This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Julius Evola article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 11, 2019 and June 11, 2022. |
Many Communist hardliners have become Eastern Orthodox hardliners after the fall of the Communist regimes. So, this is by no means unusual, and there is no reason to suspect that Dugin would be insincere in respect to his own faith. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A major rewriting of this article since June, particularly the top, appears to have removed references to more than a dozen sources and removed substantial information. WP:PRESERVE says we should respect "a succession of editors' efforts" and provide clear reasoning for deletions of reliably sourced content, but reasons have not been given on the talk page or edit summaries for most of the deletions. I think some of the deleted information should be restored, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:WEIGHT, if it was a faithful representation of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
fictitious or outright slanderoussource to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. Grayfell ( talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
fictitious or outright slanderousconflict with the assessments of any other third-party reliable sources? Were there other reasons to decide they were unreliable? Llll5032 ( talk) 23:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
lambastedor
needlessly hindered. We are supposed to edit by WP:CONSENSUS and improve the article based on the highest quality WP:INDY sources, for "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". Llll5032 ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Here again perfect display of the destroy anything instructional pack attacks this article has to endure since years. Always lead by editors who know very well the wikipedia procedures, not much about Evola, and who's only goal is to openly discredit, disparage and vilify. 2A01:CB01:2002:BF63:2C48:E3AA:E294:E3E1 ( talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sourcesshould be easy to cite. Also, have you read WP:FOC, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN? Llll5032 ( talk) 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I restored more information and sources that had been deleted recently, and added additional information from high quality sources. Because Evola is a controversial subject, some of the sources may be in disagreement; if so, we can follow the WP:VOICE and WP:PRESERVE guidelines. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly added two summary sentences in the first and third paragraphs. They are are meant to follow MOS:LEADREL ("reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources") and cite WP:BESTSOURCES. I would welcome more editing to improve the emphases and style. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The portrait had a white line drawn over/around his left eye (stage left, right side of photograph), possibly due to some kind of physical degradation of the photograph. It made me wonder if he had some deformity around that part of his face, until I compared with other photos and looked more closely. It would be good to have a less close-up image than this new one, but not at the cost of that white line over the eye, I don't think. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not Evola mentions his views on pornographic content on "Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex"? He saw as another form of control, to make men "titillate".
From Eros:
" Our research meets with special difficulties in a sphere important for our investigation: the states that develop at the height of erotic-sexual experience. Literature offers little help here. Until recently there were the taboos of puritanism, and now in the most daring modern novels, the banal and vulgar predominate over any useful material. Pornographic literature is also a scanty source. Produced to titillate the reader, it is dreadfully squalid not only in the facts and scenes described, but in its essence. " Infernalevie ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Trakking - I am certain we will have disagreements here, so I am happy to discuss them here.
I take issue with basically all parts of your reversion, I'll start with the edit summary, then go value by value.
Anyway, that's my spiel. Carlp941 ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Julius Evola article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 11, 2019 and June 11, 2022. |
Many Communist hardliners have become Eastern Orthodox hardliners after the fall of the Communist regimes. So, this is by no means unusual, and there is no reason to suspect that Dugin would be insincere in respect to his own faith. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A major rewriting of this article since June, particularly the top, appears to have removed references to more than a dozen sources and removed substantial information. WP:PRESERVE says we should respect "a succession of editors' efforts" and provide clear reasoning for deletions of reliably sourced content, but reasons have not been given on the talk page or edit summaries for most of the deletions. I think some of the deleted information should be restored, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:WEIGHT, if it was a faithful representation of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
fictitious or outright slanderoussource to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. Grayfell ( talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
fictitious or outright slanderousconflict with the assessments of any other third-party reliable sources? Were there other reasons to decide they were unreliable? Llll5032 ( talk) 23:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
lambastedor
needlessly hindered. We are supposed to edit by WP:CONSENSUS and improve the article based on the highest quality WP:INDY sources, for "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". Llll5032 ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Here again perfect display of the destroy anything instructional pack attacks this article has to endure since years. Always lead by editors who know very well the wikipedia procedures, not much about Evola, and who's only goal is to openly discredit, disparage and vilify. 2A01:CB01:2002:BF63:2C48:E3AA:E294:E3E1 ( talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sourcesshould be easy to cite. Also, have you read WP:FOC, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN? Llll5032 ( talk) 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I restored more information and sources that had been deleted recently, and added additional information from high quality sources. Because Evola is a controversial subject, some of the sources may be in disagreement; if so, we can follow the WP:VOICE and WP:PRESERVE guidelines. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly added two summary sentences in the first and third paragraphs. They are are meant to follow MOS:LEADREL ("reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources") and cite WP:BESTSOURCES. I would welcome more editing to improve the emphases and style. Llll5032 ( talk) 21:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The portrait had a white line drawn over/around his left eye (stage left, right side of photograph), possibly due to some kind of physical degradation of the photograph. It made me wonder if he had some deformity around that part of his face, until I compared with other photos and looked more closely. It would be good to have a less close-up image than this new one, but not at the cost of that white line over the eye, I don't think. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not Evola mentions his views on pornographic content on "Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex"? He saw as another form of control, to make men "titillate".
From Eros:
" Our research meets with special difficulties in a sphere important for our investigation: the states that develop at the height of erotic-sexual experience. Literature offers little help here. Until recently there were the taboos of puritanism, and now in the most daring modern novels, the banal and vulgar predominate over any useful material. Pornographic literature is also a scanty source. Produced to titillate the reader, it is dreadfully squalid not only in the facts and scenes described, but in its essence. " Infernalevie ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Trakking - I am certain we will have disagreements here, so I am happy to discuss them here.
I take issue with basically all parts of your reversion, I'll start with the edit summary, then go value by value.
Anyway, that's my spiel. Carlp941 ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)