Talk:Alexander Prokhanov

message: One of the two outrageous statements here (namely, labeling Zavtra 'extreme right') might be 'sourced' (although the direct quote from the book in question would be here very welcome), another – concerning The Days alleged anti-Semitism - unsourced (and it's easy to see why: some of the most controversial articles for that newspaper were provided by the ethnic Jews, among them General Rokhlin, Prokhanov's friend and Yeltsin's foe), but this makes no difference: they make the article biased. The neutrality tag will stay here as long as these outrageous mini-tags ('right wing' and 'anti-Semitic') do. -- Evermore2 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Evermore, you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia ought to have a policy of not accepting books and articles written by Jews as reliable sources.  Normal people do not accept this POV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Toddy1, you seem to be suggesting something quite extraordinary. Because a) how could I possibly knew the authors in question (Martin Durham, Margaret Power) were Jewish?, b) the only Jew mentioned in my post was Lev Rokhlin, the legendary Russian army general, who was the (allegedly 'anti-Semitic') Days newspaper regular contributor. I return the neutrality tag and suggest we go peacefully hand in hand to the administrator's board, for I find your labeling me the 'POV editor' insulting and unfair, to say the least. -- Evermore2 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a problem with RS? Perhaps you should take this to 'the administrator's board'. I'd be fascinated to know how you would justify tagging the article based on your assertion of the use of 'right wing' and 'anti-Semitic' is 'outrageous'. The POV tag does not stay at your whim: you need to bring something more substantial (namely RS) to the table if you wish to contest the neutrality of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a bit more than a personal whim that prompted me to place the tag. Besides, I find totally wrong the way Toddy1 labeled me a 'POV editor' and all but accused me of anti-Semitism, for there was nothing in my original comment to provoke such a reaction. If further explanations on my behalf are needed, here they are: - a) to call a newspaper for which several prominent Jewish (even Israeli) authors have contributed, 'anti-Semitic' one needs a strong source to rely upon (and the accusation goes unsourced in the article), and b) the ref backing the 'extreme right' bit [in the lede] can be seen as a proof only of that the book called "New Perspective on the Transnational Right" (by the authors mentioned) does exist, nothing more. Has it been indeed read/used as a source, not just namechecked? I rather doubt that Martin Durham & Margaret Power could qualify Zavtra as an 'extreme right' newspaper, - and it's with this extreme part that I have problems here. I regard the article biased because it implies this author (who, mind you, for several years had a weekly slot at the respectable/pro-liberal Ekho Moskvy radio station) is anti-Jewish/neo-Fascist, which even his dectractors would admit he isn't. And please, do see this. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: " I rather doubt that Martin Durham & Margaret Power could qualify Zavtra as an 'extreme right' newspaper" - "the editor of the extreme right paper, Zavtra". So yes, they do qualify it as extreme right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've no reason to mistrust you, although a mere statement like this isn't enough for a Wikipedia article, don't you think? Still, labeling Zavtra an 'extreme right' newspaper is a highly disputable statement, so some neutral/attributive way should be here used, like "... described as 'extreme right' by..."). Except that - elsewhere, not in the lede. -- Evermore2 (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's a link in the ref given to the source itself. Also, this source isn't unique or particular in labeling Zavtra "extreme right", it's a common designation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to state the obvious, but, as we all know, the primal paradigm of neutrality is: Avoid stating opinions as facts.  In other words: not the "extreme-right/anti-Semitic newspaper", but "the newspaper regarded as extreme right/anti-Semitic by [...]". As for whether this 'designation' being 'common' or not - I wouldn't have started all this if it were. Common designations for Zavtra (at least here in Russia) are: 'oppositional', 'pro-Imperial', 'anti-liberal', 'ultra-conservative', 'nationalistic', 'patriotic' - depending on where you stand. "Extreme right" is synonymous with "neo-Fascist", and Zavtra stays safely away from that margin. There have been 'extreme right' papers (looking more like leaflets) in Russia, but where are they now, - well, its a long story, not for me to relate (or indeed be well-informed about). The so-called 'extremism' is regarded as a criminal offense in Russia, which is a matter of another kind of controversy, for this umbrella term has been used as a handy instrument by the authorities here, never keen on tolerating any opposition. -- Evermore2 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality questioned

message: The following two sentences are not really covered by the citation that was provided for them.  Whilst there is little doubt that the statements are true, they need a citation that properly supports them:
:In the summer of 1992, Prokhanov turned the association of the readers of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Day" into a political movement. During the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, he participated in the defense of the Moscow White House.
The citation provided was:
:Russia: Experiment with a People, Service, Robert, 2006, Harvard University Press, 225-226. 
This citation does cover other statements in the article.
*That Prokhanov's newspaper Den was antisemitic.
*That Den was closed down during the emergency of September 1993 by presidential decree. (See also p144-145)
I have moved the citation to statements it supports.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced citation

message: I am going to expand the article in as little edits as possible, hence a short preview. As for the "extreme right" tag in the lede, I decided against challenging it, - after all, that is apparently how the newspaper viewed as everywhere except for Russia. Further down the line I used a more careful wording. 
During the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, he participated in the defense of the Moscow White House. – I removed this, having found no confirmation whatsoever, looks like Prokhanov wasn't in the White House, not in 3-4 October, 1993. As for 'polyphonism' of his prose - well, the Works section is well overdue, so maybe something will emerge, confirming/expanding this statement. As for now, it looks meaningless. -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed expansion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Prokhanov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210042655/http://www.russiaprofile.org/culture/2006/2/2/3175.wbp to http://www.russiaprofile.org/culture/2006/2/2/3175.wbp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126214940/http://orodine.ru/kniga/party4e.pdf to http://www.orodine.ru/kniga/party4e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified