Talk:Julius Evola

Hardliners

Many Communist hardliners have become Eastern Orthodox hardliners after the fall of the Communist regimes. So, this is by no means unusual, and there is no reason to suspect that Dugin would be insincere in respect to his own faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting of June-August 2022

A major rewriting of this article since June, particularly the top, appears to have removed references to more than a dozen sources and removed substantial information. WP:PRESERVE says we should respect "a succession of editors' efforts" and provide clear reasoning for deletions of reliably sourced content, but reasons have not been given on the talk page or edit summaries for most of the deletions. I think some of the deleted information should be restored, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:WEIGHT, if it was a faithful representation of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the article was not written in a neutral point of view and suffered many issues which were not confined to its prose. Many, many of the sources provided fictitious or outright slanderous statements on Evola's works and philosophy - one of which even stated that he advocated bestiality! The article degraded rapidly in the past couple of years and placed far too much emphasis on his post-mortem influence with quasi-fascist movements. I am being lambasted for not preserving falsehoods and should be restricted from improving the article? It did nothing to summarise Evola's core philosophy, nor recount his genuine contribution to the fields of esotericism or mysticism . I took an extended break from improving the article because I am still yet to research more - I cannot continue without being supplied with the proper knowledge. There is more yet to come from me, and I would hate for my efforts to be needlessly hindered. And contentious according to who? Just one editor who has been deleting this over the weeks. Evola was not an anti-fascist and his links to the movement, witting or otherwise, are not neglected in this article. ♦ jaguar 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The proper procedure would have been to take each fictitious or outright slanderous source to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I should have, though I found it much easier to perform a rewrite. My editing style is often performed with a bludgeon, much to people's chagrin. ♦ jaguar 22:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the gist is that:

His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

He was catering at the cultic millieu, dabblers in occultism loved his books. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Often per WP:DUE we describe a disagreement between reliable sources without deleting them. Jaguar, did the sources you termed fictitious or outright slanderous conflict with the assessments of any other third-party reliable sources? Were there other reasons to decide they were unreliable? Llll5032 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors can improve an article based on WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:STEWARDSHIP at any time. I don't think anyone lambasted or needlessly hindered. We are supposed to edit by WP:CONSENSUS and improve the article based on the highest quality WP:INDY sources, for "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". Llll5032 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My wishes for this article are: Evola has to be described as a kook and as antisemitic, for the rest I don't care enough about Evola to have a dog in this fight. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edits appear to have deleted or downplayed[1][2][3] references to antisemitism or connections to Nazis. There may be more that I missed. Llll5032 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited the "Views on Jews" section, attempting to match the tone and facts in the cited sources, and re-labeled its sub-heading "Antisemitism". Please look. Llll5032 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I added citation-needed tags to the fourth paragraph because I can't find where several claims in it are cited in the rest of the article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here again perfect display of the destroy anything instructional pack attacks this article has to endure since years. Always lead by editors who know very well the wikipedia procedures, not much about Evola, and who's only goal is to openly discredit, disparage and vilify. 2A01:CB01:2002:BF63:2C48:E3AA:E294:E3E1 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you do that? Citations are redundant in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. This is proof that you haven't read the article as it's already mentioned in the body. Evola was a consistent critic of Mussolini and was ostracised in Fascist Italy - that much is made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sources. He was mainly apolitical and his relationship with fascism is complicated. My rewrite is merely a quarter complete - all I ask for is patience. ♦ jaguar 09:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Any claims made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sources should be easy to cite. Also, have you read WP:FOC, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN? Llll5032 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not edit warred nor professed ownership. ♦ jaguar 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks like three reverts [4][5][6] in 12 hours. The right procedure would be compromise edits (WP:BRB), tags, or discussions instead. Llll5032 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You've just turned the article to shit and have undone most of my rewrite. You've demonstrated that you do not understand Evola nor good writing by re-adding erroneous statements and over-emphasis on post-mortem influence with fringe movements, and by inserting American gossip as credible sources, in the lead section no less. I will not debate, discuss or humour these changes. I suspect that you thought I was whitewashing the article and wished to revert it back to a 'safe narrative' in a typical Wiki drone-like fashion. I'm not going to justify myself, for this discussion is evidence that any reason phases through you. My intention is to bring this article to FA - and it will be achieved through writing this article in a neutral point of view, with credible academic sources. ♦ jaguar 12:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The edits to the top (which were made by another editor, not me) were better sourced than what was replaced. Most of your rewriting of the article has not been undone. If we focus on content and follow WP:BESTSOURCES we will be able to bring the article to FA. Llll5032 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored more information and sources that had been deleted recently, and added additional information from high quality sources. Because Evola is a controversial subject, some of the sources may be in disagreement; if so, we can follow the WP:VOICE and WP:PRESERVE guidelines. Llll5032 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added two summary sentences in the first and third paragraphs. They are are meant to follow MOS:LEADREL ("reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources") and cite WP:BESTSOURCES. I would welcome more editing to improve the emphases and style. Llll5032 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I also WP:BOLDly added some cited third-party interpretation to the third paragraph, per WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Changed portrait

The portrait had a white line drawn over/around his left eye (stage left, right side of photograph), possibly due to some kind of physical degradation of the photograph. It made me wonder if he had some deformity around that part of his face, until I compared with other photos and looked more closely. It would be good to have a less close-up image than this new one, but not at the cost of that white line over the eye, I don't think. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the old picture was better, as there Evola's face is visible in its totality. In the one you changed it to, the top of his head is out of the frame. I changed it back. Schenkstroop (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Evola's view on Pornography?

Does not Evola mentions his views on pornographic content on "Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex"? He saw as another form of control, to make men "titillate".

From Eros:

" Our research meets with special difficulties in a sphere important for our investigation: the states that develop at the height of erotic-sexual experience. Literature offers little help here. Until recently there were the taboos of puritanism, and now in the most daring modern novels, the banal and vulgar predominate over any useful material. Pornographic literature is also a scanty source. Produced to titillate the reader, it is dreadfully squalid not only in the facts and scenes described, but in its essence. " Infernalevie (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[...]

" To the modern “devilry of sex” which we mentioned

in the Introduction there correspond, in general, forms of a sensuality

made primitive, or bordering on neurosis and the most banal depravity.

The outcome is the level of the sexological, erotic, or crypto-pornographic

literature of our times, and innumerable works intended to vulgarize and

give guidance in sexual life. " Infernalevie (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You're performing WP:OR upon a WP:PRIMARY source. That's not allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make any editions. And many people leave fragments of primary sources on these discussion pages, including on the archives of this article. It would certainly be nice to have a place to leave extracts from primary sources as most secondary sources seem to be found searching keywords on books and articles. Infernalevie (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Besides, it's not such a crazy theory. A secondary source (apparently from a reliable book) mentions that: "Evola fought against the banalization of sexuality through its commercialization in the popular media, pornography" and "if nudity and free sex is everywhere, woman loses her power of fascination over man and the erotic tension vanishes; but precisely this tension is the only means by which man can be propelled into transcendency."

Hidden Intercourse (2008) p.462

Hidden Intercourse: Eros and Sexuality in the History of Western Esotericism ISBN 9789047443582

Hidden Intercourse: Eros and Sexuality in the History of Western Esotericism ISBN 9780823233410 Infernalevie (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV lede

@Trakking - I am certain we will have disagreements here, so I am happy to discuss them here.

I take issue with basically all parts of your reversion, I'll start with the edit summary, then go value by value.

• "long-standing" - not an argument - plenty of articles have long standing consensus that should be changed. there was no notice that this lede was particularly ironclad - I see no need to pay weak consensus deference. standing unedited doesn't mean its good. See WP:CCC
• "concise" - too much weight is given to what Evola thought of himself. I'd assert that what Evola thought of himself is pretty low on the list of what should be in the lede.
• "masculine" - this doesn't mean anything, and is a pretty controversial assertion. what constitutes a masculine value is hotly debated - ledes should be non-controversial. I'd accept patriarchal, as I think of that as a neutral descriptor supported by the text, in particular what he thought of his ideal gender roles. That term wouldn't be controversial in his time, but may be now. I could be convinced to re-add this in a different form - but I think masculine is just too hotly contested.
• "heroic" - plainly NPOV. Additionally, heroism is rarely mentioned in the article. There's a mention of a book, one mention of what he thought heroism was, and that he thought of a Jewish person to be so heroic that he lost his "Jewish soul." That Evola thought himself a hero and had an idea or two about heroism is not a thing so important to include in the lede. I'd need a lot more convincing to re-add this one - like overwhelming academic consensus that it is really important that Evola thought of himself as heroic.
• "monarchist" - this is not supported by the text. there is one mention of him urging Mussolini to dissolve his party in favor of becoming an advisor to the king. I re-read the source, but couldn't find any mention of being a monarchist. If he was a monarchist - it is not obvious. mores sources and article text would need to be added for me to accept this back in the lede.

Anyway, that's my spiel. Carlp941 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

lol - thanks for making constructive edits! sorry for this. feel free to ignore it. I am happy with the current lede. :) Carlp941 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to clean up the lede. Although I know for a fact that Evola was a staunch monarchist and the category ”Italian monarchists” is used at the end, the article does not use the term (or similar terms like royalist), so it would feel awkward to include it. Trakking (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)