Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"ghosts and telepathy"

article mentions "his extreme metaphysical ideas (including belief in ghosts and telepathy)"

We need a source for this, none is provided. "Extreme metaphysical ideas" is also histrionic.73.202.195.146 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Histrionic" is not a good word if you want people to take you seriously. The sources already attached to the paragraph explain his belief in supernatural forces, such as mind-powers and spirits. The specific terms used for these ideas is not relevant. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The statement was added by a user without reference to pre-existing sources [1]. I will replace with "magical and supernatural beliefs" which is what is discussed in the sources.73.202.195.146 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Extreme nationalism"?

I have not read all of Evola's work, but from what I have read, he seems to have been largely skeptical of nationalism in its modern sense and saw it as a subversive ideology originating in the French Revolution. Is there any credible basis for this claim that he was an ardent nationalist, or is this just based off of his popularity with the alt-right? I'm not claiming that he was some cosmopolitan globalist, but to refer to him as a nationalist seems to me to be a gross oversimplification of his actual views. To be entirely honest, I still don't see why the old version of this article had to be changed. It dealt with his thought in a more neutral and thorough manner and didn't resort to alarmist claims based off of blog articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.33.88 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable source, and Evola is not a reliable source. Attempting to interpret his views based on his own works is original research. Dismissing reliable sources as "blogs" is not persuasive, because these flawed sources are still more reliable than you or I are, and are also more reliable than Evola himself. Since this seems like a common source of confusion, let me explain that more clearly: Evola is usable for some content, mainly non-controversial details about himself. Most of his work is, of course, controversial in the extreme, and his biographical details are not the part anyone seems to have a problem with, so he is not usable for these claims. He was also prolific, so relying on Wikipedia editors to decide which quotes of his should be included and which should be ignored is not practical. We must use sources for this. So, find a reliable source which summarizes his views on nationalism and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, just by searching through one of sources cited in the following sentence (Furlong's book), I found enough info to refute the nationalist charge. The opening paragraph of the chapter affirms what I claimed, that Evola was no nationalist in the traditional sense. This article is beyond embarrassing. Whoever wrote it had no intention of accurately portraying the thought of Evola and is instead interested in writing smears. Please do us all a favor and never edit this page again, Grayfell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.66.238.87 (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As the Furlong source points out, "the nation only exists as a function of the state" is a fascist catchphrase Evola repeated approvingly. He believed the nation was a vehicle to express the spiritual superiority of the state. He promoted and endorsed "aristocratic nationalism", which he felt would be a stepping stone to even more extreme forms of government. This is consistent with the mention in the lede of his extreme traditionalism, nationalism, and misogyny. The lede isn't really the place to go into that level of detail necessary to qualify his support of nationalism. Being the self-described "super-fascist" he was, he embraced, and tried to define, one specific form of nationalism. No, not the "traditional sense", but a valid sense none-the-less. This was both in practice and theory. Very, very much. He rarely used the term "nationalism", but that should not be misinterpreted as a rejection of the concept. Grayfell (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

From 'The Search For Neofascism: The Use and Abuse of Social Science' by A James Mcgregor, pg 86;-

'Evola spoke of Fascism as a caricature" and "parody" of a real revolution. For Evola, Fascism was simply based on material strength; it possessed neither cultural nor spiritual roots. Evola rejected any form of nationalism as simple foolishness, predicated on empty entiment. Manipulating "chauvinistic " sentiments, Fascist "pseudorevolutionaries" had stage-managed a "laughable revolution" - all this at the time when it was perfectly clear to everyone that nationalism was the central mobilising "myth" of Fascism. Three years after Mussolini assumed power in Italy, Evola insisted that to be "truly human" one would have to "overcome brotherly contamination"; one must "purge oneself" of the feeling that one is united with others "because of blood, affections, country or human destiny.' Such in-group sentiment, the core of Fascist nationalism, had no place in Evola's inventory of "Traditional" virtues. Evola was, and remained, an emphatic antinationalist throughout his life'

If you don't want to read all of that, it can simply be summed up as 'Once again, Grayfell has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.204.225 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018‎

Article (and particularly the short intro) is a biased and simply false presentation of Evola's work

Independently of any political views, to present Evola as a non-original thinker and the ideologist of Fascism is a major academic failure as well as a disrespect of cultured discourse. The life and oeuvre should be neutrally summarized by laying focus on the main inspirations: Theravada Buddhism, Tantrism and other traditional schools. I feel that the citations have been willingly chosen as to represent the common, but inappropriate approach which simply wants to get rid of Evola as a serious thinker, due to some historical controverses. In fact, those historical aspects, particularly the connection to Mussolini, ARE of controversial nature, a fact which can be discussed in a dedicated subsection somewhere, but which definitely does not constitute the essence of his work. Evola is, primarily and essentially, a Traditionalist thinker, i.e., a writer committed to interpret and transmit ancient wisdom for the modern age. (And this again is a fact independent of any moral or critical judgement.) As a matter of fact, notions like Aryanism and racism do appear in the corpus, but with a meaning which is totally different from the common use of those words. Using them as labels early in the text amounts to nothing else as a biased outburst of discreditation. 130.83.199.121 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Géza

I feel -- I'm gonna stop you right there. Reader feelings don't matter, professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources do. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lazy semantics ian, but never mind. The journalistic source, Merelli is an obviously biased source with an interest in smearing bannon with guilt by association rhetoric as opposed to any serious analysis of Evola. It's the same rubbish that has people accusing readers of Nietzsche of being fascists. The fact that his suppose advocation of rape is in the introduction of the article when it's falsely based on a very minor quote in one work is also a transparent attempt to turn the casual reader against Evola - it's an immediate, abhorrent accusation that is intended to sabotage the article as a whole, as most people will have little interest in reading more about a 'rape advocate.' 79.69.112.120 —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Merelli is one of four sources currently used for this point, among many available, which summarize the academic consensus that Evola was an extreme misogynist, among other things. If readers are a-okay with him being a self-described superfascist and Nazi lickspittle, but open contempt for women is too far, well that's their problem, isn't it? An article's lede summarizes its body. Omitting his extreme and degrading view of women would be whitewashing in service of promoting his spiritual and political ideas, but this isn't the place to promote him. We summarize him based on due weight according to reliable sources. He played a minor role in the history of fascism, but as serious scholarship, his works are largely dismissed and forgotten except by some far-right extremists. Reliable sources, accurately, document the entire breadth of his views, not just the parts that are convenient to modern apologists, regardless of if they are confused new-agers, neo-fascists, or smug pseudointellectuals. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The other issue is that if there is a desired outcome, such as bringing awareness to Evola's views on rape, the effect on individuals can be unpredictable. It can give the idea more legitimacy - most readers probably come to the article with a view that is not going to be changed by reading the article. That's why the articles should be written WP:NPOV - an observable bias will usually just reinforce biases that readers already have, imo. In the previous discussion I said misogyny was well-sourced, but I was one of the editors who supported removing Merelli entirely as an WP:UNDUE non-academic source, or at least giving it a less prominent placement then the LEDE. I will note that I generally don't give an onslaught of IP editors as much weight in a longstanding content dispute, as I would editors who were logged in/registered. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The trap here is that anybody with any preconceived notions will be able to find bias in any article they want. At the end of the day, all we can do is summarize sources. There are multiple sources discussing his views of rape, although most of them do so obliquely. I don't think a strong enough case has been made for removing this from the lede for that reason, but that doesn't mean such a case could never be made, of course. Or I could just be wrong about this. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned about giving a platform to an opinion of Evola's, if there isn't a good reason for it. I have looked for additional sources discussing rape and most discuss misogyny - if this particular quote is an important part of a biographical article (which will necessarily include some of Evola's major works and ideology) then I would agree with you, but none of the sources I have access to have convinced me of that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the current wording and it's changed since I last saw it, the word "rape" is not used now, and I don't think it adds much to put it back in, though I still think the placement as the last line of the LEDE is a bit more prominent then is warranted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is bloated, and decreasing that bloat has my support. This one quote would not belong in a streamlined article. Right now, the article has the kitchen sink problem of including dozens of passing mentions as direct quotes, while leaning too-hard on a small handful for substance. The Merelli quote is consistent with that, but it's not an ideal approach, obviously. Looking at the history, the article has been a battleground for over a decade. A lot of versions of the article liked to emphasize that Evola was prolific, but prolific doesn't necessarily mean influential (or good). The same applies to sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that comparing Evola with Nietzsche is absurd, not only for the enormous difference in influence cited above, but also because Nietzsche was not a contemporary of Nazism and did not knowingly and voluntarily work with them. This absurd inverse-Godwin clarifies any confusion as to your good faith in arguing here. 191.35.249.43 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your emotivism betrays your bias, Grayfell, as are your implicit attempts to smear me or anyone interested in Evola as a member of one of the various groups/philosophies you malign. I don't think his 'contempt for women' is too far as it's obviously factual; the 'rape advocacy' thing is what I had a problem with. If you want to spend your time here being a child who has to categorize everyone he doesn't agree with into his fetishistic ideological enemies, have fun. I was making a serious point about editorial bias and your response displays your corrupted view of the subject.

191.35.249.43 - I meant in terms as the lazy guilt by association rhetoric but yeah, clumsy and my bad homie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.112.120 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Emotivism, eh? I'm willing to go on record as saying that people should not be Nazis. Or did you just meant emotionalism? Again, I'm willing to go on record as saying that I have an emotional reaction to Evola's work. Are you pretending you don't have an emotional reaction to his work? Of course you do. That doesn't actually undermine the points we are making.

Yet again, your personal expertise on this is irrelevant. Academics do not, as a whole, take his views seriously. I don't need to malign him, nor is that my goal. My goal is to summarize the modern academic consensus, which is that his work has no intrinsic insight in a modern context, only in a historical one. In other words, he does a perfectly good job of maligning himself. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I meant emotivism - your reduction to your own 'ethical' opinions (ie. 'I don't like this guy') on the subject that cloud you. My emotional reaction or lack thereof is irrelevant. The whole 'rape advocacy' section with it's obvious attempt at emotivist pseudo-ethical subterfuge in the introduction, on the other hand, was biased. 'Academics' is a hell of a broad grouping and 'take him seriously' is vague to the point of meaninglessness. You seem to essentially be saying 'the cool kids don't like him,' and I see little to no evidence of this mythical 'academic consensus' you allude to (nor have I ever seen it inside a university, for that matter). I also have no idea what you mean by 'he does a perfectly good job of maligning himself' apart from, once again 'I don't like him and his views.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.112.120 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017‎

My ethical opinion that genocide and rape are bad "cloud" my judgement? You have to share Wikipedia with other humans, and that involves attuning your views to other people. If you don't think this is truly about ethics, consider it a tactical approach, instead.

His waffle about "Aryans" being from the north pole and Buddhists being advocates for the caste system are not taken seriously, even as myth. He made stuff up and then justified it by saying it was spiritualism. Taken at face value his views are a joke, taken esoterically, his views are also a joke. The theatrical pretense of neutrality when dealing with WP:FRINGE garbage only legitimizes it. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A thinker is not the sum of their errors, or their most outlandish views. Your contempt and dismissal of Evola - whom I suspect you've read little of beyond exerpts -speaks volumes about your biased motivations. Neutral analysis is the cornerstone of any serious study of a viewpoint - anything else is bias.

'My ethical opinion that genocide and rape are bad "cloud" my judgement?' - Your apparent obsession with the relatively scant elements in Evola that justifies either of these (if at all) as opposed to the body of his work do, yes. And again, a very lazy strawman argument that tries to smear me/him as advocates of this supposed positions. 'You have to share Wikipedia with other humans, and that involves attuning your views to other people.' - No, it means focusing on a serious analysis of the subject matter, and not whatever contemporary trends bias this. 'Attuning your views' seems to be, once again, code for 'making sure you agree with the cool kids' - or in simpler terms, cowardice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.115.54 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide citations to these serious analyses of his work. It's not up to us as editors to perform this analysis, it is up to us to summarize the existing analysis. This article does have a relatively narrow sample of sources, and would benefit from more. For better or worse, these source do need to be from the "cool kids", though. Wikipedia has an unapologetic bias towards the contemporary academic mainstream. It's common for advocates of fringe positions to dismiss this as being elitist or antidemocratic (cool-kidism is a new one on me, but it's more of the same). Evola is definitely in the far fringes, but he's also an antidemocratic elitist, so its ironic that his position is not commonly defended by elite sources. Evola is not himself an elite source, I guess it should be said. His reliable post-war advocates are few and far between, and are already over-represented in the article.

If you don't acknowledge why his views are contemptible and largely dismissed, don't be surprised if people are reluctant to take your position seriously, for several reasons. Its tempting to pretend to view extreme works like this from a position of emotional detachment, but this is a fiction. He was not 'incidentally' a misogynist who otherwise had good points, his superfascist worldview was a central aspect of all his significant works. If you don't agree, then again, find those reliable sources which say otherwise. Even if it was a relatively minor aspect of his worldview, we don't set-aside his misogyny to focus on his mysticism, superstition, pseudohistory, racism, antisemitism, or extreme politics. The point is to summarize the big picture, which is, according to those cool, cool mainstream scholars, misogynistic and worse. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the section of his work commenting on rape-

'But what interests us here apart from these specific references to the supersensual is the magic of woman and the sense of her natural fascination and power of seduction. We find the following sentence in Daudet: "I felt myself invincibly attracted by her; only an abyss can cause such fascination." We dealt earlier with the symbolism and the rite of disrobing and discussed the ultimate expression that this process had, for women, in such forms as the dance of the seven veils. We are concerned here with a woman stripped not of the material clothes that hide her body but of her individual identity as an empirical being and particular personality, until she can be seen in her elementary and uttermost substance as the Virgin, as Durga, as the woman prior to the manifold varieties of mortal women. The fascination exercised by all female nakedness in its final root is that it hints in an obscure way, which only the senses perceive, at this other nakedness. It is not a question of "beauty" or of an animal summons of the flesh; and what Paul Valery wrote is only partly right: "The influence of nakedness should of necessity arise from the value of the 'hidden' and of the accompanying peril imparted to it by its quality of ill-omened revelation and deadly means of seduction." It is true that die fascination of woman's nakedness has a dizzying aspect like that caused by emptiness and ilic bottomless, under the sign of Ytlt\ the raw material ul" creation, and of the ambiguily nfils nonheing. This

characteristic belongs to female nakedness alone. The effect of the naked male on woman is not only small in comparison but, where it exists, is of a special kind and essentially physical and phallic; it only effects her in the trivial meaning of a suggestion of the muscular and animal efficiency of the "male." Not so in woman; in a fully naked woman Durga is dimly felt by the man; she, goddess of orgiastic festivals, is the "inaccessible," the Prostitute and the Mother who is also the Virgin, the Inviolable, the Inexhaustible. It is precisely this which awakens in man an elementary desire united with vertigo; it is this, too, which drives desire to a paroxysm, accelerating the rhythm until priapic man precipitates himself into the subtle and sucking ecstasy of the motionless woman. If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her whom, in her ultimate root, in her "nakedness," will never be possessed by the lust of the flesh; it is the desire to possess this "virgin" that acts obscurely in the desire to possess the physically intact woman or the woman who resists. Moreover, there is no difference between that and the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus; it is different from the ambivalent "algolagnia" of which we spoke earlier and is much more profound; this cruelty and ferocity act as a counterpart to the transcendental and fascinating intangibility, "coldness," and insatiability that belong to the elementary female substance. There is a wish to "kill" the hidden and absolute woman contained in every female being, and a futile sadistic desire for "possession."* 1 * It is for this reason, too, that, as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture in the coitus.'

If anything it's a commentary on male sexual psychology, or at least the cultural sexuality of the male, hardly advocation of rape. He elsewhere says of spartans that they could only acquire a wife 'by rape' - but his use here is the same as 'the rape of the sabine women' - ie. abduction.

My main issue is that I've actually read him, whereas the editors of this article seem to have not. Same goes for the "scholars" cited (Merelli in particular) which seem to cherry-pick quotes for their own purposes. To be able to dismiss the entirety of his work as 'contemptible' suggests an extremely narrow view, as does the convenient summation of him as a 'superfascist' interpreted, presumably, in the same vein as 'super-sized.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.115.54 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2017‎

You accuse sources of cherry-picking, but this is, in many ways, worse than cherry-picking. You, anonymous editor, are not a reliable source, and Evola is both unreliable and primary. If you know of any reliable sources which summarize his position, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So instead of actually reading Evola's work we have to rely on what some blogger says about him when trying to smear Bannon? Absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.188.216 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just like to say that, without a doubt, this article has become extremely biased. Almost all of Evola's moral thoughts, including virtually all of his moral philosophy, has been removed--and it's been replaced by endless babble of Fascism, racism, and so on. There is no notable content remaining in this articles. There are severe WP:LABEL violations, even if thinly veiled and perhaps cited, littered throughout the article. The last bit of a hint Evola might have had some sort of actual ideology beyond racist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, occultic, perverted, drug-fueled rambling is a passive reference to the Traditionalist School in an attempt at smearing Steve Bannon for a connection to a person this article has by that point besmearched. Among other things, the article's table of contents divides Evola's biography into racism, misogyny, antisemitism and so on. It also seems that a lot of people making declarations to the contrary seem to believe that there are no rules on Wikipedia other than reliable sourcing--so I guess you can get some "academic article" and just say someone is a racist, misogynist terrorist and "Reader feelings don't matter." even though we stay neutral on al-Qaeda's terrorist designation. Nuke (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

I stumbled over this article, and I inserted some images to improve it a bit. Please keep them in place when restoring old versions/reverting bad edits. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Merelli

Why on earth does this source have such a weight in this article?

Her entire summary of Evola's views on sexuality is 'In other words, all sex is rape and that’s why it’s pleasurable.' And this is in the context of her making a contemporary political attack.

This is absurd. It's akin to putting 'In the opinion of President Mahmoud Abbas, historical anti-semitism against Jews in Europe was caused by their social function' in an article on anti-semitism. The only reason she has any interest in Julius Evola is so she can attack Bannon by proxy. There is no hint of any serious analysis.

VeritasVox (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The source is still better than nothing. We work with what we have, and what we have is still miles ahead of some random editor's personal opinion. The content is proportional to its coverage, and very few serious academics are even bothering to talk about Evola anymore. There are a few, though, and the article would benefit from including more of them, but removing this one source because you don't like it is a step in the wrong direction. Since this has already been discussed to death on this talk page, there's not a lot more to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion apart from one group of editors defending this source to death. I don't think a biased attack is better than nothing, and I return to the analogy of Mahmoud Abbas. A source is not credible when there are ulterior political motives. VeritasVox (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooooh, she has ulterior motives? How nefarious! Why didn't you says so?! In that case... nothing changes.

Your point about Mahmoud Abbas is not clear, nor is it a relevant comparison for multiple reasons. This isn't an article about the entire topic antisemitism. Your dislike of a source doesn't make it unreliable, as has already been explained. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My point about Mahmoud Abbas was illustrating how the comments and view of someone with a demonstrable political bias would not and should not be respected as a source when there is a conflict of interest affecting their analysis. Mahmoud Abbas talking about topics directly relating to politics is fine, Mahmoud Abbas minimizing anti-semitism is not, as this is an attack on israel/jews by proxy. Merelli talking about topics directly relating to politics is fine, Merelli attacking Evola is not, as this is an attack on Bannon/Trump by proxy.

Watch your tone Grayfell, and remember the fourth of the five pillars - civility. Childish sarcasm gets us no where. I await your reasoned response to my comments. VeritasVox (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Whitewashing the legacy of discredited crackpots does more harm to Wikipedia than calling out bullshit with sarcasm. Another WP:SPA lecturing me on Wikipedia's policies about civility... that's what's childish.

There is no "conflict of interest" here. Do you actually know what conflict of interest means? Merelli has no "interest" in Evola or Bannon or anyone else involved here. Did Merelli invest in an anti-Evola hedge-fund? C'mon, now.

By this logic, every source would have to be tested for ideology. That sounds a lot more like political correctness than anything positive, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Sources almost always have a position. This could be as simple as "rape is bad", or more complicated, such as "Bannon has been influenced by extremist ideologies". Advancing a position does not make a source less reliable, because few sources would ever pass this test. Merelli is summarizing Evola's perspective for a specific journalistic purpose. There is no problem with this at all. If you have a better source, surely you would've already brought it up. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So by your logic there would be no issue with inserting the opinion of Mahmoud Abbas on antisemitism in it's article, even when he has a demonstrable political bias. Or the opinion of Pinochet on Marxism in its article. Those additions wouldn't last more than 5 minutes because they would rightfully be seen as biased, and you know it.

To quote from your talk page 'I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)'

You seem to care more about beating the evil nazis (people who disagree with you) than striving for any accurate analysis. We simply trying to present a nuanced analysis of the subject at hand, rather than a series of attacks. You need to seriously consider your personal ethics as an editor.

Maybe these would benefit you:

Pillar 3 - 'We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_helpful:_explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_Under_the_Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

VeritasVox (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Good lord, what a waste of time. If you cannot counter my arguments, your attempt to make this about me becomes an admission of defeat. This page is the place to discuss this article, and repeating the same tired complaints about a source you don't like isn't productive. Removing accurate information about Evola just because it is unflattering is non-neutral in the worst way possible. Your insistence that this source is "unacademic" is a distraction, and this is made clear by the obsequious and extremely vague nature of your edits. This edit did not increase clarity, and it removed a reliable source. This edit was not an improvement to the article, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting of fringe ideologies or any other ideologies. Downplaying his misogyny through evasive language only hides accurate information while making his beliefs more palatable to unfamiliar readers. This is a form of promotion, in case that wasn't clear. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is the place to discuss this article, and leaning on a single biased, unacademic source to attack the politics of a philosopher you don't like isn't productive. Reinserting biased, inaccurate information about Evola just because it is unflattering is non-neutral in the worst way possible. Your insistence that this source is reliable and unbiased is a distraction, and this is made clear by your inability to accept any edits to this article whatsoever https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=841320723&oldid=841318409 your edits. This edit did not increase clarity, and it reinserted a biased, unreliable source. This edit was not an improvement to the article, and Wikipedia [[WP:SOAP|is not a platform for attacking ideologies you don't agree with, or labelling editors trying to give an accurate viewpoint as nazis " I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)." Emphasising the biased, unacademic accusation that Evola was a 'rape apologist' hides accurate information while misrepresenting his beliefs, with the intention of misleading unfamiliar readers. This is a form of editorial bias and political attack by proxy, in case that wasn't clear. VeritasVox (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying "unacademic", but this is false. It was published in a reliable outlet with editorial oversight by a person with a master's degree in semiotics (an academic field focused on how meaning is conveyed). Merelli is both an academic and a journalist, and is qualified to discuss Evola's philosophy. She is an authority in a way you are not, and if she chose to emphasis his misogyny in this way, you'll just have to get over it.

Evola's opinions, on the other hand, are only significant to the degree they are summarized by reliable sources. Merelli's article is "academic" in a way that neither Evola's own work, nor your anonymous personal opinion, can ever be. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is totally inaccurate: even when openly attacking the philosopher, it does not provide any information on its thought. We cannot pretend wikipedia to be totally bipartisan, being the editors people with their own local cultures and worldviews (i.e. a liberal american/eu guy will always have a different way of relating to abstract concepts than that of a mongolian guy) , but at least the article should make you understand what did the thinker, in this case Evola, wrote about. Moreover, reporting Evola's concepts without openly dissociating from them is no sin: the articles is intended to last, people reading it in ten years will not care about 2018 american politics and any other conflict between liberals and the alt right, they will read it to get to know the author and make their own ideas on his works. Otherwise, should be state in Plato's, Dante's, Caesar's, Shakespeare's, let's say, in every pre-1968-man's article that he was pro rape, mysoginist and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.54.133 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Plato, Dante, Caesar, and Shakespeare didn't write 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” and “as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture”. Plato, Dante, and Shakespeare especially did not regard women as inferior property of men. Whatever reason it was that lead you to believe that comparing them to him (be it bias, inability, whatever), that you have done so demonstrates some blindness on your part that will prevent us from following you.

And besides, even if your reasoning were the least bit accurate, we stick to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not your opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Further, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning we mainly summarize the academic consensus on Evola. We do not publish original research on what Evola supposedly truly meant. One of several problems with basing the article on Evola's own writing is that he produced so much of it, most of which was largely ignored by academics, and his "philosophies" were not always consistent across decades. We cannot rely on random IPs to decide which parts to include, and we cannot rely on them to decide what he "really" meant, either. If reliable, independent sources say he was misogynist, so be it. Anyone who doesn't agree with that assessment will have to provide a new reliable source, which will also be a third-party source, because that's just how this works. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever reason it was that lead you to totally ignore the sense of my post (be it bias, inability, whatever), the problem still remains: the article on wiki eng about Evola is not helpful nor informative. It is understandable (and even right, i approve this) that you do not want the article to be an apology of Evola or that you want it to provide also with critics to his thought. While it is possible and simple to create an article which reports the philosopher's thought, followed by the opinions of his (academical) critics and of his (academical) supporters, this particular article is not written to inform, but to deliberately dismiss the thinker by reporting decontestualized quotes of him and decontetualized opinions of his critics. It should be renamed "Evola's criticism" or "Anti Evola Sentiment", because that is what it is all about.One last thing (it is truly unpleasant that i have to explain this, considered that this is a gentlemen's discussion and, from the way you write, you could have easily understood it on your own, but maybe you did not want to), about Dante, Plato and others: yes, if you search you will easily find for mysoginist, or even racist impressions in their works. But, you (and academics) would not give them much credit because they are not the main and most important part of their works. Now, only, and only with Evola, some totally marginal and ambiguos parts of his, you said it to, enormous and prolific work, are taken and considered as if they were the most representative and important parts of his thought. The aim is obviously to discourage the casual reader to deepen in Evola's views. So please, at least admit it, but do not sell it for accuracy. Now, considering the discussion above it is evident that things are not going to change, may it be because of mala fides or simple mental closure. Therefore, the best option is to wait for some enlightened (not in historical sense) person from wikipedia to depoliticize the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.54.133 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

His views on rape aren't being represented, it's a political attack by proxy. You again decide to say everyone who disagrees is an 'apologetic' while completely ignoring the context of Merelli. A source's context matters as much if not more than it's content, and if it was an article from a known fascist praising Evola you would rightly call it biased. Because Merelli aligns with your perosnal opinion on the subject, you are willing to forego any critical examination of the source whatsoever. Our politics don't matter. Accuracy matters. VeritasVox (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also for ian and grayfell - WP:AOBF WP:IPHUMAN WP:DONTBITE WP:NOTCLUELESS WP:NPA WP:CIVIL WP:CONS these may be helpful to you VeritasVox (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure There were five separate questions tabled in this RfC. There were technical objections submitted. An editor stated that the questions were not "straightforward neutrally-worded." Yet, one can find nothing grossly non-neutral about the phrasing: Should the Merelli source be used in this article? Is it a political attack by proxy or an accurate analysis? Should this viewpoint have a prominent place in the lede? etc. Another editor stated this RfC should have proposed specific, actionable changes in order to be meaningful, yet the questions contain specific, actionable changes for debate. Either we use the source or not. Is the analysis accurate or attack by proxy? Should the viewpoint be prominent in the opening paragraph? And so on. These technical objections can be fairly rejected, so any argument based on such objections is discarded.
On the substance of the RfC, the result on the first question is Yes: The publication, Quartz, can be accepted as reliable; there is no sensationalism, populism, or yellow page journalism in it. No questioning of its pedigree as WP:RS was ever tabled in Wikipedia, as far as one can see. The 2017 article itself, written by Annalisa Merelli, a reporter, contains commentary about American politics, indeed something irrelevant to our article's subject. In it, historical references are made to the article's subject for the sake of comparison and ideological relationship. (Ms Merelli attacks Bannon and Trump and uses for Bannon's ideological worldview the ideas of Evola.) However, whether or not there is an element of "attack by proxy" in the Merelli text should be irrelevant for our purposes (which, incidentally, answers the second question: It does not matter). The question concerns the use of the text as a source for Evola's ideas - and here the Merelli article is not an arbitrary, speculative, personal take, but based firmly on the very text she's citing:
Compare, please, the text in Merelli ("Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire," etc) with the text in Evola's "Eros and the Mysteries of Love" ("If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her ... Why God allows girls to be raped during wars or disorders. Apart from the unfathomable nature of heavenly designs and a hint of possible compensation in the afterlife for sufferings on earth (supposing that the rape of a girl amounts only to suffering), [we] wonder whether the girls in question had not sinned by their pride in showing their virtue," etc).
No reasonable person could argue that Merelli misrepresents Evola's ideas.
The other questions all end up with No consensus. The debate has been open since 25 May 2018, and it'd be fair to argue that it has been exhausted. I'd suggest a separate discussion for each unaddressed question, if anyone's still interested. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the Merelli source be used in this article? Is it a political attack by proxy or an accurate analysis? Should this viewpoint have a prominent place in the lede?

Can Julius Evola be described as a nationalist? Should there be more discussion of Traditionalism and his relation to the school? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC). VeritasVox (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In general we need opinions/consensus/help with

1. Merelli as a source - I personally think this is a political attack by proxy against Steve Bannon through Evola and not a credible analysis of his thought, and am in favour of removing it entirely. The prominence of this minor point about his thought (even it it was accurate) in the lede I believe is also designed to bias the casual reader.

2. Evola as a 'nationalist' which is still in the lede because various people have been reverting edits, despite the rest of the article now saying he was not a nationalist.

3. Evola and fascism - this is mostly very good and shows both sides, but I get the impression that the analysis seems a bit inconsistent throughout - a feel of 'many cooks.' I think perhaps the most glaring thing is Traditionalism as a political school isn't mentioned, and 'Evola's thought' is the general grouping used - I think the article could benefit from having Traditionalism explicitly named and his influence/placement in that school explored, particularly as something readers are likely going to read on about.

4. Equally we could do with more of a compare/contrast section between him and Rene Guenon who is currently only named in a source, when he was Evola's major influence and concluded that there was something of the anterior Western Tradition remaining in certain institutions (sufism, catholic church) whereas Evola thought nothing remained and the West was irredeemable. I believe there was also correspondence between the two which could probably be cited.

Sorry to impose ladies and gentlemen - I would attempt to do all this but currently any and all edits I make are summarily undone. VeritasVox (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @VeritasVox: Hello, Veritas. I came across this Request for Comments because it showed up on my watchlist. I won't be expressing an opinion here on the merits of your request. But I do urge you to withdraw it and re-submit after you've taken a closer look at WP:RFCST. Requests for Comments should be in the form of a straightforward neutrally-worded question and not the ambling opinion-laden paragraph that you have used. For example, something like "Is Merelli a reliable source for this article?" (Of course, this is just an illustration, not a suggestion -- feel free to fashion the question any way you like.) After posting that brief neutrally-worded question, you can come back to the RfC and comment on it in the same fashion that I am doing here. The important point is that your comments and opinions should not form part of the request itself. I hope this is helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  Immensely so, thanks for your help. I'll sort that out now. VeritasVox (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done. For any newcomers, please refer to the above for my views/issues I find in the article. VeritasVox (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merelli is a reliable source, and no valid argument against the use of this source has been made. The Quartz source is describing Evola specifically because the New York Times discussed Bannon's mention of Evola. An article intended to provide historical context for a current event is just basic, fundamental journalism. Merelli is an academically qualified professional writer published in a mainstream outlet with an established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. The source summarizes the academic consensus that Evola was an extreme misogynist, which has not been disputed by any reliable sources I have seen.

Evola's status as a nationalist has also already been discussed. He nominally rejected "nationalism" according to the definition he chose to apply, while advocating for an "Imperium". This is close enough to nationalism that it has been embraced by many post-war ultra-nationalists. Sources agree that his writing rejects "nationalism" as too modern, but we're not just here to repeat his own writing, we are here to summarize what reliable sources have to say, and they are far from universal. What does it mean to oppose nationalism while "[praising] the SS as a vehicle of the state..."[2]? If he was opposed to nationalism, what, exactly, is "national mysticism"? Most, but not all, of his supposed opposition to nationalism and fascism is either WP:OR based on Evola's own writing, or the writings of A. James Gregor, who, by his own admission, holds a controversial view of Evola's political position. Other sources mention Evola (and Guenon)'s "connections to ultra-nationalist ideology",[3] or Evola's "nonterritorial nationalism",[4] etc.

The rest of these comments do not belong in an RFC, since they haven't really been sufficiently discussed on the talk page, making this premature. If reliable, independent sources mention Rene Guenon, discuss how to expand this elsewhere on the talk page. This is not a venue for general discussions, RFC should be about specific actionable changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• If Merelli was simply summarising the position that he was a misogynist (which he most certainly was) there wouldn't be an issue. The issue arises specifically with her assertion that he 'went so far as to justify rape' and her characterisation of him regarding 'all sex is rape and that’s why it’s pleasurable' which is a misinterpretation no one else agrees with, which has never appeared before this article, and which has no root in any analysis of the subject matter by any actual academic (a master's degree in semiotics and a bachelor's degree in mass communication does not an academic make -

  noun: academic; plural noun: academics 1.a teacher or scholar in a university or other institute of higher education.)

• In fact, she uses no sources in her analysis at all. She does not include the views of any other academics or writers on the subject material, and the article includes less than one page of her own thought's on Evola's work (Number of words discussing Evola's views - 453. Number of words in preamble and discussing Bannon/alt-right- 1067). The entirety of her analysis is based on original research. If she had edited this article on wikipedia her opinions would have been rightly dismissed out of hand.
• To illustrate her lack of analysis of the subject matter, we also have her saying Evola work/ideas were 'widely seen as direct precursors to Italian fascism' which is completely and utterly wrong - the Italian fascist party was founded 5 years before his first work. The article lacks basic accuracy about it's subject matter.
• This is a political attack by proxy, and not a reliable source. It is uncorroborated by any other source, and explicitly motivated by Evola's relation to Steve Bannon/the alt-right - there is no other reason she is writing. VeritasVox (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  If you want other people to contribute, let them contribute. Re-litigating the exact same point over and over without understanding Wikipedia's policies, and without listening to what other people are saying, is just going to drive away the uninvolved editors you're trying to invite into the discussion. Assuming you are the same Liverpool IP who's been at this for months, you've already been blocked multiple times for multiple reasons, so perhaps it's time to drop the stick, at least long enough to allow other people to get a word in. If you're not that IP, all the more reason to allow more experienced editors a chance to speak.

  We know you don't like Merelli. Good lord have you made that clear, but throwing every possible argument against the wall in the hopes that one will stick only weakens your credibility. Merelli uses quotes from primary sources to explain her position. There is no expectation that sources must cite sources for every conclusion they make, because that's totally ridiculous. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we do not attempt to impose content guidelines on the sources we cite. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, not that guy and my arguments still stand. She is offering a unresearched opinion that no other writer on Evola has used and she knows so little about him that she labels him a 'precursor' to italian fascism. What interests me more is your incredible passion for the inclusion of this one source, which seems to be hinged entirely on the 'rape' line, and your ardent defence of this (even if true) point of little to no relevance to his work in the lead. I think you and others are deliberately trying to influence the casual reader against this thinker and his work, which is against the principles of an encyclopedia. Naturally we need third party opinions, which I welcome, but attempting to make this into some sort of unhinged personal crusade on my part demonstrates the weakness of your own position. VeritasVox (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Questions
  • The main point of contention seems to be the statements Evola also advocated rape (among other forms of male domination of women) because he saw it "as a natural expression of male desire". This misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women. These statements are (apparently) supported by three other references besides Merelli. What do these sources actually say?
  • Policy is generally to prefer scholarly sources over less scholarly sources. Given this, what is the relative expertise in the subject of the four sources?
  • Regarding your 3 & 4, is there any contention or disagreement? Can't you go ahead and work on them? FenceSitter (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    Looking at just Furlong's "Social and Political Thought of Julius Evola" by itself, especially chapter 7, that source alone supports and this aspect of his work has influenced occultists and esotericists. Evola also advocated rape (among other forms of male domination of women) because he saw it "as a natural expression of male desire". This misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women. I'm not immediately certain why Lycourinos is cited there except for "influenced occultists and esotericists." I can't assess Coogan unless someone wants to give me $20 and wait a week (which I don't expect to happen).

    Furlong is a professor of European studies at Cardiff University, and his work is published by Routledge. Barring similarly strong works (I'm talking something like Brill Publishers) arguing that Evola was somehow secretly feminist and that Furlong has some sort of agenda, there's no displacing Furlong or the material he supports.

    Also, while scholarly sources are favored over less scholarly sources, that doesn't journalistic sources aren't taboo. Merelli presents and interprets a relevant passage from a primary source, and so far no one has been able to present an academic source (or even other journalistic sources) explaining how Evola was not normalizing rape when he wrote 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” and “as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture”. In other words, 'all men get off on the idea of hostilely deflowering a resisting woman, and they imagine that's what they're doing every time they have sex.' About the only thing left would be to present the primary source so that a reader can verify the quotes presented by Merelli. Also, Haaretz likewise says Evola "espoused rape as a masculine act", with no link to the Quartz piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merelli should be attributed at the very least. This really shouldn't have been left in the article, especially not in the lede, as long as it has been without attribution — I read the primary source quotes above and it doesn't sound radically different then the stuff Rousseau wrote and in the lede for his article we describe him as a "national hero". I'm also not convinced it's about rape and would have to read the primary source more carefully. This doesn't need a conflicting source, it should be attributed as Merelli's opinion - there isn't enough sourcing here to present it as an objective consensus, and most likely it shouldn't be in the lede at all.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• If the expert sources cover the topic, then I don't think a magazine article making a point about Steve Bannon adds anything. In particular, if the experts could have said "advocated rape", but avoided doing so, then we shouldn't put it in. In that case Ian.thomson's wording is appropriate: and this aspect of his work has influenced occultists and esotericists. Evola also advocated male domination of women because he saw it as a natural expression of male desire. This misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women.

On the other hand, if this is an aspect of Evola that the experts don't cover, then we can fill in the gap with journalistic sources such as Merelli and the Haaretz piece as the best information available. FenceSitter (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Concur with Seraphim System; if this is included at all it must be attributed, because it's just an opinion; and it surely should not be in the lead. This is WP:UNDUE. I'm sympathetic to Grayfell's well-articulated view; however, the fact that Merelli merits some encyclopedic coverage doesn't mean it should be in this particular article. While I lean more toward VeritasVox's side on this, this isn't a neutral RfC, and re-bludgeoning with the same long points isn't helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Is there any sign at all that reliable sources are disputing Merelli's position? Which sources refute, directly or indirectly, this assessment of his extreme hostility towards women? Lacking such a source, how else would we fairly explain this extremism other than saying it in direct language? Instead of couching an uncontested assessment in layers of distancing attribution, we should be willing to summarize an expert opinion in simple terms. If Merelli's assessment of this were as obscure or fringe as it's being painted, that would indicate that Evola is even less significant than the article presents him as, in which case we have a much bigger problem. While his philosophical importance is overstated, Merelli's assessment isn't particularly novel or controversial as far as I can see. Merelli's assessment is valuable because it summarizes in simple language a significant aspect of Evola's philosophy when viewed through a modern context. Evola might have been antimodern, but Wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia for modern readers, so this is an important perspective. The stink of modern American politics is not an excuse to ignore reliable sources.

As for Rousseau, we should summarize Evola in proportion to how reliable sources summarize him. If we had even one one-hundredth as many sources on Evola as we have on Rousseau, we would be having a completely different conversation. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Ian.thomson's wording is a bit better. While I am sympathetic, I don't think this quote is justifying or advocating rape. The Evola quote is about "the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration" which Merelli interprets as rape. It sounds a lot like Les Infortunes de la Vertu or Rousseau - if I hadn't known it was Evola I would have thought it was some Enlightenment-era French writer. I don't know if there is a source for this somewhere—I don't read French, but if anyone does there might be something. However, I'm not opposed to inclusion for anything having to do with American politics, I think this is a crowd-pleasing opinion article that is more opinion than fact and isn't on par with the more rigorous philosophy sources used in this article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What wording? I didn't interpret Ian.Tompson's comments as a proposal, so much as saying that the Furlong source alone supports part, but not necessarily all, of the current wording. I guess I would need to see what, exactly, is being proposed before commenting on this.

I don't think anyone, including him, would disagree that his writing style was centuries out of fashion. How much of this is a translation issue? If he knew his florid style would be ambiguous to his contemporaries, did he write like that anyway? I now wonder if this was his intention, since it makes his philosophy so much harder to criticize. Regardless, he's evaluated based on his actual time and place, not the time and place he wishes he lived in, same as everyone.

Did Evola make any lasting, significant contributions to philosophy? From what I've seen, academic sources mainly discuss his influence on politics and extremists, or sometimes as a new-age oddity, but not as a hefty philosophical or religious scholar in his own right. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There are some sources supporting that he was anti-Catholic, but a lot of the sources are in Italian. There are plenty of footnotes, most of them I can't follow up on.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Seraphim System, SMcCandlish and Vox Veritas on this. Degrees of reliability are relevant here. If this aspect of Evola is properly covered by expert academic sources, it's not all that helpful to throw in, unattributed, an opinion piece that's isn't even focussed on the subject. FenceSitter (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So four in favour of editing the lede, two against. Ok, editing now VeritasVox (talk)

You started the RFC, so you should already know that's not how this works. Wait for an experienced, uninvolved editor to close and determine consensus. "Consensus" isn't the same thing as a vote tally. Grayfell (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Who's the other against editor? FenceSitter (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ian, unless he's changed his mind. Okie dokie, closure requested. VeritasVox (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RFCs need to be based on specific, actionable changes in order to be meaningful. This RFC was (non-neutrally) phrased to denigrate one specific source. Consensus is not that this source is unusable or incorrect, although there is disagreement on how to handle attribution. More importantly, absolutely nothing I have read here allows for calling his views of women "conservative". This is euphemistic whitewashing and editorializing. Consensus on this article must still align with consensus for Wikipedia in general, which means we summarize neutrally based on reliable, third-party sources, not WP:OR, and not the personal opinions of individual editors. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyone agrees with the removal of Merelli from the lede, apart from you and potentially ian. The general consensus also seems to be towards her removal as a source, but I'll wait for the RfC to close for that. As for conservatism -

• 'conservative adjective: conservative 1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

This to me seems less ambiguous than 'right wing,' particularly as we're talking about Traditionalism that idolises anterior societies - 'right-wing' is too broad as it potentially encompasses fascist ideas about women (eg. their participation as volunteers in war-related duties) that wouldn't align with his views. Also your constant accusations of 'white-washing' and similar against me when we disagree is becoming tiresome, Grayfell. My aim is precision. Stop the ideological posturing and WP:AGF. VeritasVox (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misogyny, again

Hi, sorry to wade in on the debate like this, but it seems to have got bogged down into mud-slinging between fascists and anti-fascists. I do believe I can contribute something to break the deadlock. I've been studying Evola's theories (with more than a little scepticism) for a book I'm writing. I believe that suggestions that Evola advocated rape are based on a misunderstanding of certain quotes that have been read in isolation from their context.

For those who doubt the sincerity of my enterprise, let me say that I believe Evola was certainly a misogynist. But that doesn't mean he advocated rape. Consider the following quote from pages 88-89 of the Inner Traditions edition of Evola's book, 'Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex':

"Becase of most women's unconscious anguish and inhibitions and the carnal and impulsive primitive nature of the majority of men, some exceptional and irrevocable possibilities that the loss of virginity could provide women are wasted. Indeed, this female initiation to full sexual life, when carried out brutally, often leads to unfavourable repercussions and may even harm a woman's ability to achieve normal relations. Instead, we should think that if the state of intoxication were to be aroused in its acute form, which already contains a destructive element, the pain of the defloration together with all the subtle factors linked to it in terms of hyperphysical physiology might lead to a heightening of the ecstatic potential of that unique and unrepeatable moment."

In short, it seems that Evola believed that rape actually eliminated the possibility of using sex for "magical" ritual purposes, therefore it seems unlikely that he would have advocated rape in light of his general preference for the "magical" over the "profane".

As for some of the more infamous quotes cited in discussions above, it appears that many of them refer to Evola's descriptions of supposedly "inferior" and "average" men. He seems to regard lusting and chasing after women as "unmanly", regardless of whether the woman consents or not. His ideal seems to be that a man should be cold and immovable, while a woman should "chase" him, even following him to death (that infamous quote about jumping onto his funeral pyre).

I can provide additional evidence and quotes if needs be, but I haven't time right now. Please let me know if these are required. In general, I think the charge of extreme misogyny is warranted, but claims Evola advocated rape are inaccurate. I can see why people would interpret things in a certain way, though.

What do others think about the above quote and my interpretation of it? Thanks, Bananaman2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaman2018 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Here are some more Evola quotes I’ve found online which would seem to back up what I’ve already written. Firstly, on the question of Evola regarding it as ‘unmanly’ when men lust after women:

“Likewise, there is a profound meaning in the legend about the Kalki-avatara, which talks about a woman who could not be possessed by anybody because the men who desired her and fell in love with her turned into women as the result of their passion.” (Revolt Against The Modern World, page 161).

This would seem to put the quote cited by Annalisa Merelli, where Evola says “there is no difference” between “the desire to possess the physically intact woman, or the woman who resists” in a rather different light. It suggests, as I have written above, that although Evola believes there is little difference between consensual “profane” sexual intercourse and rape, he does not actually advocate either as he regards both as examples of men being out-of-control, lusting after women, and thus not the unmoved, emotionally stoic ‘warrior-types’ that he idolizes.

Instead, Evola seems to believe that men should remain cold and unmoved and that women should be the ones lusting and chasing after men:

“This occurs when the feminine principle, whose force is centrifugal, does not turn to fleeting objects but rather to a “virile” stability in which she finds a limit to her “restlessness.” Stability is then transmitted to the feminine principle to the point of intimately transfiguring all of its possibilities… What is needed therefore is a radical “conversion” of the feminine principle to the opposite principle; moreover, it is absolutely necessary for the masculine principle to remain wholly itself.”

“…there are also two types available to the feminine nature. A woman realizes herself as such and even rises to the same level reached by a man as warrior and ascetic only as lover and mother… [the feminine is] totally giving of herself and being entirely for another being, whether he is the loved one or the son, finding in this dedication the meaning of her own life, her own joy, and her own justification.”

“As far as the woman is concerned, there is true greatness in her when she is capable of giving without asking for anything in return; when she is like a flame feeding itself; when she loves even more as the object of her love does not commit himself, does not open himself up and even creates some distance; and finally, when the man is not perceived by her as a mere husband or lover, but as her lord.”

As has been commented upon previously, Evola believed that this even meant following her man to the death by leaping onto his funeral pyre. All of this is sexism and extreme misogyny, but none of it supports the claim that Evola advocated rape.

I do think it’s important as although Evola is an extreme figure, whom we must not excuse for his sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-semitism, snobbery, fascist sympathies etc etc, we must also ensure that Wikipedia is as accurate as possible. Let Evola’s ideas hang him without making claims that, I believe, are dubious at best.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear what others think and whether they agree with this interpretation. Thanks! Bananaman2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaman2018 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Julius Evola´s introduction is ridiculous. Disrespectfull and biased. The whole "rape" and "misoginy" lyricism is cringy, he was "extreme" only for an era like ours of domesticated lamb who feed on gettinng offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.40.150 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Strange how eager Evola's fans are to "get offended" by someone else's assessment of him. Anyway...

@Bananaman2018: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources. Evola's own writing is a reliable source for itself, but that's not enough to justify inclusion of examples of his own writing. Since he was relatively prolific, and much of his writing is... internally inconsistent, to put it mildly, we must use reliable sources to determine which parts of his writing are noteworthy and which are not. Further, we cannot rely on individual editors to compile these examples. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, nor does it allow combining sources to come to a conclusion not made by those sources. Any interpretation of his own writing must come from reliable, independent sources, to avoid inserting original research or editorializing. With that in mind, we cannot use your personal conclusions based on Evola's writing, but we could consider it when it is published. This would depend on several factors, however. If your book is published through a third-party outlet with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, please let us know so we can use it to expand the article. Otherwise, if you are a recognized expert who has previously published work through a third-party publisher on a closely related field, we could use your self-published work as an attributed opinion (per WP:SPS). Please be mindful of editing with a conflict of interest, however, so it would be best to propose such changes here on the talk page. Specific, actionable suggestions are always preferable to general comments. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for replying and for considering what I've said. I agree that one can't simply use what I've said above in the article itself. It's just my interpretation. I also agree that it's best to discuss these things in the 'Talk' section before amending the article. When my book eventually comes out, I will of course let you know and we can discuss its conclusions! It will cover Rene Guenon, Julius Evola and other writers in the 'Traditionalist' school of thought.

One thing I will add to the above: Although I hate agreeing with the fascists and ranters in the Talk section above, I do think some of their criticisms are correct regarding the use of Annalisa Merelli's article as a major source. The tone of her article is very much that of polemic journalism rather than a scholarly one. I'm aware that her article was published by Quartz news, but sadly even that does not guarantee accuracy or thorough research in these days of 'clickbait journalism'.

What you said about my comments, that they are my "personal conclusions based on Evola's writing" is perfectly valid and I do accept it. However, I must admit I think it could apply to Merelli's interpretation as well! I don't believe her interpretation can be regarded as any more valid than what I've written here in these Talk pages.

Perhaps the introductory part of this Wikipedia page should be amended so that Evola's beliefs about male domination of women are mentioned, but references to alleged justification of rape are saved for a later section in the article? I also think that it should be made clear that this is Merelli's interpretation, rather than something that has been agreed by several scholars. Perhaps it could be phrased thus: "Annalisa Merelli has even argued that Evola justified rape through his ambiguous comments about the subject".

What do you think? Thanks anyway for your time. I know you must be fed up with debating the same issue over and over again, but I do think some of the controversy over the 'rape' section of the article is justified and it's important for Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible.

Thanks, Bananaman2018

I've already explained why I don't agree to that several times. I'm sorry, but please take a look at this talk page and its archives (linked above). This exact issue has already been discussed many, many times, and to be blunt, you are not saying anything I haven't already read before. Several Wikipedia editors dislike Merelli's article. Nobody is obligated to like it, so that was never in question. If, however, in researching your book you have come across any reliable (secondary) sources on Evola and his misogyny which are not already included here, by all means please share them.

By "personal" I mean that you, Bananaman2018, are sharing your personal conclusion here, on an obscure Wikipedia talk page. Merelli news article on a website with fact-checking and editorial oversight. Comparing your opinion to her published article is not productive, because as far as Wikipedia is concerned, her opinion is "more valid" than either of ours (per WP:V, among others). Grayfell (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Primary Source Evidence- worth considering?

Hi again Grayfell

I appreciate your comments and I understand that you must be tired of going through the same thing multiple times. Perhaps if my own remarks cannot be directly used, you would consider a primary source - one of Evola's books - which I believe supports what I've said? I've realised that there is a (sadly incomplete but nonetheless extensive) version of Evola's 'Eros & The Mysteries of Love' freely available online via Google Books. Such a primary source is surely worthy of consideration when putting together this Wikipedia page.

If you'd indulge me, perhaps you wouldn't mind reading pages 164-169 of the Evola book. These pages include some of his remarks cited by Merelli and others, but also their wider context: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zlAX8pSUHSkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Of particular note are Evola's comments on page 164 and 166. On page 164, he writes that "man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape" but that it is "illusory" to believe that through this, a man has really possessed a woman. On page 166, Evola again writes about how the average man thinks that he has "possessed" a woman after having sexual intercourse with her, whereas Evola claims that in fact the woman has "welcomed" this and that the man has been "possessed" by some sort of demonic feminine power because he has lusted after her.

Combined with Evola's well known beliefs about how the modern world supposedly represents a decline of masculine power and the sinking into materialism and decadence, I think it's fair to argue that the remarks in these pages are condemning both rape and profane consensual sex, with both as alleged examples of the average man lusting after a woman and giving in to the supposedly demonic forces of the modern world.

Instead, his other well-known remarks suggest he believed that a woman should be wholly dedicated to a man and should lust and chase after him; even Merelli cites comments about the harem being Evola's idealised form of relationship and that he believed a woman should leap onto a man's funeral pyre to follow him even after death. He seems to think that men should be cold, independent warrior-ascetics, chased and fawned upon by women.

As I have said previously, this is an extreme sexist vision which regards women as only fit to be the servants of men. Yet I don't believe it includes the justification of rape; in many respects, it's the opposite as rape means effort from the man! A rather repulsive notion, but that's the gist of it.

I believe that the primary source of Evola's own writings is more valuable than Merelli's second-hand interpretation (and also my own!)and that its availability online justifies amendments to the Wikipedia page. At the very least, I think the evidence from this primary source should be included in the sources section and that it justifies pointing out the ambiguity of Evola's comments about rape. Merelli's interpretation should merely be mentioned as exactly that- one possible interpretation.

As ever, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. And I promise I'll stop badgering you about this now! ;-) Thanks, Bananaman2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaman2018 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Several people have come to this talk page confused (and sometimes indignant) about why we do not interpret Evola's own material. The unstated assumption is that if we would only read his material for ourselves, we would see this-or-that perspective and would correct the article based on this new, shared understanding. This is a fiction. Reasonable people will come to wildly different conclusion on even simple material, and Evola's material is copious, florid, and opaque.

More importantly, it doesn't matter if I agree with you, and it doesn't matter if I've read his entire corpus, because this is not how Wikipedia works. This isn't some new trick or special standard which is selectively applied, this is the common standard which is expected for all articles. This point is hammered-home over and over again by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. (WP:SCHOLARSHIP); Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. (WP:RSPRIMARY); from Wikipedia:Verifiability: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (WP:SOURCES); from Wikipedia:No original research: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. (emphasis in original, WP:PRIMARY); and many, many more besides.

As I said, if you know of a reliable source (which do not have to be online) discussing Evola's views of sex, please let us know. On Wikipedia it is sometimes permitted, but never ideal, to provide an outline of a noteworthy work based on the work itself, but it is not permitted to highlight specific parts of that work to imply something which isn't also specifically emphasized or contextualized by a reliable independent source. Just as you wouldn't use a highlighter on a library book, don't presume that other people will share, or care about, your personal interpretations of a work.

So again, as I have explained multiple times, it is not up to us to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. I must again remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for original research, and your personal opinions about the definition of rape have some disturbing implications. Your conclusions would only make sense if being a "cold, independent warrior" somehow precluded being a rapist, which is WP:SYNTH, among many other problems. Evola was not in any way shape or form a credible expert on sexuality or psychology, so assuming he has some deeper insight into sexuality is giving him far more credit than he deserves. Merelli is, however, more credible and more qualified to speak on these things, because she has solid academic credentials, is presumed to work with fact checkers, and has editorial oversight from an established outlet. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent and nuanced analysis Bananaman and please publish soon - a legitimate, scholarly analysis of Evola's work is sorely needed so that this artice can begin to analyse his thought accurately. And Grayfell I don't think anyone is arguing that Evola was an 'expert on sexuality or psychology' (whereever you've got that from, doesn't seem to be anything to do with Bananaman's posts) simply that the views he espoused over his literary career may contain slightly more nuance than 453 words on the subject from a woman who incorrectly identifies him as a precursor of Italian fascism and was mainly writing about Bannon. Also please refrain from personal attacks on other editors ('your personal opinions about the definition of rape have some disturbing implications'). It's quite obvious that Bananaman was offering analysis of Evola's views, not condoning them. VeritasVox (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Your eagerness to assume bad faith in my comments is unsurprising. Assuming that Evola's idealized, abstract masculinity must somehow preclude rape while also allowing for misogyny is logically inconsistent, and if taken to its conclusion, also offensive. Assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring things like this.

Nuance? What nuance? Using many words to describe simplistic ideas is not the same as nuance. His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. He is historically noteworthy for having served a politically expedient purpose in fascism. This elevated him from total obscurity to become a name to be often mentioned, but seldom read, by a tiny number of scholars, a slightly larger number of confused new-agers and a still larger number of emotionally constipated edgelords. If you don't agree with me, find a reliable source which actually takes his opinions seriously. Provide reliable sources discussing his "nuance". Provide any reliable source at all. You've been at this for months and have completely failed to produce any usable sources. If Evola's opinions on sexuality are relevant to anything written in this article, let's see the sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My entire argument is that Evola's views on sexuality are barely relevant to his thought and have been given undue weight by you and ian in the lede, so it's deeply ironic that you paint me as championing their relevance. 'Offensiveness' or any other feelings any editor may or may not have towards Evola's thought aren't relevant and don't need to be commented on, particularly when a new editor is arguing the specific point that Merelli's assertions are inconsistent with Evola's thought (WP:BITE). Bananaman may or may not be right - once again Bananaman, I eagerly await a modern scholarly treatment of Evola - but to bludgeon him with your irrelevant personal feelings on the matter is a needless personal attack, fitting of your history of labelling people who edit this article as 'nazi apologists' and now 'emotionally constipated edgelords' (whatever that means). I suspect the reliable source I require will arrive when Bananaman publishes (although if he'd publish an exerpt on Evola's views on sexuality somewhere scholarly I'd be deeply indebted, as would the article as a whole) and I suspect it will be over 500 words with a modicum of research and lots of nuancey nuance. For a greater understanding of Evola as a whole, as you've taken such an interest in the article, may I suggest reading his books? At the very least it may lend some more precision to your endless litany of insults. VeritasVox (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My last attempt... until the book comes out, at least!

I was logging in to add further primary source material supporting what I've said (another quote from page 7 in the introduction of Evola's 'Eros & The Mysteries of Love' where he specifically says that "feverish interest in sex and woman is the mark of every twilight period and that this phenomenon today is among the many signs that this epoch is the terminal phase of a regressive process"). However, I see that this won't make any difference as it's from a primary source.

I do find it bizarre that Wikipedia places so much emphasis on secondary sources (including polemic journalism) rather than on primary sources. I must admit that I am sceptical of your remark, Grayfell, that the Merelli news article is "on a website with fact-checking and editorial oversight." Considering the myriad examples of slack journalism we see all the time, surely we cannot simply rely on this? (I profess total lack of interest in Bannon, by the way). I wish I could find a scholarly secondary source to directly contradict Merelli's interpretation, but at present the best overviews of Evola's thought such as Paul Furlong's 'Social & Political Thought of Julius Evola' are only partially available on Google Books and the key sections on Evola's views on sex are missing. Perhaps I will buy a copy.

As for what you've said about "your personal opinions about the definition of rape have some disturbing implications", I was indeed trying to clarify Evola's thought rather than giving my own opinion on such matters. Evola seems to have argued in the Introduction that even the enjoyment of consensual sex is a sign of modern decadence (see the quote from the Introduction that I've written above), let alone enjoyment of rape, which directly contradicts Merelli's interpretation that Evola believed "all sex is rape and that's why it's pleasurable". It would be more accurate to frame Evola's views thus: 'All rape is sex and that's why it's a sign of modern decay'. He appears to have been interested in sex primarily for supposed 'magical' purposes or when women pursue men rather than vise-versa.

Anyway, as I have said in my previous post, I appreciate that the Wikipedia page can't simply be based solely on the random opinions of someone who has read some of Evola's works (such as myself). But when the primary source material such as the 'Eros' book is available freely online via Google Books, it surely makes sense to include it in the sources section of the Wikipedia page and quote key sections of it if they are relevant.

Further, if, as you say, Evola's works are inconsistent and opaque (a criticism which I regard as only partially true), then it should be emphasised that Merelli's interpretation is only her interpretation based on certain quotes rather than something universally agreed by scholars.

Thanks one last time, Bananaman2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaman2018 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. As I've said before (I've said all of this before) I haven't seen any indication that Merelli's opinion is in the minority. The few scholars who do cover Evola and discuss his views on sex agree that he was misogynistic far above and beyond his time and place. The argument has be made that it's undue weight to cite Merelli's blunt summary of this position, but nothing which I've seen indicates that it's contrary to the academic consensus. The assumption that all modern journalism is should be seen as less reliable than primary sources is just not how Wikipedia works. Trying to interpret those sources is even further out of the question.

This is (again, as I've said multiple times before) why it's not up to us, as editors, to decide which quotes are relevant. If it's obvious to you which belong, than we are elevating your opinion above those for whom it's not obvious. As I said, reasonable people will wildly disagree on even simple works, and if you think Evola's works can be easily explained with a few quotes... well, Merelli's article suggests that she would disagree with your interpretation of Evola's beliefs, or at the extent to which they challenge what's already been discussed. There's little reason to explain why here, however. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)