My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
::::As there are several academic sources who explicitly name Dugin as being a fascist (at the most moderate!), I don't see that these references can be dismissed unless there are equally reliable sources defining him as being something other than his own particular brand of a representative of extreme right-wing nationalism. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]], there is no argument for toning down such an evaluation, nor should well sourced representations be deemed in violation of the timidity with which [[WP:BLP]]'s are usually written. My disdain for the Shekhovtsov ''blog'' being used elsewhere was related to the context of the subject of that article. While I'm not entirely convinced of the RS value of the Lippman article, both of Shekhovtsov's articles in this context are a referenced academic paper by a recognised academic in the field, as is Stephen Shenfield, Andreas Umland, and Alan Ingram (who specialises in critical geopolitics). --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
::::As there are several academic sources who explicitly name Dugin as being a fascist (at the most moderate!), I don't see that these references can be dismissed unless there are equally reliable sources defining him as being something other than his own particular brand of a representative of extreme right-wing nationalism. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]], there is no argument for toning down such an evaluation, nor should well sourced representations be deemed in violation of the timidity with which [[WP:BLP]]'s are usually written. My disdain for the Shekhovtsov ''blog'' being used elsewhere was related to the context of the subject of that article. While I'm not entirely convinced of the RS value of the Lippman article, both of Shekhovtsov's articles in this context are a referenced academic paper by a recognised academic in the field, as is Stephen Shenfield, Andreas Umland, and Alan Ingram (who specialises in critical geopolitics). --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::So, I believe that actual "ideology" of the Party in the infobox should be indicated as [[Radical nationalism in Russia]], not simply [[Russian nationalism]]. Or perhaps these two "Russian nationalism" pages should be merged? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::::So, I believe that actual "ideology" of the Party in the infobox should be indicated as [[Radical nationalism in Russia]], not simply [[Russian nationalism]]. Or perhaps these two "Russian nationalism" pages should be merged? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Only one of the sources cited can be considered to be reliable. The other two are self-published (not peer reviewed), and thus not reliable primary (scholarly) sources. (The book cited, by the way, was published by Sharpe, which specializes in fringe scholarship, so even that book isn't a reliable source by the usual Wikipedia standards.) Does Dugin consider himself to be a fascist? No. See the article on [[The Fourth Political Theory]]: "Dugin claims to construct an entirely new political ideology, the fourth political theory, which integrates and supersedes the three past 'theories' of liberal democracy, Marxism, and fascism." Since Dugin considers his political theory to supersede fascism, he cannot be a fascist. Thus, calling him a fascist is a grave violation of [[WP:LIVING|LIVING]]. But evidently, some editors don't believe that LIVING does applis to Russians, who can be smeared with impunity. – [[User:Herzen|Herzen]] ([[User talk:Herzen|talk]]) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians, as opposed to [[WP#HERE|building an encyclopedia]]. Why is that? And you base yourself on a diary from a blog the main purpose of which is to engage in apologetics for the Demorcrtic Party and Obama in particular. In the past couple of months, Obama has twice called Russia the gravest threat to humanity after ebola. So how objective do you think [[Daily Kos]] diarists are going to be about Russia? |
|||
::::That quote is incomplete. [http://www.anticompromat.org/dugin/fashizm.html Here] is the complete quote: |
|||
:::::Французский фашистский писатель Робер Бразийяк перед самой смертью произнес странное пророчество: "Я вижу, как на Востоке, в России восходит фашизм, фашизм безграничный и красный". |
|||
:::::Заметьте: не блеклый, коричневато-розоватый национал-капитализм, а ослепительная заря новой Русской Революции, фашизм безграничный, как наши земли, и красный, как наша кровь. |
|||
:::::The French fascist writer [[Robert Brasillach]] closely before his death made a strange prophecy: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is emerging, a limitless and red fascism." |
|||
:::::Note: not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – limitless, as our lands, and red as our blood. |
|||
::::That Daily Kos diarist presented that quote as it were Dugin's own view, whereas it was in fact a restating by Dugin of an assertion made by another writer, who was executed for collaboration for his work as an editor of a fascist journal. A crude smear technique, but effective nonetheless. – [[User:Herzen|Herzen]] ([[User talk:Herzen|talk]]) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:28, 17 November 2014
Politics: Political parties Stub‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Ukraine Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Convert flag to SVG
The flag could probably be converted to an SVG, so I have tagged its page on Commons; replies are unnecessary here and this comment is only to notify capable people for this conversion who are watching this page (but might not be watching the flag's page on Commons). Dustin (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a difference between the current flag and this one? If there isn't any technical difference, I think the SVG is superior simply because it is an SVG. I might be able to see a slight difference; in this case (and only in this case), I will again ask that someone with the skill convert File:Flag of new russia party.png to an SVG format under file name File:Flag of New Russia Party. Dustin (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
NPOV violation
"The first congress was attended by pro-Russian separatist officials of the Donetsk People's Republic, Donbass Militia. Notable figures belonging to the political far-right were involved, including: Donetsk Republic leader Pavel Gubarev, anti-Semitic and fascist writer Alexander Prokhanov,[6] fascist political scientist and Eurasia Party leader Aleksandr Dugin, and Valery Korovin"
The above is a clear NPOV rule violation. The source links even point to an opinion pieces. This should be fixed. 192.92.94.23 (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed some issues to reduce the emotionally loaded/disputable language. Would express my concerns in detail, but some kind of filter prevents me from elaborating on that. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheap agitprop in the article
I noticed some problems with the article last week. It's kind of ridiculous to see people denying Svoboda or even the Right Sector are 'far-right' attaching the very label to an organization that was founded only recently. Cheap Soviet style agitprop. It was removed from the infobox, but the main text still reflects such exaggerations.
First, Alexander Prokhanov is strictly speaking not fascist. He was pro-Soviet and still is, blending procommunist and ultranationalist attitudes. But if you want to have a short description, he is not a fascist neither in the Western nor in the Soviet sense. The same goes for the supposed fascist political scientist and Eurasia Party leader Aleksandr Dugin. The best description for Dugin would still be (Neo-)Eurasianist, but because this word is descriptive and not emotionally loaded, the creators of this article of course prefer the curse word fascist used in an inflationary manner.
As for Pavel Gubarev, then it is also tendentious and outright dishonest to label him as 'a figure of the far-right', while his previous more important affiliation was with the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a hardleft party. All the figures I mentioned here may be thoroughly unpleasant, but really, folks, an encyclopedia should not be written in a primitive style of История Всесоюзной Коммунистической Партии (Большевиков): Краткий курс. Wikipedia can do better than that! Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ideology Confusion
The text is really confusing when claiming that someone is neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist. How on earth someone can be all three of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.214.193 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why is it confusing? They are all very similar: State control of people's lives. Secret police spying on people. Favour sending opponents to concentration camps or just killing them. Nationalist and expansionist. Generally anti-semitic (for example the USSR started persecuting Jews in August 1919 and continued until its dissolution in 1991). It is just propaganda that they are opposites - it is more like the difference between Persil and Ariel.
- During the period of German-Soviet cooperation in World War II, the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's most important ally; Nazi and Communist officials found that they had a great deal in common, which surprised them, as previously they had been told how different they were.
- In any case, whether it is confusing (to you) or not, sources cited in the article describe them as such.
- If you disagree with how the sources describe the people in the party, then please find sources to back your view discuss here.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This is mostly nonsense. The fact the Soviet government may have controlled people's lives and been oppressive just makes them authoritarian or totalitarian which is not equal to fascism. I would disagree that the Soviets were generally anti-Semitic (considering how many were from Jewish backgrounds). Police spying on people again is authoritarian or totalitarian. Fascism may be totalitarian but it is opposite; a fascist wants corporatism, class collaboration (lead by the middle classes), ethnic regeneration and a return to the old order; Socialists do not regardless of any similar methods; they want nationalization, a dictatorship of the proletariat (initiated by the working class), classlessness and an overthrow of the traditional order.
The part about the USSR being the most important ally of Nazi Germany is of course false (hopefully ignorance and not an outright lie) as the USSR had a non-aggression pact much like Poland (who signed one before the USSR), Turkey and the United Kingdom. The most important allies of Nazi Germany were Japan, Italy, Romania, Croatia and Finland.
I would suggest you find sources to back up your claims; also the sources cited in the article do not meet Wikipedia's standards for impartiality and truthfulness; describing someone as a "Stalinist/fascist" is problematic for one thing as is the fact they are opinion pieces and as it stands are not being treated as such in the article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- No doubt you are completely unaware that the Red Army invaded Poland in 1939 (see any standard history of World War II), that the USSR provided economic aid to Germany up to 22 June 1941 (see for example the "Germany and the Second World War" series of books), that Communist cells in various countries aided Germany (see for example I lived Three Lives by H Philbrick), the way that Romania was partitioned in 1940 with the Germans pressuring the Romanians into giving into the USSR (see Relapse into Bondage by A Cretzianu), that the USSR allowed German warships to operate from bases in Soviet waters in 1940-41 (see for example the "Germany and the Second World War" series of books).
- The article cites reliable sources for the statements about politics.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 13 June 2014
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
New Russia Party → Novorossiya (political party) – Article about state was renamed to Federal State of Novorossiya. Historical region named Novorossiya. Party also named Novorossiya (ru:Новороссия), not New Russia Party (ru:Новая русская партия). NickSt (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Oppose - This is English Language Wikipedia, not Russian Language Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is English Language Wikipedia, not Russian Language Wikipedia. For the same reason, we don't call the Party of Regions the "Party of Reginov", exceptions made in the case of common use, like Svoboda (rather than Freedom). Also per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the New Russia article being moved doesnt mean this should, as that one shouldn't have been moved in the first place. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - It would be best if we use an English name on the English Wikipedia; otherwise, we will be making it more difficult to understand for the reader. If the language was Russian for this Wikipedia, then I would support the move, but I will not support this move because this Wikipedia's language is not Russian. Ping me if additional input becomes necessary. Dustin (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose – WP:NATURALNESS and WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE make it clear that the English title is to preferred, as it quickly makes clear to the English-speaking reader what it is that the person is reading about. "Novorossiya" is a foreignism that does not convey the meaning of the word, that is, "New Russia". There is no reason to obfuscate the reader by providing a non-English title for something that has an English-language clear alternative, as favoured by historical usage and translation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose – it doesn't look like proposed title can be considered as common name in English language sources currently, so there is no good reason to prefer it to English language title.--Staberinde (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Ideology Confusion take 2
I've just been compelled to tag various claims about their political ideology and position for citations. It seems that their political position is whatever the most recent editor believes it to be, commonly known as WP:OR. In all honesty, I'm quite prepared to remove every one of these in the next few days unless reliable sources, as opposed to blatantly WP:BIASED sources are introduced. If there are reliable (but biased) claims from both sides as to their position and ideology, then the only way to handle it is by WP:INLINE attribution which is not appropriate for the infox. That being the case, information as to their political ideology and position needs to be addressed specifically in the body of the article... although there isn't much in the way of an article, anyway. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I second all that. The main reason I made the this edit is that it is absurd to call Alexander Dugin a fascist. As for Pavel Gubarev, he certainly comes across as a Russian nationalist (in the sense that he supports the idea of the "Russian world"), but he also comes across as a socialist. His wanting to nationalize oligarch property was probably the main reason he got pushed out by Moscow. (Sorry for a little OR.) Also, I hope that everyone can agree that calling someone a "neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist" is also absurd. It is more absurd even then "Islamic fascism", because the country which defeated the Nazis was the USSR, under Stalin's leadership. So let's try to keep this kind of silliness out of the Ukraine-related articles, including this one. – Herzen (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- it is absurd to call Alexander Dugin a fascist - It's reliable sources that call Dugin a fascist [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And those are scholarly sources we're talking about. We can find plenty more of popular sources as well. Hell, he called *himself* a fascist [6]. Your original research is no reason to remove well sourced material from the article. And how in the world can you complain about the article lacking sources on one hand, and then be busy *removing* reliable sources on the other?
- This is something I believe we've already talked about as well (maybe it was some other user). Yes, to a normal person the idea that one can be a Stalinist AND a Fascist or a Neo-Nazi may seem absurd. But that's the thing about extremist politics - they don't make sense, except in the heads of the people who subscribe to them. And that's what Dugin's ideology - shared by pretty much all the founders of this party - is National Bolshevism. It's got the word "Bolshevism" in it. And it's got the word "National" in it. And their symbol is definitely a shout out to the Nazi flag.
- (Also one could argue, and not be too far from the truth that USSR vs Third Reich was a conflict between two different flavors of fascism. There's no "law of nature" that says that one fascist state will never fight another fascist state).
- Anyway, restoring, as that's pretty much the best sourced part of the article. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- And Gubarev is obviously described as a Neo-Nazi because he ... belonged to a Neo-Nazi group Russian National Unity. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that guy advocates “ . . . not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – borderless as our lands, and red as our blood . . ." [7] My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- As there are several academic sources who explicitly name Dugin as being a fascist (at the most moderate!), I don't see that these references can be dismissed unless there are equally reliable sources defining him as being something other than his own particular brand of a representative of extreme right-wing nationalism. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, there is no argument for toning down such an evaluation, nor should well sourced representations be deemed in violation of the timidity with which WP:BLP's are usually written. My disdain for the Shekhovtsov blog being used elsewhere was related to the context of the subject of that article. While I'm not entirely convinced of the RS value of the Lippman article, both of Shekhovtsov's articles in this context are a referenced academic paper by a recognised academic in the field, as is Stephen Shenfield, Andreas Umland, and Alan Ingram (who specialises in critical geopolitics). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- So, I believe that actual "ideology" of the Party in the infobox should be indicated as Radical nationalism in Russia, not simply Russian nationalism. Or perhaps these two "Russian nationalism" pages should be merged? My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Only one of the sources cited can be considered to be reliable. The other two are self-published (not peer reviewed), and thus not reliable primary (scholarly) sources. (The book cited, by the way, was published by Sharpe, which specializes in fringe scholarship, so even that book isn't a reliable source by the usual Wikipedia standards.) Does Dugin consider himself to be a fascist? No. See the article on The Fourth Political Theory: "Dugin claims to construct an entirely new political ideology, the fourth political theory, which integrates and supersedes the three past 'theories' of liberal democracy, Marxism, and fascism." Since Dugin considers his political theory to supersede fascism, he cannot be a fascist. Thus, calling him a fascist is a grave violation of LIVING. But evidently, some editors don't believe that LIVING does applis to Russians, who can be smeared with impunity. – Herzen (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians, as opposed to building an encyclopedia. Why is that? And you base yourself on a diary from a blog the main purpose of which is to engage in apologetics for the Demorcrtic Party and Obama in particular. In the past couple of months, Obama has twice called Russia the gravest threat to humanity after ebola. So how objective do you think Daily Kos diarists are going to be about Russia?
- That quote is incomplete. Here is the complete quote:
- Французский фашистский писатель Робер Бразийяк перед самой смертью произнес странное пророчество: "Я вижу, как на Востоке, в России восходит фашизм, фашизм безграничный и красный".
- Заметьте: не блеклый, коричневато-розоватый национал-капитализм, а ослепительная заря новой Русской Революции, фашизм безграничный, как наши земли, и красный, как наша кровь.
- The French fascist writer Robert Brasillach closely before his death made a strange prophecy: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is emerging, a limitless and red fascism."
- Note: not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – limitless, as our lands, and red as our blood.
- That Daily Kos diarist presented that quote as it were Dugin's own view, whereas it was in fact a restating by Dugin of an assertion made by another writer, who was executed for collaboration for his work as an editor of a fascist journal. A crude smear technique, but effective nonetheless. – Herzen (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- As there are several academic sources who explicitly name Dugin as being a fascist (at the most moderate!), I don't see that these references can be dismissed unless there are equally reliable sources defining him as being something other than his own particular brand of a representative of extreme right-wing nationalism. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, there is no argument for toning down such an evaluation, nor should well sourced representations be deemed in violation of the timidity with which WP:BLP's are usually written. My disdain for the Shekhovtsov blog being used elsewhere was related to the context of the subject of that article. While I'm not entirely convinced of the RS value of the Lippman article, both of Shekhovtsov's articles in this context are a referenced academic paper by a recognised academic in the field, as is Stephen Shenfield, Andreas Umland, and Alan Ingram (who specialises in critical geopolitics). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that guy advocates “ . . . not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – borderless as our lands, and red as our blood . . ." [7] My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)