Jump to content

Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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)
  • 160.39.234.40, you wrote that "Merelli...is not a specialist or recognized expert on Evola." My response to that remains the same: Merelli's a legitimate and well known reporter with a master's in semiotics and a bachelor's in mass communication. And the texts of Evola are not some kind of dense and complex philosophical discourse. Merelli has every right to assess Evola's ideas and viepoints and her assessment, properly attributed, merits a place in Wikipedia. For the sake of balance, you are free to add opinions contrary to Merelli's by "experts on Evola" who think otherwise.
You also wrote that "[t]he 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." The first part of your argument is cyclical nonsense and it's high time you apologize for wasting everyone's time with it. The second part, about the lack of supportive citations from Evola's on writings, is baseless since Merelli's argument is provided with text copied from Evola's wortk (your "primary sources"). Here's a sample passage from Merelli's article: "...Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire, writing in Eros and the Mysteries of Love that 'there is no difference' between 'the desire to possess the physically intact woman, or the woman who resists' and 'the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus.' In other words, all sex is rape and that’s why it’s pleasurable. Later in the same paragraph, Evola writes that 'as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture'.” Do carry on, 160.39.234.40, if you feel you must but you have no case. -The Gnome (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Merelli's a legitimate and well known reporter with a master's in semiotics and a bachelor's in mass communication. I don't dispute that.
Merelli has every right to assess Evola's ideas and viepoints and her assessment, properly attributed, merits a place in Wikipedia. Again, I don't dispute that.
The first part of your argument is cyclical nonsense and it's high time you apologize for wasting everyone's time with it. Merelli is not an academic, historian, scholar, specialist, or recognized expert on Evola. Therefore, her statement should be attributed in-text, as required by the rules. That's all. You are wasting time by refusing to simply add an in-text attribution as required by the rules.
Can you point out which part of the passage you quoted justifies rape as an expression of male desire? I'm sure you are capable of understanding the difference between explanation and justification.
160.39.235.225 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a good case can be made that this is a statement of fact, or at the very least that it's not a simple issue. It could certainly be called an opinion in the wikt:opinion sense, but RS is specifically about "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". Merelli's statement is a summary of Evola's opinions. This is a factual statement about what Evola believed, which has been rephrased in Merelli's own words, as appropriate. That Evola never said exactly this phrase is irrelevant. As you have said, this is supported by Evola's own writing, and is not contradicted by anything I have seen. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 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)
You're right, I made a mistake. I should have said reporter in that edit (though nowhere in this discussion, as far as I recall, did I call Merelli an editor). Gnome, you don't have to repeat what Grayfell said, however much you (curiously) seem to relish doing so. It has no bearing on our discussion, so I don't see why you're making a big deal out of it. ("Own-up time"? Seriously?) 160.39.235.225 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, quite seriously. Your were already provided with a broad hint. Here it is, again: This horse is dead. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -The Gnome (talk) 23:22, 15 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)
  • In general, I think 160.39.234.'s policy arguments are more solid, though this doesn't necessarily mean these arguments are exactly pertinent to everything in this discussion. I think this is matter for WP:RSN, and it needs perhaps to be calmly re-started there, without inter-personal invective, just sticking to the source material and the policy arguments. If you continue with more he-said-she-said fingerpointing, people's eyes are just going glaze over. I know what it's like to be in a dispute like this, and how frustrating it is, but I have learned the hard way that if both sides (or even just one side) are being ranty-pants about it, it's is difficult to get other editors to examine the matter. I don't really have enough background on this subject, or the disputed source's author, to have much direct input on this yet. If the author of the piece in notable or at least generally reliable and the publisher is notable, it's possibly reasonable to attribute the claim to that writer explicitly, rather than putting it in Wikipedia's own voice as fact. May also need balancing with an opposing viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Attributing an author's statement as required by the rules is not tendentious. 160.39.235.225 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you find "extremely lame" about my argument, Gnome? I think it's a straightforward, reasonable application of the rules. 160.39.235.225 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To restate what I said at the time, the "Evola-apologist" line was to a (presumably) different editor in a different context. That editor was directly attempting to make Evola appear less extreme and less obviously fascist. This was over a year ago. I do not apologize for that, nor would it matter now. We need to be able to use direct language to describe Evola in an article about Evola, and he was an enthusiastic Nazi-collaborator. At no point was this IP "made to proclaim his innocence", and this seems like a deflection from talking about the article.
Also, Nazism has real-world consequences, and the ideology is fundamentally incompatible with a project like Wikipedia, or any real civil discourse. Please ask yourselves why this one line from an obscure journalist, which is perfectly compatible with Evola's own writing, has caused so much hassle. Why has the focus of this talk page become about this single item? Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
By presenting the ideology and the worldview of Nazists or of people such as Julius Evola, we're not bringing Nazism into Wikipedia, Grayfell, nor are we making Nazism "compatible" with the Wikipedia project. Not as long as we follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about the verifiability of everything in the text, of basing the text on reliable sources, of presenting things in balance, and, as in pvery encyclopaedia, of presenting critical assessments duly attributed. Which is also the way to fight off anyone who wants to spread propaganda here. -The Gnome (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of those sentiments, and I hope we agree that Nazism can never be compatible with Wikipedia. So, looking at the article, are we presenting the ideology according to reliable sources in proportion to due weight? By debating this one issue to death, I think we are making room for false balance. The appearance of neutrality isn't always neutral. We are debating whether or not to present the non-controversial conclusions of reliable source as though it were controversial... but why? It's perfectly acceptable to stop and look at who is "controverting" it, and to ask them why. So far, after years, I haven't seen any serious answer. We have to be willing as people (and sure, okay, as Wikipedia editors) to step back and look at the bigger picture.
The one point I do not agree with is the idea that we must always present "critical assessments" with attribution. We present subjective assessments, or disputed assessments with attribution, but that's not quite the same, is it? No reliable source, as far as I can tell, is disputing this or treating it as subjective, nor has anyone presented a solid reason they would. Is it still critical? How so? We summarize assessments without attribution all the time, in almost every article of any length. Dividing these assessments into critical and non-critical is dubious and arbitrary. Sources assess things, and Wikipedia builds articles based on those assessments. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, the reliability of sources as well as the compatibility of authors when Wikipedia articles take form has been a matter of continuous debate among contributors and will continue to be, in a significant portion of articles. Consensus building is a dynamic process; we can and do divide assessments, on the condition that we're prepared to defend every such division. This is how, among the numerous other achievements, we have managed to create lists of unreliable sources. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Vaguely weighing in as I'm largely bored of this but need to address several points-
- 'That editor was directly attempting to make Evola appear less extreme and less obviously fascist.' - Objections seemed similar and you started labelling them as a 'nazi apologist' etc.
- 'an enthusiastic Nazi-collaborator' who was never a member of the nazi party, italian fascist party or similar and was monitored by the abwehr.
- 'Also, Nazism has real-world consequences, and the ideology is fundamentally incompatible with a project like Wikipedia, or any real civil discourse.' - This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect illustration of Grayfell's ideologically driven crusade against this article. He edits due to convictions about 'fighting nazis' as opposed to any objectivism. Remember this well in any and all discussions ahead.
- 'Why has the focus of this talk page become about this single item?' 1. Because it's in a ridiculously prominent place in the lede designed to bias readers (I successfully got rid of a very similar use of a very similar quote in the DH Lawrence article) 2. Because it's based on an extremely questionable, politically motivated attack piece of which less than half discusses Evola.
- 'We are debating whether or not to present the non-controversial conclusions of reliable source as though it were controversial' translation 'I have made my mind up this source is correct because it ideologically aligns with my views, shame on those who disagree.' VeritasVox (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My parthian shot on this matter would be that Grayfell talks gleefully about the source itself but rarely, if ever, justifies its inclusion in the lede which is what everyone should be focusing on as this more than anything is designed as an attack on the subject matter's views. Because his opinion on rape (apart from Merelli's assessment being at best moronic at worst malevolent) is completely and utterly irrelevant to the vast body of his work and only even tangentially related to his work on sex. Grayfell is now going to attempt to shoehorn it back in with something along the lines of 'he was a misogynist, his misogyny is massively important to everything he ever wrote, this quote completely and utterly illustrates all of his views on sex in one perfect, shining example of literary genius' but anyone looking at this article with a glimmer of objectivity will see the inclusion of this quote in this place is entirely, cynically tactical and Grayfell knows this. VeritasVox (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Please ask yourselves why this one line from an obscure journalist, which is perfectly compatible with Evola's own writing, has caused so much hassle. Why has the focus of this talk page become about this single item? I can't speak for the other editors, but for me, it's because I care about Wikipedia's accuracy. I really do. Even for minor things like this. And I'm sure you care about Wikipedia's accuracy too. It has nothing to do with the subject matter per se. 160.39.235.225 (talk) 22:43, 14 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)

Issue with sources

This article has the following issue: it has a lot of references, but two third of the citations do not include a page (or at least a page range) so that we can properly check the claims. Had to introduce [page needed] for most of them. Please add the page you're citing when using a source. Azerty82 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Another issue is that some parts of the article are allegedly not written from a neutral point of view and use terms that original sources did not, like "extreme traditionalism and misogyny" or "extreme right views on gender roles"; to sum sump: the article often goes beyond what is stated in the source (that's why I'm asking for precise pages). Evola was a fascist and a traditionalist, thus wanted traditional organization and gender roles. No need to add "extreme" ("radical" would be better), those are just the concepts of traditionalism and fascism. Azerty82 (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and good work on the editing Azerty82. We sorely need more perspectives on this article so please do stick around. One thing I would disagree with is that Evola could be called a Fascist, however, as he explicitly criticised Fascism in several of his works (particularly in A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism) and was never a member of any fascist party. VeritasVox (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thanks. Concerning the "fascist controversy", he may have critised fascism, he defined himself as a super-fascist in 1951 and defended his support for the Axis powers in a 70s interview in French. Anyway, we should rely first on scholars analysis on the evolution of his political thought, and not Evola's own qualifications for his work. This article is not totally bad, as you say it just needs a balanced analysis and cross-sourcing from different scholars Azerty82 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What is up with the lack of page numbers in the sources? This makes it very hahardo confirm that any of the sources actually back up the claims here. BS6 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Aryanism

Here, I restored a claim supported by a source published by Routledge calling Evola a racist, pointing out that Even though he was open to the idea that some individuals born to "inferior" races might be able to "transcend" their biological origins and become better -- it was Aryanism, plain and simple, which is racism, plain and simple.

Here, Bcliot33 reverted me on the grounds that Evola's views being Aryanism is not found in any major academic newspaper/publication. Also that Evola wasn't a nordic supremacist, which is is a strawman argument because that's not what I said at all.

As for not found in any major academic newspaper/publication, it's ironic that that's invoked when one is removing a source published by Routledge. I'm linking to that again because it's a major academic publisher.

Also, I'd like to ask Bcliot33 what the following statements in the article (all sourced to academic publications) could possibly mean if the idea that Evola was an Aryanist is not found in any major academic newspaper/publication:

  • His interpretation of Buddhism is that it was intended to be anti-democratic. He believed that Buddhism revealed the essence of an "Aryan" tradition that had become corrupted and lost in the West. He believed it could be interpreted to reveal the superiority of a warrior caste.
  • Evola had frequently used the term "Aryan" to mean the nobility, who in his view were imbued with traditional spirituality.
  • He argued that both Italian fascism and Nazism represented hope that the "celestial" Aryan race would be reconstituted.
  • He also believed that one could be "Aryan", but have a "Jewish" soul, just as one could be "Jewish", but have an "Aryan" soul.

Do you have any sources that demonstrate that these are gross interpretations? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a social justice warrior wrote this article

90% of this article deals with (the condemnation of) his politics. Where are his vast contributions to hermetecism, western tantra, alchemy, etc? Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If nobody adds them, they stay away. Given that from a scientific point of view, hermeticism, western tantra and alchemy are bullshit, there are probably not many reliable sources for his contributions. Do you have any?
By the way, using stupid titles for new sections is a bad idea. It makes people think little of you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the cap fit you, judging by that little fit. In a "scientific point of view"? Of whose science? Anthropology? Sociology? Psychology? Biology? Chemistry? They have different theories and methods and all of them are sciences. There's no one "scientific point of view", science is too diverse for that. Gender studies, on the other hand... Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I do have some interesting sources on alchemy (historical - history also considered a science, by the way) and the practical/laboratory-tested benefits of tantra techniques. I'll probably post them this week. But behave, don't be childish and rude, self-important millenial. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I will ignore the silly provocation part and concentrate on the subject at hand.
You ask which sciences, and the answer is: none of the things you said Evola contributed to, is in any way not bullshit if seen from the standpoint of any science. It is a fundamental property of sciences that they do not contradict each other.
Of course history of alchemy is something else as alchemy. Did Evola contribute to the history of alchemy or to alchemy? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Stop with the needless personal attacks, Hob. VeritasVox (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please find out what the phrase "personal attack" means. I have not made a single one in this section. Everything bad I say is either about the bad reasoning of this person or about obsolete stuff like alchemy.
On the other hand, Musicaindustrial did make personal attacks, for example "Looks like a social justice warrior wrote this article", "Looks like the cap fit you" and "don't be childish and rude, self-important millenial." (He does not even know how old I am.) Why don't you admonish him instead of me? -- (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Sup, The Gnome.

Yeah my bad homie, no personal attacks intended @ Musicindustrial, misread the thread. This being said, labelling whatever esoteric thing as 'bullshit' is somewhat needless when Musicaindustrial was talking about absences of these topics in the article rather than any analysis of their 'scientific value.' Needlessly antagonistic, though I'll concede the whole 'sjw' topicline is also. VeritasVox (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is hair-splitting. Hob Gadling was needlessly provoking.
Anyway, it is nonsense to try to bring up science, as if Evola was writing on scientific issues. Hermetica is a philosophy and theology. He wrote on alchemy as a philosophy and theology. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss his contributions in these areas, just as we would for Plato or Aquinas or any other writer on philosophy and theology. Hob's confusion over such a basic issue rather suggest he shouldn't be editing this article. 60.241.93.76 (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Read WP:FRINGE to find out that Wikipedia does not want fringe topics propagandized in its articles.
Read WP:RS to find out which sources are considered reliable.
Read WP:INDENT to find out how to format your Talk page contributions. (I corrected that for you. Compare the result with the unstructured mess you left behind.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article exceptional bad l think it's because it has no understanding of traditionalist views how society was organised from the ancient world to today. Instead it's a S. J. W view on a world he/she knows nothing about. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Rationale wiki has a better article than this on Julius Evola and that is not a very good site generally in comparison to Wikipedia but managed to provide a better article on this one occasion. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction Rational Wiki Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you going to write about someone like Julius Evola the secret of which is state this is his work this is what the work means in the context of when it was written you can't dislike it because you do not approve of the politics; lnstead you rise above it. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

'Antisemitic Conspiracy Theorist'

Seems like another odd attempt to bias the lede, as the next sentence refers to him as a 'fascist intellectual' which would obviously include that and is more precise. 'Antisemitic conspiracy theorist' just seems like childish name-calling and an attempt to labour this point as a veiled attack on the subject, as it would be if included in the lede of Hitler, Mussolini or Giovanni Gentile's articles. Doesn't have the correct tone for an encyclopedia or give any new information on subject, should not be included. VeritasVox (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

He wrote the forward to the second Italian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, pretty much the modern archetypal antisemitic conspiracy theory. He wrote that he believed the conspiracy theory contained in that work was accurate even if the historical documents were fraudulent. The lede for Adolf Hitler says He frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as part of a Jewish conspiracy and is generally far more condemnatory of things he did besides think (which is all Evola is known for). Apples and oranges there, but an indication that we should indicate that both are fruits. Benito Mussolini had a less negative view of Jewish people than was typical for far-right loonies of that era, viewing any non-rebellious Jewish Italians as Italians period. Giovanni Gentile even openly criticized Nazi German's anti-Jewish laws. In comparison to Mussolini and Gentile, Evola was a raving antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Better attempt made. He didn't particularly focus on antisemitism in his works. You can argue he advanced/propagated antisemitic conspiracy theories and was antisemitic, but the label 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' among poet/philosopher/etc is out of place name calling. VeritasVox (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I have removed "conspiracy theorist" and left anti-semite for now, though we will have to circle back as some may have a political axe to grind by making changes to the section that summarizes his career. TurnipGod (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@TurnipGod: It's not just a matter of !votes but actual reasons. Even if it were, VeritasVox was topic banned from this page. Are you saying that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a conspiracy theory? Because that's the only reason Evola wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Amazing! Another brand-spanking new editor interested in Julius Evola. There must be a renaissance in Evola studies. The Last time it was a sock of Architect 134. One wonders whose sock it is this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remain civil and keep the sarcasm to a minimum. This is a discussion page for edits, not a chance to label online editors "your enemy." You have to confront good faith edits to the page, and sometimes that requires examining your own biases. "Antisemitic conspiracy theorist/racist" is not a neutral tone when examining the works of this philosopher. I will escalate this issue if you continue to add negative/non-neutral dialogue to this page.TurnipGod (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just made an account to say I agree after looking through the edits. I think if you;re going to call someone a conspiracy theorist, they need to be known for creating or propagating conspiracies. Evola, as far as I'm aware, isn't particularly known as a conspriacy theorist in contrast to his more general reputation as a far right thinker, philosopher, esotericist and mystic. I mean, he was antisemitic, but 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' doesn't seem to fit. I think we should appraoch this part of Evola like they do for Henry Ford, something like this from his article's lede:

"Ford was also widely known for his pacifism during the first years of World War I, and for promoting antisemitic content, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, through his newspaper The Dearborn Independent and the book The International Jew, having an alleged influence on the development of Nazism. "

So maybe "Evola wrote the prologue to the second Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he opined that this antisemitic conspiracy theory was illustrative of tendencies within the modern socio-political thought."

Anyone else agree? I think this works better, particularly as someone else has said there's no source stating he was an "antisemitic conspiracy theorist."

I'll try this edit now - please let me know if you all agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanUrban (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — EthanUrban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wasn't me, homie. But maybe try establishing consensus rather than assuming everyone else is colluding against you? VeritasVox (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with EthanUrban on this. It seems like Evola is not mainly known for being an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist', he just wrote an introduction to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most important antisemitic conspiracy documents. I mean he believed the document contained a deep truth, and believed in antisemitic conspiracy theories, but he is not mainly known for being an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. He did not even write one book about it. I've also not seen other sources call him an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist', unlike all the other designations in the first sentence. Wikipedia is supposed to give an overview of how something is described by independent sources, so this is also an argument against calling him an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist'. Schenkstroop (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Schenkstroop: You agree with a blocked sockpuppeteer single purpose account? With the additional arguments that Evola believed the Protocols contained deep truths (uh...), as if the section Views on Jews is not in the article, and as if his views only existed in (selective readings of) his books. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Me agreeing with a blocked sockpuppet account does not in itself refute my point. The fact that Evola believed the Protocols contained a deep truth was meant to show that yes, he believed in antisemitic conspiracy theories, but he is not mainly known as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and therefore it is not appropriate to call him this in the first sentence of the article. Again, do you have any secondary sources where he is described as 'an antisemitic conspiracy theorist'? I mean you can also call him a 'human' or a 'mountaineer' but that are not designations that he is mainly known for and therefore it is appropriate to call him that in the first sentence of the article. And I don't understand what you mean with 'as if his views only existed in (selective readings of) his books'. Could you explain? Schenkstroop (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson Oh and could you maybe explain how one can see if a user is blocked for sockpuppetry? Because I can't see that on the profiles you mentioned. I mainly edit on the Dutch Wikipedia and there it is displayed on someone's profile if they are blocked and for what reason. And maybe a good reason to call Evola an antisemitic conspiracy theorist in the lede could be that the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and there is a section about his 'views on Jews'. However, the section about his views on Jews does not mention that Evola created conspiracy theorists (what a conspiracy theorist does). It does show that was deeply antisemitic but it is possible to be an antisemite without being an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy meaning that certain people conspire. Schenkstroop (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You have to understand how a relatively new account agreeing with a sock puppet looks.
"Conspiracy theorist" is not limited solely to those who create new conspiracy theories but those who spread, promote, reinforce, elaborate on, or try to justify or prove existing conspiracy theories. Otherwise, the only conspiracy theorists in western history would be Damocritus or Apion (conspiracy theories about Jews and human sacrifice), Philip IV of France (conspiracy theories about secret orders practicing occult rites), and to a lesser extent Jean Hardouin (universal institutional forgery over and erasure of lost knowledge) and maybe Donald Keyhoe (UFOs). Even if (or rather, because) modern conspiracy theorists are terrible at citing their sources, everything those ideas have appeared has been an attempt to revive or update those ideas, combine them with each other, and sometimes combine them with other fringe ideas (such as Atlantis, British Israelism, or the eschatology of John Nelson Darby).
And here's a couple of quotes from the citations I just added (more like re-used):

However, Evola's anti-Semitism also took the form of an attack on real Jews. Quoting the notorius text of Jewish Conspiracy, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Evola sees the Jewish press and finance as systematic means of spreading the liberal virus, which would destroy the monarchial and aristocratic residues of Western culture. Evola published his own preface and an essay, "The Authenticity of Protocols as Proven by Jewish Tradition," in the Italian edition of the Protocols, which recycled contemporary anti-Semitic slurs and falsehoods. He found abundant evidence of the erosive influence of individual Jews in American banking and industry as well as in the Russian Revolution. Likewise, Jews were always at the forefront of modernistic ideas, such as Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis, Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity, Emile Durkheim and the "sociology" of religion. Under stress, Evola could indulge in vicious anti-Semitism in his journalism. After the murder of his friend Corneliu Cordreanu (1899-1938), the leader of the fascist Romanian Iron Guard, Evola railed against "the Judaic horde," describing a potential communist takeover in Romania as "the filthiest tyranny, the talmudic Israelite tyranny." -- Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun, page 66.

“Fascist-era anti-Semitic ideologues fall under two categories—biology-based racists and nationalism-based ones—but Evola was something different,” explained Valentina Pisanty, a semiologist at the University of Bergamo. “As an occultist, he was convinced that the world contained some mysterious truths that only the initiated could see, and one of those hidden truths was a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.” -- Momigliano, Anna (February 21, 2017). "The Alt-Right's Intellectual Darling Hated Christianity". The Atlantic.
That is sufficient to identify him as a conspiracy theorist. To require the exact phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the face of those two quotes would be ignoring the forest for the trees. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bcliot33

The above user is making edits which seem similar to those made previously by VeritasVox, who, as a result of an ANI complaint, is " indefinitely banned from making any edits related to Nazism, fascism and anti-Semitism, broadly construed." [4]

I'm notifying all the participants in that discussion to get their opinions. @Grayfell, JzG, K.e.coffman, HandThatFeeds, Ian.thomson, and Zakaria1978:

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether the two editors are related, there's Bliot33's latest edit to consider: [5] in which they removed "conspiracy theorist" from the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist according to whom? His strange ideas are in the article already also saying he was anti-semitic and promoting Protocols hoax. Bcliot33 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
According to historian Richard Barber, for one, as noted in the section "Writing career / Christianity". The purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article, so if the body says he's a conspiracy theorist, it's proper to note that in the lede. (See WP:LEAD) If, however you take a subject completely out of the body and move it into the lede, the lede is no longer summarizing, it's replaced the body - which is the reason I'm going to revert your latest edit.
You do not seem very aware of how a Wikipedia article is assembled and how each part functions. I would suggest that you stop making substantive canges, and run by what you plan to do here on the talk page so that other editors can counsel you on whether it's a good idea or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I myself don't think it's a strong case, and I was OK with Bliot33's edits to the article, until their removal of "conspiracy theorist" which was just a little too close for comfort. I thought that bringing up the subject was called for, considering that edit - I want to nip it in the bud if we're going to have another go-around with another editor, same or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't personally think the label 'conspiracy theory' is against or in favor of Evola, I just find it somehow confusing if there are people who studied and reviewed his work (both sympathetic and not sympathetic) -- mostly in academia -- who labeled him as a conspiracy theorist. I am more concerned about the quality of source(s) on this issue rather than the label itself. Bcliot33 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

PLease add missing reference 25 July 2020

In the section magical idealism, there is a quota that is from Sheehan [55] (Myth and Violence: The Fascism of Julius Evola and Alain de Benoist) that is like this:

The truths that allow us to understand the world of Tradition are not those that can be "learned" or "discussed." They either are or are not. We can only remember them, and that happens when we are freed from the obstacles represented by various human constructions (chief among these are the results and methods of the authorized "researchers") and have awakened the capacity to see from the nonhuman viewpoint, which is the same as the Traditional viewpoint ... Traditional truths have always been held to be essentially non-human.[55]

At the end please add the reference [78] ( Revolt against modernity), since Sheehan quoted Evola in his book [55]. I.e. Change it to

this:

The truths that allow us to understand the world of Tradition are not those that can be "learned" or "discussed." They either are or are not. We can only remember them, and that happens when we are freed from the obstacles represented by various human constructions (chief among these are the results and methods of the authorized "researchers") and have awakened the capacity to see from the nonhuman viewpoint, which is the same as the Traditional viewpoint ... Traditional truths have always been held to be essentially non-human.[55] [78] 2A02:AB04:2BA:FF00:7DC9:50E6:5686:7D64 (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, we don't do this. We use the reference from which the information was taken. That reference will itself cite the source from where it came. We don;t leapfrog over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020 - Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race

Hello,

Sintesi di dottrina della razza has just been published into English under the title of Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race as an ebook and as a hardcover edition on the Lulu website (search "evola" on the Lulu website). Since it is sold only on the Lulu website, there is no ISBN. The reference of the book is : Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race. Cariou Publishing. 2020.

Could you please add the reference to the "Works" section of the Wikipedia page of Julius Evola?

Thank you in advance.

Regards. 93.30.211.101 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lulu is a self-publishing website and so not considered reliable. Self-published works are also not significant for "works" or bibliographic sections unless they are referred to by other reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Use of the Dashes

The en-dash is properly used to connect two numbers, such as dates or hours or parts of a book. The em-dash is properly used to mark a change of direction in a sentence. On 16 November 2020 I changed two en-dashes that set off a parenthetical remark to em-dashes, and deleted a spurious space. The change was promptly reverted, including restoration of the spurious space. I will not pursue this issue, since no actual falsehood is involved, but I want to explain my edit. J S Ayer (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

M-dashes are much harder to read on a screen than they are in print. A spaced n-dash is preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems we use different web browsers, as I have no problem with m-dashes. J S Ayer (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Modernity: Supremacy of West over East

I would like to suggest that the text that reads "In mythology, he saw evidence of the West's superiority over the East" either ought to be removed, have a citation added, or a "citation needed" tag added. Or perhaps further clarification is required, because one will note that Evola, probably influenced by Guénon in this respect, considered Eastern philosophy and mythology as superior to Western philosophy after the divergence of the two sometime around the golden age of Greek philosophy (between 500-200BC). Prior to this divergence, he states that there was no significant distinction between East and West with respect to mythological and philosophical notions (or, specifically, that they all originated from a Hyperborean warrior class rather than populations residing either in the West or in the East).106.68.61.232 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mistake

Beyond My Ken sorry for re-adding fascist did not see him as a fascist intellectual. Thanks for the cleanup! Des Vallee (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Antisemitic conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the article without the explicit references.

First of all, excuse my English.

References behind this claim say nothing explicitly that he was an "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" and how he should be.

Personally, I am not against calling Evola an antisemitic conspiracy theorist or whatever. But this is one of the statements that (come on, especially, when it is in the first sentence of the article!) must be on Wikipedia explicitly confirmed by relevant references. Otherwise, articles on Wikipedia will slowly become like articles from rag tabloids. These actual references report something different. So, we just need to insert different references. That shouldn't be a problem to find them.

In other words, If this lunetic is to be encyclopedic marked as an "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, there must be references in which he is marked like that and also in which it is an explanation of why he is marked like that. And also, the first sentence of the encyclopedia article should state what persons have done most and what characterizes them most according to this. So therefore, when the references are properly written, we should determine if it is a encyclopedic-appropriate to be included in the first sentence of the article. Article on Henry Ford does not contain this mark in the first sentence, but is very well done written in the opening paragraph in a full sentence, so as in the article on Martin Luther etc.

Stay safe and sane in these crazy times. -DBLK777 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the lede section of an article does not need to have any citations at all, as long as all statements in it are properly cited in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Handy political labelling, but not neutral

The main thought of Evola was not concerned with Jews or that they had some central role as conspiratorial enemies. This should not be in the introduction, but mentioned as something that has been claimed. Remember: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and of course Wikipedia:Objective sources. -ReinoLeino (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion, but I do not believe it is shared by the majority of the people who edit this page. I've restored the article to the status it was in before you edited it. Do not make these changes again until you have a consensus to do so. Do not edit against consensus, such editing is [[WP:DISRUPTION|disruptive[[. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Overblown introduction

The introduction had been enlarged by a few edits making it a bi unbalanced and emphasising a bit too much aspects that need not be so thoroughly and in detailed discussed. Moved it under right sections. ReinoLeino (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored to original condition. Do not make these edits again until you have a consensus to do so on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Edits solely done by user Beyond My Ken are not in line with WP guidelines - restoring to the previous original, but still saving and ordering user Beyond My Ken added extra material from intro to subsections of the Julius Evola article. If large additions are made there should be consensus and they should follow WP guidelines. This was not unfortunately taken in account in this partly overblown and partisan edits to the introduction. WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, WP:NOTBATTLE. ReinoLeino (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but consensus is not required in order to improve articles. Your 71 edits haven't taught you everything there is to know about Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

On Antisemetic 'conspiracy theorist'

The sources cited for designating the term antisemetic conspiracy theorist, seem to be irrelevant. The first source does not explain the use of the term conspiracy theorist, but only describes an individuals opinion [1]. The second source, is a book, which again explains his anti-semetism but not the 'conspiracy' part.

I recognize, seeing the other talk posts, that the general consensus seems to be that he was, in fact, both an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist, but perhaps you could help me understand how he is the latter?

Based47 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/julius-evola-alt-right/517326/#article-section-1:~:text=%E2%80%9CFascist%2Dera%20anti%2DSemitic%20ideologues%20fall%20under%20two,Jewish%20conspiracy%20to%20rule%20the%20world.%E2%80%9D
First source says quoting a semiologist "As an occultist, he was convinced that the world contained some mysterious truths that only the initiated could see, and one of those hidden truths was a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world." That's a anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and a unique one, so, he's not just a believer in them, he created one, that makes him a theorist. The second source, Goodrick-Clarke's book, discusses Evola's unique metaphysical anti-Semitism on pages 65-67. Again, these are not run-of-the-mill floating-around-Europe theories, they are Evola's specific contribution to anti-Semitism, making him, as cited, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken just saw it. cool. 2405:201:19:C009:B035:2A57:2046:C5B5 (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julius_Evola/Archive_5&oldid=1025002318"