Talk:Igors Šiškins

Sources

If something is called into question and it is not referenced in the article (I checked - three sources are dead and other don't have anything like that. And in this case it should be either thorough analysis of his political views demonstrating that he is a fascist or his own statement, not some news story), it is up to person wanting the particular piece of information in the article to prove its validity. Calling someone removing loaded statements support for political views of the subject is unfounded ad hominem argument ~~Xil (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xil - please accept my apologies: I translated this from another language, but upon reviewing the sources (and others available in English) I find that Siskins is mostly referred to as a "radical nationalist." So you were correct. Siskins and his supporters have faced opposition from the Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee. Best, -Darouet (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, the said organization are Russian radicals who have a habit of calling everyone who disagrees with their views fascist (hence their name, apparently). ~~Xil (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As to that, I'm skeptical, and would be curious to know how you distinguish "radical nationalism" and "fascism " in your own mind. Reading Celmiņš' statement from "A Latvia for Latvians" reproduced on the Pērkonkrusts page, you could replace "Latvians" and "Latvia" with "Germans" and "Germany," and the statement would read exactly like a piece of Nazi propaganda. Your own implication that members of the Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee must be "Russian radicals" rather than Latvians is disturbing, and appears to reproduce this kind of extreme chauvinism exactly. I hope you don't really believe Latvia would be better off with ethnic minorities purged and a "Latvia for Latvians." -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I find your jumping to conclusions about my political views offensive and irrelevant to discussion. That you dislike this guys views and find them reminiscent of fascism is not relevant either. Fascism was an ideology popular before WWII, if somebody is called a fascist in this day and age it should be because they themselves identify as such or based on very serious analysis of their politics. Here is an article, which states that in Soviet Union anything anti-Soviet was labeled as such and that Latvian Anti-Fascist Committee shares the view, obviously works beautifully since anyone who objects is labeled fascist supporter as we see in this very discussion. Also accusation of calling them Russian being chauvinist is ridiculous - their name properly translated is "of Latvia", not "ethnically Latvian", their members are russophone - if that is chauvinism then you are guilty of it as well as you are calling the subject of the article Latvian. ~~Xil (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here another, non-Latvian source goes into deeper analysis. They even call "antifascist" a synonym to "pro-Russian" and also explain the same about the use of "fascist" as in the source above. ~~Xil (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It takes a special kind of person to defend or apologize for virulently anti-semitic, ultra-nationalist, and violent people. I don't assume that's an intention of yours - if it isn't you can be satisfied without worrying about others' conclusions - though you haven't denied it either, for all the words we've written above.

For my part, I'm thankful for the links you've posted above. Russia's behavior (and the USSR's, previously) towards its smaller neighbors was and is often reprehensible, and Russia itself suffers from, and even encourages its own brand of vitriolic chauvinism, from what I've read on the subject. All of which is saddening but doesn't excuse hate politics elsewhere. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

All I did was to remove wording that I know to be used in derogative fashion by pro-Rrussian organizations (you, in fact, confirmed you got the term from one of them) for anyone who does not agree with their views. I never said anything about mine (private matter) or his political views, so there was no reason for you to assume I am his supporter. I suggest you read up WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I hope you are now satisfied that they are not a reliable source on him being fascist (far right can be something else too, fascism is a particular ideology, not just nationalist, antisemitic and violent) and won't restore that slur - you might dislike him, but you can't just go calling him names on encyclopedia article - unless of course you actually find more thorough analysis of his views that demonstrate that he really is fascist, otherwise it is misleading as well. That somebody is practicing hate politics does not justify calling him in terms others practicing hate politics apply to people they dislike either ~~Xil (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Xil, I can't comment on the reliability of different media sources in Latvia or Russia, and I don't agree that you should, without going to the reliable source noticeboard, dismiss sources you call pro-Russian out of hand. Nevertheless I agree with the change you made because, on your insistence, I looked up English references and found that most call Šiškins a "radical nationalist." Thanks for your help on that issue.

The term "fascist" isn't necessarily a slur: Šiškins wears a Swastika in public, is a member of Pērkonkrusts, and is clearly proud of his views. -Darouet (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Swastika is a symbol used in multiple cultures, including Latvian, where it happens to be called pērkonkrusts, since it is also how his organization is named, I would rather assume he is wearing that. Elsewhere it was never general symbol of fascism either (see Fascist symbolism), but rather of Nazi Germany. And it might indeed not be a slur, if a non-biased source was saying that, but while it comes from pro-Russian radicals, who use it for anything and anyone not pro-Russian it should not be in the article ~~Xil (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)