Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Julius Evola. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lead

Maybe stating in the lead things such as "President Donald Trump's chief adviser Steve Bannon, in a speech at the Vatican, noted Evola's influence on the Traditionalist movement and Eurasianism favored by Dugin and the alt-right." does not comply with this policy and it's sort of chronocentrism. Who knows, the source is buzzfeed.com after all.Strakhov (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not just Buzzfeed. See also New York Times. Why do you think this page has gotten so many hits recently?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh. It's Buzzfeed and The New York Times. A newspaper publishes something on someone (in the middle of a war in the media between trumpists and antitrumpists) and... blop. To the lead. But it just happens we are not writing about an actor, an active politician or a pop singer, but a philosopher, writer, ideologist, esoterist and many other (creepy) things ...dead long time ago. There are many monographies and scholarly articles on this guy try here, but it happens here that aaaaaaall the lead is centered on saying absolutely nothing about what he thought or he wrote, but ideological tagging (fascist, fascist, alt right, dugin, trump, putin, antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, antipopular). The lead... is gross. What about:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Did we forget that? Anyway the link between Evola and Duguin seems to fit better in Bannon's article than in the lead of this one. Good luck! Strakhov (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I felt the link between Evola and fascism was weak until evaluating relevant sources . Academic references are to his extreme right politics and to his esotericism, accordingly this is represented in the lede. Evola was the real deal when it came to the extreme right.Gggtt (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but if you thought the link between Evola and fascism was weak you probably knew nothing about Evola. But it does not mean it's the only thing we should say about Evola. Strakhov (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC) PS. Try to read Adolf Hitler's lede (Godwin's law at its fullest). He was probably the real deal when it came to the extreme right [sic]. Yeah, they are... different. One belongs to a good article and this one... well. I guess we do not need adjectives. Strakhov (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a sanitized understanding of the 1951 trial and also thought he was an aristocratic critic from the right (see this to understand why one might think that ), who worked with it but rejected it. I knew about his contributions to Mussolini's views on race, but thought he was a fringe character in Fascism, outside of it. The Ordine Nuovo and Sicherheitsdienst items refute this viewpoint. That's what I'm talking about with my statement.Gggtt (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"The absolute butchering this article has gone through in the past months on my watchlist is sickening. I don't mean to scandalize anybody, but looking at the profiles of some active users restructuring this page, they seem at least a bit biased against this philospher and trying to manipulate the tone of this article to seem defamatory and demonized to the average reader, who of course have been coming in droves due to recent events. I haven't even dared touch this article in months because these particularly adamant and ideological users will revert absolutely everything that doesn't fit their gaslighting. It's like watching a fish dropped into a pool of hungry sharks. It's a bloody tragedy.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The article actually cites sources noting the seriousness of Evola's work in esotericism (note: preserving this aspect will alleviate readers' concerns about alleged lack of neutrality in characterizing Evola "harshly"), and also fairly reflects his politics. Evola had extreme right politics. Other editors felt this was being whitewashed. I attempted to allay their concerns by representing this via reliable sources. The article a month ago had an excess of original research by editors expressing horror at the influence of Evola and attempting to "remove whitewashing", to the point of removing descriptions of many of his notable works. In order to alleviate these editors' concerns, and allow other aspects of Evola to be represented, I deliberately expressed the extreme right aspects of Evola to the fullest extent permitted by reliable sources.Gggtt (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't cite this source, a repository for many Evola articles, but for some of his extreme right views, see his articles "The Hegemony of the White Races": http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/06/the-hegemony-of-the-white-races/, "Racism & Anti-Semitism": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/racism-and-anti-semitism/, "Negrified America": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/negrified-america/, "Orientations": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/01/orientations/, and these convenient excerpts from Metaphysics of War , in many ways a mystical version of this:

The following excerpt from The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, the only non-established source recently being discussed for inclusion (which has nevertheless been referred to in notable sources), also provides explicit clarity on Evola's views of sexuality:

"Evola was not just a theoretician, he also practiced sexual magic rites himself. There are unmistakable statements from him about the “tantric female sacrifice” and the transformation of sexuality into political power. Like almost no other, the Italian has openly named the events that unfold in the mysteries of the yogis and then confessed to them: “The young woman,” he writes, “who is first ‘demonized’ and then raped, ... is essentially... the basic motif for the higher forms of tantric and Vajrayanic sexual magic” (Evola, 1983, p. 389). In dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini he saw the precursors of future Maha Siddhas who would one day conquer the world with their magic powers: “The magician, the ruler, the lord”, he proclaims in regard to Tantrism, “that is the type of the culture of the future!” (Evola, 1926, p. 304). He recommends Tantrism as “the way for a Western elite” (Evola, East and West, p. 29)."Gggtt (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance @Gggtt:. I just, looking over this article as it is, it seems revamped in a suspicious way. I need to examine it more closely. This is a tough case because, of course considering the environments most of us probably grew up in for decades, it is quite arduous to keep a total NPOV for someone with such esoteric philosophy many in the West would consider "out there" and/or offensive. I can't say I have an easy solution. I would say to call another third-party to review, but even then, that person most likely has their own shock and initial bias at Evola's works. Perhaps I should trust more in the users, but the polemics in the edit history show that at least a couple of users have their own agendas to push (not you).--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus:, I have attempted to make this article a fair representation of Evola, citing a plethora of scholarly sources concerning not only his esotericism, but also the extent of his extreme right activity (actually underrepresented in previous articles). Accordingly, I think that such a fair, warts and all account of Evola should be upheld, and I hope you will assist me in doing this.Gggtt (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I appreciate your efforts. I'll take a look over soon and do what I can, if I can!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well. At least Donald Trump has dissapeared from the lead! That's a great start! Strakhov (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I (attempted to) revert restoration of material to the lead: diff. Evola is mostly notable for his relationship with fascism. What is "misleading to the readers" in the prior version? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your concerns as well as the concerns of Ilovetopaint have been addressed in my improvements to the article.Gggtt (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

recent edit

I recently made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756579898&oldid=756579478

The previous article included poor sourcing (including a link to an amazon.com!), selective use of primary sources (e.g. "There are hundreds of examples of racist language and concepts in Evola, For example, in "The Doctrine of Awakening" Evola writes" - sourcesone might find differing primary sources (I might as well cite "The Path of Cinnabar" - his statement (p. 170) where Evola states that "In my study of race, I argued that in accordance with the legitimate inner hierarchy of man, the inner case ought to be regarded as superior to the external and merely biological form" (see also and particularly p. xiii of that text, the publisher's note which cites secondary and scholarly sources distancing Evola from biological racism), or even the fact that Evola's text on Buddhism was endorsed by the Pali society ),

so I cited the secondary source Furlong, and a statement " Arthur de Gobineau, most remembered for developing the theory of the Aryan master race and helping to legitimize racism, is constantly cited by Evola as fundamental to his thinking on race.", that contradicts the source literature - e.g. pp. 64-65 of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke

My initial comment in the lede was appropriate in light of the Fascism sub-section, though I will have to provide much more substantia. I merged the race and fascism sections into one section because as presented the argument was redundant and suffered from the defects outlined above. Evola is known for his esotericism and relationship with fascism. If you want me to put the Furlong item after the ur-group subsection, I would be more than willing to oblige.

I feel that my lede summed up Evola's perspective (and the word "extreme right" finds its reflection in sources - e.g. ), his esotericism for which he is known (e.g. ), and I did not minimize his contribution to fascism (though texts where Evola distances himself from fascism include "Fascism Viewed from the Right", see also the anthology of writings of Evola entitled "A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism", and A. James Gregor further highlights the distinction ).

The present article reads like a "non-sober" (if we are to be euphemistic) writing from somebody emotionally anguished by Evola, who attempts to tendentiously stack proofs rather than objectively describe the subject. People who have more than a fleeting knowledge of the subject will wonder at Wikipedia's neutrality in similar articles, and will dismiss such items. The edit I provided is more sober, and will make such dismissals less likely. I will need to re-write this article to accurately reflect the diversity of sources, not only on Evola's political thought, but on his religious thought.Gggtt (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

current revision is consistent with established article, but merely removes egregious errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756661803&oldid=756661341

I will attempt to build consensus towards a rewrite at a later time.Gggtt (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many weak points you point out or how many reliable sources you find, FreeKnowledgeCreator will revert you without participating on the talk page or using any sources himself. I'm sorry. --Pudeo (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

::You could try taking FreeKnowledgeCreator to the Administrator's Noticeboard if you are bothered by his behavior. I likely won't be back here until February.Gggtt (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Evola was found not to be a fascist in court, and one only need highlight this book to see how inaccurate such a description of him is: https://books.google.com/books?id=LRCiCgAAQBAJ (see also p. xv regarding harassment of him by fascists, and p. xxii concerning some of the details of the court case where he was pronounced "innocent" of the charge that he was a fascist)Gggtt (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)