Talk:Aleksei Losev

Old talk

I don't think the article is big enough to be divided to major sections. --Barbatus 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

If I'm not mistaken, most of recently added to the list works of Losev's are published in Russian. Do they belong here? Barbatus 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do -- I added Losev's most important works (accoprding to reference work in my native language). Originals have usually been added in similar Wikipedia articles. Constanz - Talk 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: his most important works could be (and have been) mentioned in the article, but for the list of publications available (hence ISBN/ISSN numbers) for an English reader they are not useful at all. Barbatus 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

... Oh, by the way: is Russian your native language? Really? Barbatus 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm Estonian. These titles are some oh Losev's major works, thus they should be mentioned.--Constanz - Talk 05:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned, yes. But do they belong to the Bibliography, that is, in our case, a list of published works available to a reader? Besides, there's a link to the Russian Wiki article on Losev, where one can find list of his works in Losev's native language, if one's interested. --Barbatus 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism, misogyny and seven deadly sins.

Here is the text:

User:Galassi is IMO tendentiously editing that article. Adding those quotes cherrypicked from the thousands of pages the scholar has written is not encyclopedic at all. All those quotes plus category:antisemitism (unfounded as of now, cf googlebooks query: [1]) have been added with the obvious agenda of tarring the person concerned. If Galassi is keen on continuing with POVish editing, 'Losev's homophobia' might also be a good topic to go on with :). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. There is no cesorship on Wikipedia. 2. Try a Russian Google search on "Losev+Jews". Galassi (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not SL Õhtuleht. Secondly, we should prefer English sources, if possible, and you obviously don't have any. Thirdly, when in case of Igor Shafarevich we did indeed have a case of a Russian chauvinist with antisemitic traits (the question was your ORish interpretations and undue weight), now you are defaming an eminent scholar. You are just picking out some of his quotes in order to further your theory that Losev was primarily an ugly antisemite and misogynist (the latter accusation gives out that you are here not in order to produce encyclopedic content but to exercise your vendetta against some individuals). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1.Wiki is not a FORUM either. 2. In the case of Shafarevich you have an administrative opinion. 3. These quotes figure prominently in ctiticism of Losev. We just report the facts here. 4. Wiki does NOT proscribe citations in other languages, especially when translations are provided. 5. I don't think Losew was ugly, and I didn't say that he was anti-semite. Just that his writings CONTAIN PASSAGES OF SUCH NATURE.Galassi (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, by deciding those quotations unambiguously testify his antisemitic nature, you are doing original research.
As for your suggested google search in Russian, I came across this article by a Jewish author. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Losev himself in Addenda:"Феодализм – высшая ступень в развитии человечества, торжество Бога; феодализм падает под ударами сатаны, дальнейшая история есть история развертывания и оформления сатанинского духа. Ступени этого развертывания – капитализм, социализм, анархизм. Историческим носителем духа сатаны является еврейство. Марксизм и коммунизм есть наиболее полное выражение еврейского (сатанинского) духа. Последним этапом воплощения духа сатаны будет анархия, неизбежно вытекающая из социализма."Galassi (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is just another perfect example of citation out context and WP:OR. Here is critical discussion of precisely these statements by Losev by someone who knows what he is talking about. (Своеобразие ультраконсервативной мифологии Лосева состоит в том, что, не будучи безличной, она принципиально безгеройна: в ней действуют не герои, а персонифицированные духовно-религиозные силы: Бог и Сатана, Христос и Антихрист, христианство и еврейство). Yes, he criticizes Losev, but that type of critique (if properly summarized) can be indeed included in the article. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to forget that losev + misogyny has exactly 51 ghits. Good luck with losev + homophobia! --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Galassi, your editing style - cherrypicked quotes as 'evidence' of supposed misdeeds, chronic undue weight problems, anachronistic emphasis on 'misogyny' etc - can only be compared with the heap of rubbish that was once collected @ Joachim Hoffmann. Note that the 'case' against Dr. Hoffmann was indeed made up of citations, 'enriched' with nasty comments and original research - all of which led some 'useful idiots' to believe that falsifications en masse made up a 'longer and better version'. Not that you have ever reached that apogee, but your editing style looks similar to that (extreme) example. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you are in the Hoffmann camp as well? That figures. Nice to know. BTW, try googling "Алексей+Лосев+Женщина"!Galassi (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I dare say I'd stand for neutrality and encyclopedic coverage both in case of Dr. Joachim Hoffmann and д-р Mikhail Meltyukhov (see talk!). The viewpoints of scholars have to be presented fairly, though we shouldn't cling to their all of their works, of course. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how a long list of Russian citations benefit a wikipedia user who does not read Russian. The citations are also cherry-picked from thousands of pages published by Losev, thus, they give an undue weight. All the citations are published in Zemlyanoy's work, let the interesting parties read it from there. I am also not sure about the Antisemitism category. To include a writer there we have to demonstrate that most of his works are Anti-Semitic or what his works were actually used as a reason to persecute or discriminate Jews. I cannot see it been demonstrated in the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. Neither Gumilev's nor Losev's works are "mostly" anti-Semitic, by this aspect is notable for the reason of both subjects' general intellectual notability, as both of them lent respect to an otherwise odious mindset. There is also a great diffeence between calling someone an antisemite (which we don't!) and saying that one's writing contains antisemitic elements (what we actually do).Galassi (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The section actually looks decent in its current form.Galassi (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, Galassi, that an early 20th century conservative philosopher's ideas have been criticized and are considered 'controversial' (what a nice cliche!) doesn't mean we have to enter that term as some parasite word into the lead of articles on Losev, Arthur Schopenhauer (a mysogyne!) or Hegel. It's also ironic how you, who once libellously accused me of 'antisemitism' for removing your soapboxing, have now been accused of similar deadly sins by some equally biased editors [2]! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is a beautiful example why wikipedia should never be used as a source of any reliable information! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And, yes, I studied a number of User:Galassi articles, he is an extreme case of Russophobe. Good luck with such people writing on Russian culture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with comments by Miacek and Alex above (one can look at a significantly better article about Losev on ruwiki). This article is strongly unbalanced. What happens here is cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of context. This goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We've had a consensus here for 3 years already.--Galassi (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Based on comments above, you are alone here; four other editors (including IP and me) suggest fixing this serious POV problem. I self-reverted by now, but it does not mean I agree with current version. Just to be frank, instead of describing his work/studies (and he created a lot), this page provides a few cherry-picked quotation selected to paint him as an antisemite. This is very far from following NPOV.My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this is very simple. I made Google books search for "Aleksei Losev", and it retrieved 617 (!) English language books that mention Losev. I quickly looked through a few of them, and none of them described Losev as an antisemite. I am sure you can find a lot of Russian internet sources that tell whatever, but there no need to use them in an article about a person described in hundreds English language books. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed text ("Controversies")

At least three of Losev's publications contain noted misogynistic, Аntisemitic and anti-Judaic passages. In his "Addendum to the Dialectics of Myth" and "Essays on Symbolism and Mythology in the Antiquity" Losev writes:

• "Judaism, which is able to combine hysteria, formalism, neurastenia and the Roman law, with robbery, bloody lust and Satanism, with the aid of cold and dry whoring of politico-economical theories".
• "There is no such thing as Woman's Dignity. Similarly there cannot be a notion of Jew's Dignity".
• "A real Jew, like a woman, lacks individuality, and therefore lacks any self-worth. He is not anti-moral, he is amoral. That's the reason he is not afraid of demons". A significant number of other antisemitic citations by Losev (mostly from manuscripts that were not published during Losev's lifetime) are discussed by Sergey Zemlyanoy in his article "Clerico-conservative mythological dysthopia:Alexey Losev"

Konstantin Polivanov suggests that Losev's antisemitic (and thus anti-revolutionary and anti-Marxist) sentiments later influenced Stalin's own philosophical development in the direction of Russian Imperial idea that paved the way to the repressions of the 1930s that largely purged Jews from the Soviet government. Leonid Katsis and Dmitry Shusharin similarly accused Losev of complicity in Stalin's repressions.

This is essentially WP:OR, in addition to NPOV problems noted in previous thread. Besides references to books by Losev himself, there is only one duplicate reference to someone (Zemlyanoy) who possibly could qualify as an expert, although this should be checked. Most important, the summary (above) is not a fair representation of something Zemlyanoy tells in his comment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not OR, everything is properly cited, whether you like it or not.--Galassi (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem here. Yes, you are making quotes from Russian primary sources that definitely look antisemitic to both of us. In addition, you cherry-pick commentators who are most critical to Losev, like Polivanov. Instead, one suppose to look at good secondary sources, such as English language books, and there are lots of them. Then, one suppose to describe the person as reflected in majority of such reliable secondary sources. This is per NPOV. I checked first six books found by Google book search on "Alexei Losev", and none of them tells about his alleged antisemitism. What you do is POV-pushing. Moreover, the way you summarized publication by Zemlyanov is not at all a fair representation of his position, but this can only be judged by someone who knows Russian and understands the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Untrue. All the quotes are from SECONDARY SOURCES, per wikipedia rules. There are a lot more of them too, but translating all of them would put undue weight on that aspect Losev. I am being conservative on this topic. If you find reliable sources that would portray Losev as fond of Jews: we would happily include them.--Galassi (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The quoted person is Losev. In the text above (one that you restored) some people even accuse Losev of "complicity in Stalin's repressions". But you do not see the POV.My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the source says: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ix9qK4GeXo8C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD&source=bl&ots=blpQTM9RrC&sig=2q5U2eik6smwPoFXzCS2wgG_gro&hl=uk&ei=cdGmS-uwO4Oclgeus-mZAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false . I have no opinion either way.--Galassi (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

According to your link, three Russian authors (one of them Polivanov) published an article in Ukrainian tabloid newspaper Segodnya claiming that Losev was Russian Alfred Rosenberg. But here is the problem: I looked through a series of English language books (easy to find through Google), and none of authors claim anything even remotely similar to this, Losev is described merely as a notable philosopher. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The source makes no mention of anything "tabloid", and the debacle and all 3 authors are reliable and serious enough to be cited in the preface to the Dialectics. So you have it.--Galassi (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So, here is the justification by Polivanov of his position (currently quoted in article): "Революция, чреватая усилением либерализма, была ненавистна что Лосеву, что Сталину. Они оказывались союзниками по борьбе со всякими Замятиными и Маяковскими. Когда Сталин уничтожал старых большевиков и былых марксистов, а затем начинал борьбу с "безродным космополитизмом", он воплощал на практике лосевские (не его одного, конечно) идеи."

Do not you think this is simply ridiculous? Author claims that Stalin hated revolution. This is questionable. And even if Losev and Stalin both hated revolution, it does not mean that Losev was his ideological teacher. Any arguments or proofs in support of this fringe theory by Polivanov? As far as I remember, Stalin made notes at his books, so there is a documentary evidence that he might be influenced by certain people, but they were not Losev. Frankly, your single cherry-picked source is very weak. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly fringe theory. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not. THREE respected scholars express a negative opinion, which is included in the preface to the Dialectics of Myth itself. Removing that is clear whitewashing. Katsis has his own wikiarticle. Nothing fringe here - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%81,_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B4_%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87. --Galassi (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Polivanov is not too shabby either: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%28%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%29.--Galassi (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• If that is your answer to my questions above, I am disappointed. Not only this is a negligible minority/fringe opinion, but they failed to explain how they came to such extraordinary (red flag!) conclusion. For example, one can find many good English language sources telling how and why Stalin was influenced by Lenin (and this is something Stalin always admitted himself), but to be influenced by Losev? My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Losev-Stalin connection makes sense to me. One opinion could be considered fringe, but 3 is a sign of a definite malaise.--Galassi (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The book under discussion is "Dialectics of myth" by Losev. This is a religious book about mythology, a kind of Russian Orthodoxy versus Judaism beliefs dispute. Author tells about demons, angels and other staff like that. And you tell it makes sense to you. But it does not make a lot of sense to me ... My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what both of us think about the Dialectics. What is important is what these 3 notable critics said about it in press.--Galassi (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is clearly a fringe view per multiple academic sources; it was published in an Ukrainian tabloid owned by Rinat Akhmetov, and I removed it from another article [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. These are serious and respected scholars, not pseudoscientists.--Galassi (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but WP:Consensus is against you. You already blindly reverted edits made by three participants who agree with removal of this piece. No one called anyone pseudoscientist. One of my points is very simple: please use reliable secondary English language sources about Losev (there are plenty of them), and not editorials like introduction to a book you quoted above. Good Russian language sources, such as something published in respectable literary magazines like Znamya, would also be fine, but this is not such source. My second point: this is clearly a fringe view (see above).My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have provided 3 Russian sources (there are no rules requiring English ones), and one English. That makes four. The Japanese IP is not a participant here.--16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You "win" content disputes by being engaged in edit wars. That is why you was banned from Ukrainian subjects, and that is what you continue do here [4]. IPs have the same rights, although I would strongly encourage the person behind the IP to register as named account. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That won't happen. This IP is retaliating for a completely unrelated revert.--Galassi (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is something wrong with floating IP accounts and participants who appear only ones a year to make a comment. One thing I am not going to do (like others) is edit warring. Who cares?. However, if something really wrong happens somewhere, I might report the problem to AE. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit war here. There is a content dispute. Unfortunately the AE refuses to deal with the latter.--Galassi (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone collected your reverts in this and several other articles and presented them as diffs to AE, you would probably receive some kind of sanctions, just as many others. Please keep this in mind. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is against the rules to discuss our respective characters instead of the article's merits.--Galassi (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to take sides, being not so energetic as participants here. Would like to point out just that the article here is even worse than Russian one, which is hard to beat, as far as I perceive. Secondly, too much is said about some "hot stuff" (misogyny, antisemitism et al.) but nothing about philosophy and philology themselves which are to form the bulk of any article ab. a scientist whom we presume Losev to be. Really "tabloid-like" manner. Still I must point out to honourable participant that "Segodnya" referred to here has nothing to do with "Ukrainian tabloid newspaper". That was Russian, liberal, rather intellectual newspaper (S. Parkhomenko was the editor, if I remember correctly). This makes the articles much more authoritative, I believe, but not enough, for my opinion, to form the bulk of argumentation. Speaking about some minor errors in the article I must point out that Losev came to know Yudina being 40 years old, a married man, and I never heard that he proposed her. The legend of "monk shirts" is both untraceable and unprovable (sincerely speaking as the story of ordination in general - for me personally and for many sound minds, I believe).Igor Makhankov (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a sober opinion. I propose to expand the other sections, rather than reduce the "Controversies".--Galassi (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)