Talk:Aleksei Losev

Complete mess

This is not an article, it's trash bin. Why Losev is important at all? His main works not mentioned at all - symbolism and mythology, history of esthetic. Please, do not embarrass yourself - remove this at all, you can't write anything decent on Russian philosophy, you don't know the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

It is against the rules to discuss our respective characters instead of the article's merits.--123.224.177.95 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that IPs should not edit controversial subjects, like that one. This is for accountability reasons. You must register a named account and use it, unless you already have one. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 5 May 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)

I agree with the assessment made by My very best wishes that Galassi's preferred text falls afoul of WP:No original research. The problem is that Galassi picks and chooses which text to quote, and that no published analysis by others is cited. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead wrong. Absolutely no OR here. All the citations are given in the authoritative secondary sources.--22:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Main problem here is not the inappropriate source (although this newspaper publish forged documents [5] and therefore not a reliable source), but WP:NPOV. Once again, one can make Google book search and find a lot of information and discussions about Losev and about his theories and ideas (this is a highly notable philosopher, unlike many others). Some of the reviews are critical, but none of first 10 books I checked described him as an antisemite. Now, with regard to the fringe theory that Stalin released Losev from Gulag because Losev inspired Stalin to conduct Great Purge (this is unsupported by any evidence of course), no, for example the book by well known Arkadi Vaksberg (author of book "Stalin Against The Jews")

about Maksim Gorky tells a different story about the release of Losev from Gulag and describes Losev with respect My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Translator Vladimir Leonidovich Marchenkov writes in 2003 about this issue, in an introduction to the Routledge print of Losev's The Dialectics of Myth ISBN 0203633733. The introduction is called "Aleksei Losev and His Theory of Myth". Marchenkov discusses how Marianna Gerasimova tried to paint Losev as a reactionary and a religious fanatic anti-semite. Marchenkov writes about how Takho-Godi denounced the Gerasimova report as "fabrication". Marchenkov continues by noting that Gerasimova's version of Losev was followed by "a salvo of three closely coordinated articles by Konstantin Polivanov, Leonid Katsis, and Dmitrii Shusharin", who said that Losev was complicit in Stalin's oppressive regime, that Losev obtained early release from prison because of Stalin's appreciation of his help. Marchenko describes how this minor viewpoint attack on Losev's reputation was met with a flurry of scholarly responses, such as one from Olesya Nikolaeva in the newspaper Radonezh, and A. A. Takho-Godi's publication of Losev's letters disproving the Gerasimova position. I can see how this Wikipedia article could mention the Gerasimova position as a minor or even fringe viewpoint, one that was supported by a few but opposed and contradicted in the main. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Losev had ~800 publications, ~40 of them are his books. One of the books was "Dialectics of Myth" we are talking about. We have an article specifically about this book on four wikiprojects. I looked the version on ruwiki (ru:Диалектика мифа), and it seems just fine. If Galassy can simply translate this page from ruwiki to include description of the book here, that would be great. However, this Russian version does not tell anything about antisemitism, simply because the book is about a very different subject.My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Zemlyanoy

Sergei or Sergey Zemlyanoy (October 9, 2000) "Clerical-conservative mythological dystopia: Alexey Losev". (Note that Google translates Zemlyanoy into the English word "Ground" or "Earth".)

• Original URL: http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/08_z/zem/zemlyanoy.html
  • Google machine translation to English: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/08_z/zem/zemlyanoy.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/08_z/zem/zemlyanoy.html%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D638
  • Discussion: This website is self-published by Yakov Krotov who is a Russian Orthodox priest in Moscow, a radio preacher by career.[6] It cannot be considered a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Krotov FYI.--Galassi (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Original URL: http://old.russ.ru/politics/meta/20001009_zemljano.html
  • Google machine translation to English: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://old.russ.ru/politics/meta/20001009_zemljano.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%253Ehttp://old.russ.ru/politics/meta/20001009_zemljano.html%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D638
  • Discussion: This website is self-published by Zemlyanoy himself—it is his blog. He must be shown to be a topic expert in order for this website to be significant. Better yet is to show that a Losev scholar commented on Zemlyanoy's article. Even if Zemlyanoy is determined to be an expert on Losev, the article is mainly about Losev's opposition to liberalism ("he is downright obsessed with its unmasking".) It is not focused on Losev's few antisemitic words. We cannot misrepresent Zemlyanoy if we are going to reference him. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Original URL: http://scepsis.net/library/id_91.html
  • Google machine translation to English: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://scepsis.net/library/id_91.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://scepsis.net/library/id_91.html%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D638
  • Discussion: This source is Scepsis or Skepticism magazine, an undated republication of Zemlyanoy taken from russ.ru which is of course Zemlyanoy's blog. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Original URL: http://www.russ.ru/politics/meta/20001009_zemljano.html
  • Archived URL:http://web.archive.org/web/20001217215400/http://www.russ.ru/politics/meta/20001009_zemljano.html
  • Archived version of Zemlyanoy's blog, the archive snapshot from December 2000. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is apparently outside your competence. You need to be bilingual. A machine translation is just not enough. There is no misrepresentation of any kind. Yakov Krotov is a scholar, being a clergyman is not a disqualifying characteristic. --Galassi (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Krotov is irrelevant because he does not endorse anything on his website. This is simply a collection of various materials related to Christianity. This is publication. This is probably a sufficiently reliable source to provide the personal opinion by Zemlyanoy (honestly, I do not know who he is, probably one of Russian historians). Main point: this edit does not properly describe views by Zemlyanoy about Losev. This is citation out of context.

• Losev (and Zemlyanoy) tell about Christian mythology. "Так противостоят друг другу две враждебные мифологические стихии: православная монархия и патриархия, церковь и апокалипсис, с одной стороны, и папство, революция, коммуна и анархия - с другой. Это и есть диалектика социологической сущности послехристианской мифологии. Послехристианская мифология могла развиваться или по стопам Христа, или по стопам Антихриста".

• Sorry, but I would have a hard time trying to summarize a religious abrakadabra like this, however main point by Zemlyanoy is not the antisemitism by Losev. Just use English language books about Losev. This is it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone who agrees with you, Galassi. You've blatantly ignored WP:CONSENSUS. Please bring one other warm body to come to your defense on this talk page. 114.164.27.157 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Marianna Gerasimova investigation

In the 1920s and '30s, Marianna Gerasimova was an investigator with the Soviet secret police. She married novelist Yury Libedinsky, who was serving as the editor of Zvezda literary magazine. Marianna continued with her secret police work after marriage. However, she grew ill with a brain condition, migraine headaches, and she left her job. In the mid-1930s, Libedinsky was named an enemy of the Soviet government, and both he and Marianna were put imprisoned. Very ill, Marianna was freed in November 1941 to live with her sister Valeriya in Moscow. (See Twentieth-century Russian literature, by Harry Thornton Moore and Albert Parry, published by Southern Illinois University Press in 1974. Pages 55–56.)

One of Marianna Gerasimova's assignments was to investigate Aleksei Losev because of his new publication The Dialectic of Myth, which revealed the fatal flaws in the basic assumptions used to construct the Soviet system. Her job was to make Losev appear to be an antisemitic nationalist member of the Black Hundreds, a reactionary ideologue and a dangerous religious fanatic. She said he was the "leader of a sabotage group to overthrow Soviet power." (See Vladimir Leonidovich Marchenkov's "Aleksei Losev and His Theory of Myth" from 2003.)

On April 18, 1930, Losev was arrested. His wife was arrested two months later. Both of them were sentenced to hard labor.[7] His book was discussed that summer at the 16th Congress, with L.M. Kaganovich and V.M. Kirshon speaking strongly against it. Losev was moved from Lubyanka's prison to Butyrskaia Prison, then to a labor camp to work on constructing the White Sea – Baltic Canal.[8] Losev was freed in 1933 after nearly going blind, but he was not allowed to write about philosophy.[9] Sergei Khoruzhii writes that Losev was freed largely by the urging of Gorky's first wife, Yekaterina Peshkova, who was a leader of the Political Red Cross.[10]

Leonid Stolovich wrote about this issue, the politically motivated identification of Losev as a threat to the Soviet government. He wrote very strongly against such a notion, the article titled "Losev should not be handed over as a gift to the Black Hundred followers!" (See Vladimir Leonidovich Marchenkov's "Aleksei Losev and His Theory of Myth" from 2003.) Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.kongord.ru/Index/Screst/sk137-10.htm Losev returns to favor and his detractors (more often than not Jewish) get a bullet from Stalin. Pretty interesting.--Galassi (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maxim Gorky apparently held Losev as an antisemite - http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru/re/losev.htm - even more interesting.--Galassi (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, this is great example with Gorky. Oh yes, Gorky in 1930s made a lot of claims, which were drastically different from his words in 1917-1922. He said: "Классовая ненависть должна культивироваться путём органического отторжения врага как низшего существа. Я глубоко убеждён, что враг — существо низшего порядка, дегенерат как в физическом, так и в моральном отношении." and "Необходимо экспериментировать над самим человеком ... Для этого потребуются сотни человеческих единиц. Это будет настоящая служба человечеству — несомненно, гораздо более важная и полезная, чем истребление десятков миллионов здоровых лю­дей ради комфортабельной жизни одного жалкого класса, выродившегося физически и морально, класса хищников и паразитов."

Here Gorky suggests to exterminate all "class enemies" as "physically and mentally inferior parasites" (his words) by using then as guinea pigs for human experimentation. This sounds exactly like Josef Mengele. Does it mean that Gorky must be painted as Mengele in his biography? Of course not! Because he was not Mengele, and because he is not described like Mengele in reliable sources, just like Losev.

In addition to Gorky, one could cite Kaganovich about Losev: «Каганович на XVI съезде партии назвал Лосева реакционером, черносотенцем и мракобесом. Газетно-партийная травля Лосева была направлена прежде всего против религиозно-философской позиции, на которой он стоял. "Гнилая творческая" интеллигенция призывала к расправе. Драматург Киршон выкрикнул на съезде партии: "За такие мысли надо ставить к стенке!""

Just to summarize, shot the rabid dogs like Losev, tells comrade Kaganovich and others. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That would fall under WP:SYNTH. But the fact of Gorky's opinion remains (Gorky was a notable philosemite, but you wouldn't hold it against him, would you?).--Galassi (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

By trying to discredit Gorky, Losev wont be whitewashed from his Anti-Semitic views, nor should this fact be censored from the readers.--Tritomex (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, WP:CENSOR is it.--Galassi (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Galassi. No, that would not be WP:SYN. For example, Vadim Birshtein in his book on history of Soviet science makes a parallel between human experimentation in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and quotes Gorky in this connection. However, I would never try to emphasize this in article about Gorky (actually this should not be even mentioned in a brief biography), as you do in article about Losev. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversies II

Personal life

As a young man of 19 Losev proposed to the famous pianist Maria Yudina, but was refused. He subsequently portrayed her in an autobiographical novella Woman as Thinker. The flawed heroine Losev created was a woman musician who spouted philosophy but held herself to different standards. The novel has been criticized as an outlet for Losev's difficult relationship with Yudina, and as a poor example of his capabilities as a writer. Yudina was portrayed in slanderous terms, as a deviant living in fornication with three men. The novella caused the cessation of their friendship in 1934. Yudina saw in the novella a pornographic caricature of herself.

Losev and his wife Valentina were secretly Orthodox-ordained monks in 1929, and wore hair shirts under their everyday garments. They took monastic names Andronicus and Athanasia.

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:

• "Jewry is the main supporter of Satanism in the World."
• "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. In addition to that Leonid Katsis describes a number of Losev's postulates as in close proximity to fascism. Maxim Gorky considered Losev an antisemite already in the early 1930's.

• Sorry, but I would like to disagree with this again. First, the text above is cherry-picked negative information about Losev and therefore should not be here per WP:NPOV. Second, most sources are problematic. Yes, these sources are not necessarily "unreliable", and they could be actually used to justify non-controversial claims. However, we need better secondary sources to describe controversial matters, for example English language books, and not the editorials (like above), but something specifically about Losev. There are many such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you find a nicely sourced info that Losev was an exemplary husband and father. Negative info is not censorable per se anyway. --Galassi (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, (a) the claim about complicity of Losev in Stalin's repressions is FRINGE and should not be anywher, and (b) the cherry-picked quotation you provided above not only improperly represents majority of RS about Losev (I checked Google books), but it even improperly represents the opinion of authors you are using, such as Zemlyanoy (see above). I also have an impression that claim about antisemitism of Losev is fringe after looking in Google books. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. All of that stuff is fringe except for the Leonid Katsis opinion which rises to the level of minor viewpoint because he is a university professor. I intend to treat it as such in my expansion of the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think a minor controversy where someone was compared with Alfred Rosenberg based on a pure hearsay should not at all be included. The "theory" that Losev influenced Stalin is not supported by any factual evidence (unless I am missing something). This is a groundless accusation by a couple of non-notable defamers. Remove. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The modifier "minor" would have to be reliably sourced. Whether the theory did not influenced Stalin - is SYNTH and EDITORIALIZING. Wikipedia reports what SOURCES say.--Galassi (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think this whole paragraph must be removed. Not every non-notable slander belongs to wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Binksternet's version, except a few details that escape him due to reliance on machine translation.--Galassi (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is more at work here than my notional misunderstanding because of "machine translation". You removed the word "Yiddish" from "Yiddish historian" as a descriptor of Leonid Katsis, but his expertise is in Yiddish history, in Jewish cultural studies. He is not simply a "historian" but a historian of Yiddish history who is well-equipped to comment on Jewish issues. I think we should tell the reader what is his area of expertise. I am open to the method.

You also removed the word "minor" as a modifier of "controversy". This is what I consider a minor controversy because it arose from a faulty understanding which was quickly addressed by further publications of Losev's writings and government files. The controversy was very short lived, which is another reason I consider it minor. It is almost a fringe controversy, because it involves some words at the edges of Losev's writings, not any of his central theses. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

"The popular science magazine Rodina moved to settle the matter by publishing materials from the 1930–31 OGPU case file, which for the first time publicly showed the influence of investigator Marianna Gerasimova". What does it mean? Was Losev forced to write something under torture in OGPU? Was Marianna Gerasimova an OGPU interrogator? My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Marianna Gerasimova was a secret police agent with OGPU who investigated Losev and his wife in 1930–31, and interrogated them. She drew up documents of the interrogations, and she compiled other evidence against them. Dr. Aza A. Tokhi-Godi, Lozev's second wife and widow, sent for the official case files and received them in 1994. She demonstrates that Gerasimova fabricated evidence. Tokhi-Godi notes that one of the case files was completely empty when she opened the package. She concludes that the file folder was emptied at some point by an agent who did not want mitigating evidence to contradict the state's case.

Marchenkov writes about the case in the lengthy introduction to his 2003 English translation of The Dialectics of Myth. Tokhi-Godi writes about this in various Russian-language articles. Others have commented on it, too. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

Can we have a request for semi-protection this article has been around for awhile and its frustrating having to worry about this article being vandalised Thanks. — Zppix (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflict with Communism

This content was misleading and POV: [11]. Please provide accurate description and quote the source in the discussion. Thank you. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleksei Losev. 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/20140829175852/http://www.kongord.ru/Index/Screst/sk137-10.htm to http://www.kongord.ru/Index/Screst/sk137-10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aleksei Losev. 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://archive.is/20130630111343/http://www.transculturalstudies.com/article/view/311 to http://www.transculturalstudies.com/article/view/311
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125075305/http://www.philosophy.ru/library/losef/index.htm to http://philosophy.ru/library/losef/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)