned as the first sentence in the lead. Of course, and perhaps this is what L'Origine du monde has in mind, we must also consider what other scholars have said and make sure that due weight is respected. In particular, what TFD wrote suggests that Snyder is not representative of other scholars. Still, the idea is to look what specific scholars have written. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD simply asserted that Snyder is not representative of other scholars. I assert that TFD is incorrect. Sorting this out would require a bit of exposition. First of all, we currently have Anton Shekhovtsov (both [5] and [6]), Alan Ingram [7] and John B. Dunlop [8] cited in the article where we say that Dugin's views are widely characterized as fascist. To this could be added Andreas Umland, a rather more prominent scholar than the previous three (see e.g. [9] and [10]; quote from the latter: Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent advocate of fascist and anti-Western views, has risen from a fringe ideologueto deeply penetrate into Russian governmental offices, mass media, civil society and academia in ways that many in the West do not realize or understand.) Indeed, even Marlène Laruelle, whom TFD cites approvingly above, takes the view that Dugin therefore advances a positive reading of fascism, and does not denounce Nazism, even though he condemns its racism. [11] There is some salutary nuance to her argument, but on the whole she comes down on the side of historians who see substantive continuity between Dugin’s thought and historical fascism. I’m going to leave off for now because I have other things to do. More will be forthcoming if there is any serious question as to whether these views represent mainstream scholarship. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that Snyder's views were not representative of "other" fascism scholars, I said he is not a fascism scholar. Furthermore, whether or not is views on Dugin are shared by experts is a red herring. I might agree with fascism experts that Mussolini was a fascist. That doesn't make me an expert. TFD (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're not arguing that Snyder's take on Dugin is in some way fringe, what is your point? I'm highly dubious that the community at large would agree with you that Snyder isn't an expert on this topic –– he is, rather, the kind of gold-standard source we look to per WP:RS –– but in any case it seems perhaps we can leave that argument aside if it isn't germane to the present debate. Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I assert that TFD is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Snyder is published in a journal that reliably represents a scientific body (if we decide to restrict the article to that kind of sources). For example, if scholars (not only one) presented a POV in well known Russian journals, this POV would be admissible. Of course, the fact that the journals are Russian, etc. should be part of the attribution so that the readers can make their own opinion. The general point here is that the POVs on Dugin might not be unifonorm among scholars. There might not be a single POV that represents mainstream scholarship. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde, articles by non-experts are not reliable sources for the conclusions they reach. While they are reliable sources for the opinions of their writers, they lack weight for inclusion in this article unless cited in secondary sources. Furthermore, as a BLP, poorly sourced material should be immediately removed. TFD (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

There is academic consensus on many things, and these can be treated as facts in articles. There are of course cases where there is academic debate, in which case articles say something like "most experts consider/do not consider Dugin to be fascist." I am not saying we should only rely on academic sources, but that we should follow policy and guidelines. WP:NEWSORG for example says that newspaper columns (which is where Snyder published his views), even if published in reputable news sources such as the New York Times, are rarely reliable for facts. An exception might be if it is written by an expert, but Snyder isn't a fascism expert.

If on the other hand we treat Snyder's conclusions as an opinion, then WP:WEIGHT requires us to explain how accepted his opinion on Dugin is, which should be sourced to secondary sources. We could say for example that Snyder has popularized the view of Dugin as a fascist.

I think it is very important to distinguish the possible things we can say:

Dugin is a fascist.

Dugin is generally considered to be a fascist.

Some experts consider Dugin to be a fascist.

Dugin is often described as a fascist in news reporting, although that view has little support among actual fascism experts.

TFD (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

1) I agree with TFD that academic consensus is a real thing. Obviously. Per e.g. WP:YESPOV we avoid stating facts as though they were opinions.

2) I'm not convinced that the academic consensus here is strong enough for "Dugin's views are fascist" but I think I've made it clear –– even with the very incomplete sampling of some of the literature I presented above –– that we can establish using only peer-reviewed academic sources that his views are "widely characterized" as such. That's a slightly lower bar and it is easily met in this case. I'm okay with including some newspaper sources too, or not. But that's really beside the point. The status quo language is both verifiable and due.

3) TFD, constantly repeating the claim that Snyder is not a "fascism expert" is beginning to feel like WP:POINTy editing. But whatever. You do you. Ignoring all the other references I've presented –– including one of your own favored sources, Marlène Laruelle –– is not going to be a persuasive strategy however. As I stated above, when two scholars such as Snyder and Laruelle, who disagree vociferously on a number of closely related topics, can agree on this, that's a sign that it's the mainstream view. Generalrelative (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is important to recognize that there are fascism experts who among other things have developed definitions of the subject that are widely accepted not just by them but among historians and social scientists generally. In Political Ideologies (OUP 2017), which is a textbook, the fascism scholar Aristotle Kallis refers to Roger Griffin's "now classic definition of generic fascism": "an ideology of 'palingenetic populist right ultra-nationalism.'"[12] He and other experts have then tried to determine which ideologies and movements fall within this so-called "consensus theory of fascism," which again determine how the subject is taught in schools.

Of course other writers can and do question their definition or what should be included, but I don't expect that we should provide as much weight to their views unless they publish academic papers and gain acceptance from other experts. I really do think there is more rigor in a paper published in a major journal and a column in the New York Times. In fact the discussion has come up with various public intellectuals including Paul Krugman, Sean Wilentz, Arthur C. Brooks, Michael Ignatieff, Noam Chomsky and others, who all contributed substantially to their areas of expertise. And most editors thought that their academic writings were preferable to their articles and books written for the popular press.

I mentioned Laruelle because she is perhaps the leading expert on Dugin. In fact rather than Google search and cherry-pick, I looked for the most relevant book on the subject and first came upon Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. Until today, I was not familiar with Dugin or Laruelle, although I was aware of National Bolshevism and fascism claims against Putin. But that's what I do if I what to know more about a subject, look for a source that is accurate, relatively unbiased and recognized as such by other experts, rather than newspaper opinion pieces or the analysis of news reporters.

Having said that, news analysis, opinion pieces and popularized non-fiction play an important role in introducing people to topics and stimulating debate. When I was a teenager, I read H.G. Wells' world history, the Durants' world history series and Shirer's book on the Third Reich. And although they were better written than any of my textbooks, they were not as reliable or neutral.

TFD (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a lengthy discussion with several different warring ideas, but to a general Wiki-layman such as myself I think it'd be best to change the formatting of the phrase to something in passive voice (uncertain if this is a huge faux pas), such as "generally considered to be a fascist", as it doesn't sound so definite but still carries weight. Especially compared to open Nazis like Francis Parker Yockey, and especially in a BLP. Lucksash (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Firefangledfeathers I suddenly thought to do to your google scholar search what you did to mine. "Alexander Dugin" "fascist" gives only 920 results, as opposed to 3.390 for "Alexander Dugin". Does that mean that 73% of articles that mention Alexander Dugin don't mention Fascist? If so, would you agree that this article uses Fascist too much?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the derivative words of "fascist" are potential worthwhile hits: fascism, fascistic, etc. That's what distinguishes it from "traditionalism" and "neo-Eurasianism". Again, all of these suffer from the usual ills of evidence based on search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers in that case I don't understand why derivative words of "traditionalism" and "neo-Eurasianism" aren't worthwhile. We have established, I think, that less than half the articles which mention Dugin mention any form of Fascist word in any context, and that less than 27% call him a fascist.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 04:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Traditional", "tradition", "Eurasia", and "Eurasian" are unwanted results. If you add [OR "traditionalist] you get up to 655 results. Adding [OR "neo-Eurasianist"], that results increase to 638. I wouldn't say that Google tests like this "establish" much in this case, but they can help focus our attention on areas where a rigorous source review is worthwhile. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest as a source the book The American Empire should be destroyed by Aleksandr Dugin?

If someone wrote a book titled The Russian Empire should be destroyed, would it be reasonable to call that author a fascist, or would Wikipedia suggest a more appropriate term? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

My mistake: I misread Dugin's name in the title as that of the author, who is actually James Heiser. Heiser quotes Dugin as saying "The American Empire should be destroyed. And at one point, it will be."

I would still like to know the best term for someone advocating the destruction of any large empire. (As opposed to simply waiting for it to self-destruct, whose inevitability would appear to be supported by history.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaughan Pratt

Just because he wants a particular empire to fall doesn't make him non-fascist.

When we look at his ultranationalist ideas, propensity to violent rhetoric, and the idea of an exoansionist state, he fits the bill for fascism.

Wanting the destruction of another empire isn't non-fascist as fascism is perfectly fine with competing empires collapsing. In fact it is based on the idea that your empire is best so clearly all others who might oppose you SHOULD collapse.

When someone criticizes an empire, we should be careful to examine whether they are criticizing the nature or substance of the empire.

Dugin appears to think "The American Empire should be destroyed" because he thinks America should be destroyed, not Empires. He'd likely be entirely fine with a Ruscic Empire on the American continent. FarHarBard (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is that "fascist" is a suitable category for someone proposing destruction of some competing empire, I have no quarrel with that.

But while much more could be said in that vein, e.g. in the Middle East, a talk page is not the place for it. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vaughan Pratt If you're just going to talk passed people, what are we hoping to achieve here? FarHarBard (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2024 (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 this edit, but did not fix the problem. If the source does reference who refers to Dugin as "Putin's brain", do remove the tag and update the text, don't just remove the tag saying "read the source". Anyway, I had read the source, which says:

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

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

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: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. 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:

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

And one promising, but that sadly I can't access, Putin's Brain — Foreign Affairs. This one doesn't use quotes, so it is actually referring to Dugin as Putin's Brain.
Either way, if we say "He is often referred to as "Putin's Brain", we should say by who. And I don't think we can cite press that doesn't say by whom, only that he is. Because it could perfectly well be what @Gitz6666, says, "unsubstantiated journalist 'colour'". Or maybe just one person called him that once and then it just got reported over and over, who knows? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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: [20] 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)

Bibliography

There is a mistake in this line: "Noomahia: voiny uma. Tri Logosa: Apollon, Dionis, Kibela, Akademicheskii proekt (2014)"! The H of Noomahia should be an N, thus "Noomania: voiny uma. Tri Logosa: Apollon, Dionis, Kibela, Akademicheskii proekt (2014)". 2A02:8071:B81:DA80:9947:F8B7:9B16:6940 (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong: [21], "Noomahiya". Also "Noomakhija" is used [22]. The Russian "X" cannot be transliterated with "N". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 1 November 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)

WP searches for Dugin should redirect here

I tried doing this the other day, someone reverted it. I would just point out there is essentially a disambigation page for "Dugin", although it presents itself as a page about last name itself. The point here is that I´m sure the vast majority of people who are searching for "Dugin" are searching for "Aleksandr". StrongALPHA (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm copying, with some tweaks, a comment from your talk page:

You have never, and still haven't, redirected Dugin to this article. Do you perhaps think you are doing so by adding the hatnote? You would need to actually change the redirect target at Dugin to Aleksandr Dugin. If you don't do so, the hatnote is incorrect. Note that I am not suggesting that you do so, as such a move would be controversial (for example, I would be likely to oppose it) and should only proceed via RM consensus.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

In the very beginning of the Alexandr Dugin article it states “Dugin was”. Dugin is not dead. Please change to “Dugin is”. 2A02:AA7:4624:AED6:896B:E5D8:D9E9:CE9C (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done The article grammar is correct.  // Timothy :: talk  07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

What exactly is his stance on the Israel-Palestine issue? One of the photographs in the article shows Dugin in Iran, alongside a rabbi who is known for being outspokenly anti-Zionist, and with a Palestinian flag in the background. I’m guessing the photo is from a pro-Palestine demonstration.

However, the article also mentions arch-Zionist Avigdor Eskin as a (possibly former) ally of Dugin. Does Dugin openly take one side in the conflict, or is he pursuing a more nebulous “both extremes against the middle” strategy (i.e., currying favor both with Palestinians who oppose Western support of Israel, as well as with ultra-Zionists who hate the West for not supporting Israel enough)? The latter would seem to match the way he has tried to influence European politics (courting the far-right and far-left simultaneously). There is probably a lot more written about Dugin in the Russian language than in English, so it’d be worth checking those sources too. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I found something at least, written in response to the current Israel-Gaza war, but it’s a primary source (an essay Dugin himself wrote which was then published in an Arab news outlet). At least it’s more current than a lot of the other sources in this article.

He equivocates a lot, but it’s clear from his own writing that Dugin only opposes Israel insofar as it currently acts as an outpost of what he calls the “antichrist” Western civilization. (He even singles out Israeli Yuval Noah Harari’s transhumanist views as an example of what he’s fighting against!) That, and his references to “spiders” controlling everything behind the scenes, comes across as quite antisemitic.

Nevertheless, since his overall agenda is primarily anti-modern-West, rather than specifically anti-Israel or anti-Jewish, he does leave open the possibility of collaborating with some Jews and/or Israelis, as long as they align themselves with Russia, Iran, or another anti-Western power instead. That would explain his contacts with Eskin et al. He also seems to be distancing himself from the 2024 election, since he thinks Trump is worse when it comes to the Middle East, while Biden is worse on Ukraine. It’s clear he now just thinks the USA is the enemy regardless of who wins. It’s really weird how half the time this dude sounds indistinguishable from a “decolonial” campus leftist as far as geopolitics is concerned, but then whenever LGBT or women’s rights come up, he suddenly morphs into a groyper. But that’s not exactly new knowledge about him. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)