Talk:Aleksandr Dugin

message: Is there any source about who refers to or knows Aleksandr Dugin as "Putin's brain". So far I've only found sources saying that he is known as such, but not by whom. Should we just put "sometimes referred to as 'Putin's brain' by the media" or something like that? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a journalistic distortion. Should not be on the page. He is not Putin's brain. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

text: If the sources themselves are notable, then in that case it is fine to write that according to these sources he is "known to be Putin's brain". In that case, the attribution is to these sources and if they say "he is known ...", then we can report it.  But, of course, these sources must be notable. We should not expect to have a uniform POV over all sources about Dugin.  On the contrary, we should expect that there will be a lot of contradictory POVs about Dugin.  There is no need also that the sources are neutral. It is sufficient that they are notable.  We report what the notable sources say. We can restrict ourselves to scholars that publish in reliable journals,  but then we do it systematically for all polemic POVs. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

text: At least much better than it was. I've added that text in. Thank you AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: At the moment we have . The problem remains - we know that BBC says that  and we know that NPR says that he is  but we don't know who called it that way. To me all this sounds like unsubstantiated journalistic "colour": if someone said that he is or has been influential on Putin, we should be able to name the source, otherwise it's all hearsay and slander. I see that Alan Ingram (quoted above) says that ; however, as his essay is from 2001, I don't think it's worth mentioning. We'd better look for more recent and equally authoritative sources on his influence, or lack of influence, on the Russian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight correction: NPR says that he is . If you want to know who else calls him this, you could just Google it. I did, and got a huge number of hits. And yes, all of them are about Dugin. Here is just a small sample that basically use "Putin's brain" as Dugin's WP:COMMONNAME: . Looks like one could make the case for a redirect here (i.e. "Putin's brain" redirecting to this article). Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Shekhovtsov, Anton. "Putin's Brain? (on Aleksandr Dugin)." New Eastern Europe (2014), is also worth considering, with a nice quotation by Dugin: , which however cannot be taken at face value, according to Shekhovtsov, as the differences between the two are relevant and direct influence or coordination can be ruled out (in 2014). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Generalrelative, the problem is that all of those sources except one say "Putin's brain" in quotes, and while it is in the title, the only other mention of is, for almost all of them, "often referred to", "often called", "often referred to as" and "who is often referred to as". You did find two good ones though. One at least gives us more clue: And one promising, but that sadly I can't access, Putin's Brain — Foreign Affairs. This one doesn't use quotes, so it is actually referring to Dugin as Putin's Brain. Either way, if we say "He is often referred to as "Putin's Brain", we should say by who. And I don't think we can cite press that doesn't say by whom, only that he is. Because it could perfectly well be what @Gitz6666, says, "unsubstantiated journalist 'colour'". Or maybe just one person called him that once and then it just got reported over and over, who knows? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not super attached to this issue, so I won't keep on arguing, but I do think it's pretty clear that language like  is well founded and well sourced –– and indeed probably required by WP:NPOV. We really only need attribution when it is a particular person or group of people saying something. When it is common practice, it's certainly encyclopedic (and correct per WP:YESPOV) to simply say that he is "often called..." and then cite a representative sample of sources. That said, I'm not super bothered if others decide to cut it. This is a very different level of concern to what I have with the issue above, where I believe Dugin being a fascist is a cornerstone of his notability. Generalrelative (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Generalrelative, I think we should keep it, but would be great to have some attribution. Otherwise it is pretty vague. A fix was the "by elements of the media", which was kinda true, but definitely not the best one. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit of digging and found that the Foreign Affairs article may be the initial source for this phrase. And the two authors of that piece aren't exactly journalists but rather (or also) policy analysts. At least that's how they are referred to in this 2016 peer-reviewed article in Russian History:   So it looks like it wouldn't be correct to simply chalk this up to media hyperbole. I've added these sources to support the statement in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Generalrelative, thanks for the digging, but I still would put some attribution. Perhaps "by policy analysts" or something? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that attribution is only necessary / helpful when there is any doubt about who holds a view or uses a term, but the citations here clearly illustrate that the term has become common currency. For better or worse, "Putin's brain" has become Dugin's nickname in the West (and indeed, perhaps more well known than his actual name, which is why a strong case could be made for a redirect). It's good that we point out that he has no official government role, and that his actual influence on Putin is disputed, but simply saying that he is often called this is what is proper –– in my view –– per WP:YESPOV. In any case, I feel that I've said my piece. I'll be happy to go with whatever the community decides from here on out. Generalrelative (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What about replacing  with ? Plus, I would shorten the citation overkill to a few selected references. This makes sense to me because the phrase "Putin's brain" is very very common in news oulets - so we could say "often" instead of "sometimes" - but, on the other side, it also looks at odds with what scholarly sources say about him: that there are no significant ties with Putin, who likely got him sacked from the Moscow University; that he is useful to Putin, because he helps creating an environment hostile to "Western values" (liberalism), but he is also an outcast, a marginal figure who has no standing in Russian academia and a marginal role in Russian politics. To sum up, "Putin's brain" is likely an hoax, not supported by scholarly sources but only by the media grapevine, and adding , or something similar, might be sensible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

text: In their Foreign Affairs article, "Putin's Brain," Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn do not use that phrase. So, if you are correct, the description 'Putin's brain' may have been coined by a headline writer. Soperd (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Putin's brain" 

message: There is a mistake in this line: "Noomahia: voiny uma. Tri Logosa: Apollon, Dionis, Kibela, Akademicheskii proekt (2014)"! The H of Noomahia should be an N, thus "Noomania: voiny uma. Tri Logosa: Apollon, Dionis, Kibela, Akademicheskii proekt (2014)". 2A02:8071:B81:DA80:9947:F8B7:9B16:6940 (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're wrong: , "Noomahiya". Also "Noomakhija" is used . The Russian "X" cannot be transliterated with "N". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Honestly, i find the idea to call this man a philosopher preposterous. To be called such, he needs serious academic credentials, which the man does not have.
I propose calling him "ideologue and theorist". To see why, visit the page of Alfred Rosenberg. Would you call that man's rambling philosophy? I hope not. Dugin is to be situated in that ballpark.
But a philosopher he is not. 2A02:A03F:6029:4100:C9CA:FC2D:2963:EE03 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that Dugin has a weak claim on being considered a "philosopher," but we go by what reliable sources say, and they often refer to him this way. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideologue or philosopher? 

message: Calling him such is an opinion and does not belong in a supposedly unbiased article; there is a bot which automatically reverts this edit that should be banned. 2003:C0:6F40:6C66:553B:D374:C79E:E7A7 (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Dugin's fascist views are amply sourced.--Aristophile (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dugin is not a fascist 

message: I tried doing this the other day, someone reverted it. I would just point out there is essentially a disambigation page for "Dugin", although it presents itself as a page about last name itself. The point here is that I´m sure the vast majority of people who are searching for "Dugin" are searching for "Aleksandr". StrongALPHA (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm copying, with some tweaks, a comment from your talk page:  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP searches for Dugin should redirect here 

message: In the very beginning of the Alexandr Dugin article it states “Dugin was”.
Dugin is not dead. Please change to “Dugin is”. 2A02:AA7:4624:AED6:896B:E5D8:D9E9:CE9C (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 

message: Why wasn’t it mentioned that the car bombing that killed Dugins daughter, was carried out by Ukraine(particularly the Ukrainian SBU)? Proved by American intelligence 47.201.71.161 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one has yet provided reliable sources saying this. Generalrelative (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car bombing