Talk:Foundations of Geopolitics

More discussions

Reddit discussions, if anyone is interested (not a reliable source though): [1], [2]. --Djadjko (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, anyhow. This book appears to be relevant (even more so in the post-2016-election age) and I'd hate to see the article go away. I hope someone can turn up useful and reliable references. Wyvern (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Political theory website:

The article is largely derived from a book review on 4pt.su. The site itself seems rather fringe, and it includes posts by Alexander Dugin himself it seems. Which means it may not be reliable and third party. Can better sources be found? Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I just read the Google Translate of the text (as provided in the External Links) and couldn't find any of the sinister plans for the USA that this article says are there. Further research is required but, to my eyes, a lot of this article is referencing Dunlop's review and is not supported by the book itself. --109.77.93.12 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the Google Translation of the book is amazingly coherent and readable, for a subject as complex as a Russian geopolitical treatise. --109.77.93.12 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The website is probably not reliable, but that particular entry on it is just a copy-paste of Dunlop's review in Demokratizatsiya circa 2004. Demokratizatsiya is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by George Washington University and is unquestionably reliable. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then cite Demokratizatsiya directly then. And then find additional sources as most of the article cites one source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I already changed the cite to Demokratizatsiya and it's fine as it is. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Content Section

I think that the comment section should be more clearly marked as not being derived from the book itself but from a review of the book. Frankly, that's ridiculous, and it shouldn't even be included in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlylightofjesus (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a comment section in the article. Can you clarify? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

featured article

what an eye opener regarding what's currently happening. would be usefull to have this article featured? 86.95.21.96 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It would, but it likely needs a great deal of work to reach WP:FA status. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comedian's opinion written in news.com.au

Hi EnPassant. I absolutely do believe that the opinion of a comedian, written in one of the shittiest of Murdoch's tabloids, is not a reliable source for commentary about an academic work on Russian geopolitics. For some background, these are the top three stories on the front page of news.com.au right now:

• 1, an article about how dead cricketer Shane Warne was very popular and successful with women,
• 2, an article about how "Former MacGyver hunk Richard Dean Anderson" no longer looks as sexually attractive as he did when he was younger, and
• 3, an article about how Google Street View caught a couple having sex.

This is not the place for academic commentary. Secondly, even though the article states news.com.au said that..., what is written is the opinion of the comedian Charles Firth (comedian) (not the shitty rag mag he wrote it in), who is not at all a subject matter expert on Russian geopolitics that would allow us to ignore the unreliable source he's writing in. So I do think it's inappropriate to include this and that it degrades the quality of the article as a whole. Endwise (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had waited more than a day to revert this... many people aren't immediately able to respond. Has a discussion at WP:RSN confirmed that the source is unreliable? If so, then I agree it should be removed. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

From searching the archives at RSN it hasn't really had much discussion at all, but the commentary I've found has generally been negative: e.g. It doesn't help that they've still got heck of a lot of news.com.au junk which is almost as bad such that when I check out a story that looks bad it's probably news.com.au, or this story about a COVID-19 conspiracy: "it reflects poorly on News.com.au's editorial control that they claimed that a publicly available book was a leaked government document" ... "Chinese Book --> book by News Corp journo --> same News Corp journo pimps the theory on Sky News --> misrepresented in The Australian --> further misrepresented in news.com.au --> Tucker Carlson".

If you're less familiar with Australian sources, you might want to note that the international sources they re-use are from publications like The Sun (deprecated at RSP), and New York Post (generally unreliable at RSP). The long and short of it is that it's junk. Also, sorry about the quick revert, I should probably be more mindful of other people's time constraints. Endwise (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, based on the prior comments I agree with you and the removal. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All good then Endwise (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"The book may have been influential in Vladimir Putin's foreign policy, which eventually led to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

Is this a claim we can make? I think there's some WP:synthesis and WP:weasel words at play.

The source article notes ideological overlap and unspecified influence from Dugin to Putin, but doesn't directly claim that the book influenced Putin's foreign policy:

• Putin's words echo the writings of [Dugin]
• Dugin has been influential with Russian military and political elites — even with Putin himself.
• Called "Putin's brain" by some political analysts, Dugin has taught at Russia's leading university, planned courses for Russian military institutions, and appeared on Russia's top television channels. Because of his perceived proximity to the Kremlin...
• Foreign policy analysts have since looked to Dugin for a more fulsome understanding of Putin's goal in Ukraine.
• Russia analysts have found it to be a philosophy Putin has embraced since taking office.
• Putin clearly agrees.

Also:

• In her 2017 interview with Dugin, Stahl pointed out to him that Putin seems to have listened to all his recommendations. ... Dugin rebuffed the suggestion that Putin is following his blueprint. He pointed out that his policy prescriptions were decades old, and that Putin was only just now fulfilling the first steps.

"influential figure with shared ideology" might equate to "may have influenced policy, leading to X", but we should only state what sources actually say. --Xarm Endris (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Nice breakdown. I agree, dubious claim at best. Mooonswimmer 22:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the title of the article is "Aleksandr Dugin: The far-right theorist behind Putin's plan". That sounds like a definitive to me... However, there are other sources making the same connection in various ways [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)