Talk:Julius Evola

Lede

Views on rape don't need to be in lede as they're based on 1/2 sentences and are largely irrelevant to his writings, their presence is designed to bias the reader by prominently displaying abhorrent elements of his thought. Consensus to remove needed. VeritasVox (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body of the article, with a preference for reliable, independent sources. Evola's childish misogyny is only slightly less well-documented than his regressive cryptofascism. Therefore this stays in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny, certainly. If there was enough for a section on 'views on rape' possibly. The two sentences he wrote on this topic don't give the view enough prominence in his work to justify inclusion in the lede. VeritasVox (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not simply the two sentences he wrote, but what others have written on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So the large numbers of articles about Chuck Berry's interest in having women defecate on glass tables would presumably necessitate mentioning this in the lede of his article? Or something like 'James Joyce was also very fond of his wife's flatulence, as shown in his love letters?' Or, perfectly 'Rousseau also justified rape (among other forms of male domination of women) because he argued "For the attacker to be victorious, the one who is attacked must permit or arrange it?”' Or would this be seen biased editors trying to put people off? VeritasVox (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If those were at least as prominent as sources on Berry as musician, or Joyce or Rousseau as an author. Evola's misogyny gets a lot of coverage, no academic denies that he was a misogynist (even his fans can only say argue that that means misogyny is somehow a good thing), and the rape line sums it up pretty well. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian, just because Evola espouses misogynistic things doesn't mean he espouses rape in particular. More generally, just because X espouses things that fall under category Y and Z falls under category Y doesn't mean X espouses Z. 160.39.234.202 (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Baron

Julius Evola did not officially hold the title of a Baron, nor is it ever recorded that he refereed to himself as such, or signed any letters or official documents with this title. The title is a mere honorific attached to him by his followers and sympathizers, due to the the fact that he most probably was a descendant of a noble family from Sicily (but not having retained the noble title, having been himself a secular citizen of Rome without an estate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.172.17 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue of Evola's nobiliary status should definitely be clarified, for several unstated but significant reasons. Reports are conflicting concerning Evola's ancestry (one version goes, the father was of authentic nobiliary lineage but not the mother; many "stories" abound, little hard facts) and as a Sicilian myself, merely having anciently in one's bloodline one or two knights in the Middle Ages, and forever after having only fishermen (for example), is not enough to warrant the title of "Baron"... Almost every Western name in Sicily is ANCIENTLY nobiliary (how else could Sicily exist as part of the Western sphere and not the Islamic?), but that is not sufficient even in the context for the commonality to personally refer to a person as "Baron"... Is this a "fan" type honorific or an actually empirical one (?), is the issue... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:b34b:a940:6d5a:9490:5662:7e85 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Counter-Espionage SS Activity

Evola was no head-in-the-sky intellectualist too dreamy to participate in earthly events. The current article only briefly alludes to his work with the Nazi anti-subversion and SS-like echelons, with a citation from "Dreamer of the Day", whose author is not exactly the embodiment of professorial objectivity.

I have actual documents and documentation as relating to Evola and his SS activity. If inclusion of this data is consensually desired by the editors here, please indicate so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:b34b:a940:6d5a:9490:5662:7e85 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Did Evola "justify rape as a natural expression of male desire"?

Grayfell: Since you keep reverting all indications that there's a dispute regarding this claim, let's discuss it here. Start by stating which sources specifically say Evola "justified rape as an expression of male desire", where they do so, and—if they're not scholarly sources—on the basis of what primary source material. In the meantime, I refer you to the following rules:

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs:

If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...").

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion:

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest

160.39.234.202 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted one edit based on multiple tedious past discussions, and reverted an inappropriate template which linked to one of those past closed discussion. That makes two edits which restored the article's status quo.

I have already discussed this multiple times before, as have many other experienced editors, both on this talk page, and elsewhere (etc.). This is not an exceptional claim just because his views are offense. It is supported directly and indirectly by multiple already cited sources. Merelli is an academic who writes for general-audience publications. This is a reliable source, and the article in question is not properly describes as an opinion.

Wikipedia isn't a repository of primary sources, and the project strongly prefers secondary sources. This is especially true for controversial claims, although I do not know who is actually controverting this point other than anonymous Wikipedia editors. So who, exactly, is disputing this perspective? Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those links, Grayfell. Your characterization of people who disputed this claim as "Evola apologists" and "Nazi apologists" was indeed disturbing and unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. I think it reveals something about your attitude in these discussions, an attitude I wish to dispel right now: I do not sympathize with Evola's worldview, and I find it abhorrent. My concern is precisely that one must be most careful, for the sake of accuracy, when describing such figures. That being said, let's address what you wrote here:

• I reverted one edit based on multiple tedious past discussions That is not a justification, especially in light of the rule I cited above that says opinion pieces from non-scholarly sources should be clearly marked as such.
• It is supported directly and indirectly by multiple already cited sources. You did not answer my question about specifically which sources say this, where they do so, and—if they are not scholarly sources—on the basis of what primary source material.
• the project strongly prefers secondary sources Provided, as the page you linked to says, those sources are known to be reliable on the subject matter. The reliability of Merelli's article in its specific claim that Evola justified rape as an expression of male desire is in question, as evinced by these discussions and by the lack of a supporting primary source passage. Again, I would like to remind you that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
• I do not know who is actually controverting this point other than anonymous Wikipedia editors You yourself are a Wikipedia editor. I don't see the relevance of this point at all, and it smells like an ad-hominem.

160.39.234.202 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• The only question is whether Merelli's text is a reliable source. You dispute the "reliablity" of Merelly's article. Fair enough - but you have it backwards: It's up to you to demonstrate that it is unreliable. Arguing that its "realibility...is in question" because of "these discussions [in Wikipedia]" is a purely cyclical argument. Do you have anything of substance? -The Gnome (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gnome. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy.

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

Do you understand the above? Do you understand that the claim made by Merelli, who is not a specialist or recognized expert on Evola, should be explicitly attributed to her in the text of the article? 160.39.234.39 (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

An assessment of another person's views is not a "statement of fact." It's an opinion. Wikipedia demands that "opinion content" must be "attributed...to the author [of the opinion]" and this is what has aleady been done in the main body of the article's text. Merrelli's critique has been attributed to Merelli. She is a legitimate and well known reporter with a master's in semiotics and a bachelor's in mass communication. (Question her qualifications in an RfC if you feel you must.) About Evola's ideas, then, your personal opinion and my personal opinion matter not in the slightest. All we must examine is whether Wikipedia policy has been followed. It evidently has and, truly, this horse is very near collapsing. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

this is what has aleady been done in the main body of the article's text Not in the lede, which I've gone ahead and fixed.

She is a legitimate and well known reporter with a master's in semiotics and a bachelor's in mass communication She is not a specialist or recognized expert on the subject of the article, which is what the rule is referring to. Having a master's in semiotics and bachelor's in mass communication does not make you a "specialist or recognized expert" on every historical subject. I think you already knew this, so why pretend otherwise? What do you gain from it?

160.39.234.40 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell is now trying to revert my fix in the lede, even though we agreed that Merrelli's claim should be attributed to her in the text of the article and not represented as fact, as per the rules. Furthermore, he has warned me to "stop engaging in disruptive editing and discuss on the talk page", which is precisely what we have been doing. Shameless. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not the rules. It's against the rules to beat a dead WP:HORSE, WP:CIVILPOV push, and WP:EDITWAR. WP:SEALIONing isn't against rules, but it doesn't help, either. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. You're saying these rules should not be followed? 160.39.234.40 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't get cute. You do not get to decide which fussy interpretation of a particular rule should be enforced, and you don't get to ignore all the rest. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, the rule is pretty explicit:

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

160.39.234.40 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained multiple times to you, this is not unambiguously opinion content. This is journalism, it is not opinion content. What is an opinion, however, is your oft-stated claim that Merelli isn't an expert on this topic. As has already been explained, she is credible to analyse this historical figure, as both an academic, and as a journalist working for an outlet with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Not all analyses are opinions just because you don't agree with them. Further. This is attributed in the body of the article. The lede is a summary of the body which is necessarily shorter. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

it is not Opinion piece Please read the following rule:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Merelli's article falls under the category of "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces".

as both an academic Merelli is not an academic, specialist, or recognized expert on the subject.

The lede is a summary of the body which is necessarily shorter. I thought that was obvious. Don't try to dodge the rules like this. The rules explicitly say If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

160.39.234.40 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Calling it an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Nowhere does the Quartz article indicate it's an opinion. The site's profile for her says she is a "geopolitics reporter". This was not written or published as an opinion piece, it is a factual account of a historical context to a minor recent event. That's just part of good journalism. You don't seriously think that every piece of journalism which draws conclusions or mentions the author's background is an "opinion" do you? Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Greetings, Grayfell. Yes, of course, it's an opinion. Or call it a viewpoint, an assessment, an interpretation; it's the same thing. It is not some statement of fact. The words "rape is justified" have not been written by Evola. Merelli, however, states, essentially, that, through his writings, Evola comes to justify rape. That's Merelli's assessment of Evola's texts. And Wikipedia does allow for opinions, asessments, etc, to be posted up, as long as the policy for citing verifiable, reliable references is followed. Which is excactly the course followed in this case.

Fellow editor 160.39.234.40 (1st) disputes that Merelli is a person qualified to have her viewpoint quoted in Wikipedia, and (2nd) wants to apply for opinions criteria applicable to statements of fact. The 1st I already refuted, and the 2nd is absurd. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

disputes that Merelli is a person qualified to have her viewpoint quoted in Wikipedia This is a lie. I am only asking that the rules be followed: that her statement be attributed to her in the text of the article and not represented as fact.

wants to apply for opinions criteria applicable to statements of fact What do you mean by this? You already agreed that Merrelli's statement should be attributed to her, so why are you arguing against me?

160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, why did you call her an "editor"? She was a reporter at the time of the article, and still is. If she is also an editor, that has nothing to do with anything, nor is that indicated in any source. This is further misrepresenting a source to make it seem like an opinion. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Where did I call Merelli an editor? 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Other

• There's an ongoing dialogue with 160.39.234.202 in my talk page (here) so I wish I had been notified of this disucssion as well. In any case, my own position is detailed therein. (There's also this closure of a related RfC.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• For the record, I fully agree with this statement by 160.39.234.202: "one must be most careful, for the sake of accuracy, when describing such figures" as Evola or any other figure for that matter. I also strongly oppose accusations levelled at editors that are based on their edits (accusations such as "Evola apologists" or "Nazi apologists") and I resent the fact that 160.39.234.202 was made to proclaim his innocence of those accusations. This is most certainly not how Wikipedia works, fellow editors. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

The parents of Giulio Cesare Evola were Vincenzo Evola, born 4 May 1854 [1], and Concetta Mangiapane, born 15 August 1865 [2]. They were both born in Cinisi. Vincenzo was the son of Giuseppe Evola and Maria Cusumano. Giuseppe is reported as "joiner". Concetta was the daughter of Cesare Mangiapane and Caterina Munacó. Cesare is reported as "shopkeeper". Vincenzo and Concetta married in Cinisi the 25 November 1892 [3]. Vincenzo is reported as "telegraphic mechanic chief", while Concetta is reported as "landowner". Following a slight variation on the Sicilian naming convention of the era, Giulio Cesare was partly named after the maternal grandfather (which means he was likely the 2nd male child of the couple).Alessandro Riolo (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)