Talk:Ricardo Duchesne

Bloat

This article has become very bloated with quotes from review after review; it seems that the subject of the article has kept adding positive quotes about his work from reviews, like a publicist looking for cover blurbs for a book, which in turn prompts others to include the critical aspects of the same reviews and mention other more critical reviews. It means the article strays far away from the straightforward facts about Duchesne and the public conflicts that he has inspired, lost in glowing but meaningless praise. This is particularly true of his one book that can be considered serious scholarship, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Other aspects of the article, such as the discussion of his views on Herder and Berlin, seem trivial and do not need to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.55.113 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at trimming down the book reviews and "X said this, Y said that" paragraphs, considering WP:RECEPTION. I would love to get some feedback on whether a bit more detail is needed, but the main goal is to summarize the reviews in an appropriate way, not provide a list of quotes regarding the book. Rowsswag (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A recent edit has added lengthy admiring quotations. I have tagged the section with neutrality issues. It may be that this needs cutting down again as it appears Rowsswag has before. Tacyarg (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There has been a recurrent problem with the subject of the article editing so as to insert hagiographic references to his work. He does not even try to hide it, as shown by his reference to work in progress that had not yet been published at the time he last edited the article. 24.140.234.94 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jang-Duchesne Vancouver controversy

The current version claims that "Duchesne has been criticized as racist by Vancouver politician Kerry Jang", but actually Jang uses the term "racist" nowhere in the quoted sources. Since this version has been repeatedly restored by users without being aware of this, I would like to remind all about the extra carefulness and accuracy which WP:BLP requires.

The whole dispute between Duchesne and Jang actually dates back to June 2014 - Jang merely rehashed his points this month - and touches upon a much broader topic, namely that of the changing demography of Canada in the wake of Asian mass immigration. We need to give both viewpoints sufficient room to provide some context for the readers there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course Duchesne's claim needs to be understood in the context of that massive wave of European migration to Canada. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability Of The Uniqueness Of Western Civilization

Hi. I've tried to post a review of Duchesne's book The Uniqueness Of Western Civilization, but it was removed for some reason. Don't get me wrong, Duchesne's book does make some good arguments, but it also contains some errors. I'm hoping that letting others see the errors can lead to better understanding of the topic. Full review here:

The Uniqueness Of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne

Reviewed by Geetanjali Srikantan

Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, India

https://www.academia.edu/4144711/The_Uniqueness_of_Western_Civilization_By_Ricardo_Duchesne._Leiden_and_Boston._Studies_in_critical_social_sciences_v.28_Brill_Publishers_2011._540pp._ISBN_978_90_04_19248_5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendship & Rainbows (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Friendship & Rainbows (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Gun Powder Ma Please give a reason for your blanket revert. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That blog HuffPost is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source and this particular opinion piece you are referring is far from neutral, possibly even libellous, but your continuous efforts to include dirt in the article are duly noted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a source does not and will not ever make it an opinion piece or a blog. This is a news article in HuffPost written by a reporter employed by them; most of the content included based on the source are not opinions but Duchesne's own words or about his own appearances and interviews with far-right websites and people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the WP article itself calls HuffPost a "opinion website and blog" (and for that matter a strongly left-leaning one). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP lists HuffPo on it's list of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources on which there is no consensus. It's WP article also describes it as a "news and opinion website and blog". In this case, the claims for which HuffPo are being cited can be traced back to far-right videos in which Duchesne speaks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2-S46v2vM), or to other public comments such as the open letter from UNB colleagues (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2015/09/21/profs-reject-colleagues-views.html). Rowsswag (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A. But is not even a news article, it is clearly by far and away an opinion piece. What is the raw news here?

B. A source does not derive its reliability from sources it cites because even the most fringe and biased sources can and do cite reliable material. It is about how they represent the material. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

With regards to A, the article is presented as a news article by a reasonably reputable reporter. If your claim is that the source is "fringe" or "biased", that should be resolved in this case by also citing the primary source of the claim, as I have done by referencing the open letter by colleagues and the interview with Faith Goldy. Other claims could similarly be reinforced in this manner, I don't think a blanket removal is the appropriate solution. Rowsswag (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

These criticisms by his colleagues deserves mention, I am with you there, but it must be done by relying on an adequate, reliable source, that is a serious piece of journalism. I did cover that whole controversy now, by reference to Globe and Mail. I also moved most of the WP:lead to the bottom as it is neither the right place to discuss his books in detail nor to showcase partisan sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Fringe or reliable sources?

I made some significant cuts to the "ideas" section. In general, it makes more sense to rely on notable secondary sources and avoid stuff published in WP:FRINGE publications like the Occidental Quarterly. In some cases, it might be reasonable to cite Duchesne for claims about himself, but we really don't need to offer a detailed retelling of his... anachronistic views on the innate superiority of the Aryan race Indo-Europeans. Nblund ^talk 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

...And it's been reverted by Otto von Gallino (talk · contribs). I'm open to working on some wordings here, but we can't go around citing a bunch of fringe sources, and this edit really makes me wonder if you're even reading the material: the citation says "was signed by 35 of Prof. Duchesne’s colleagues in the wake of recent revelations about his views." Nblund ^talk 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking it over, it appears Otto von Gallino (talk · contribs) has edit warred over this same stuff for a while, so I went ahead and reverted. Just to give some additional explanation for the problems with the edit summaries:

1. diff,diff "There's a Wikipedia entry on this" doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. We need to attribute Duchesne's views to Duchesne.
2. diff,diff,diff: Antifa is not the source for these claims. Antifa has nothing to do with this article. There is no question that Duchesne has been accused of racism. It's probably the most noteworthy thing about him.
3. diff,diff: This level of depth is WP:UNDUE. Duchesne's writings in WP:FRINGE publications like the Occidental Quarterly, or the Quarterly Review (a wordpress site masquerading as a defunct periodical) should be avoided as much as possible. If his claims are important, we should be able to find them in mainstream reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Fringe does not apply here, at least not in the sense you misinterpret it. RD is considered notable, hence the article has to include his main ideas, whether they are published in allegedly fringe sources or not, as long as the authorship is demonstrably his. Thus, we could even include stuff from his personal webpage, blog or wherever, if it is noteworthy. The situation could be different in other, theme articles, yes, but note that this is the biography ABOUT HIM. And here the ideas of an academic cannot be logically considered fringe because they are what made him notable to be included in WP in the first place. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is wildly incorrect. WP:PROF deals with article creation, not article content. We include material if it is noteworthy, and we judge "noteworthiness" by looking at reliable secondary sources, not fringe blogs posts. His self-published materials and vanity publications are only reliable for a very narrow range of claims. We absolutely eliminate fringe material from academic pages all the time, and WP:FRINGE, WP:V and WP:NPOV apply everywhere on Wikipedia. "Main ideas" might be justifiable, but what is missing in this version?

None of this excuses the elimination of well-sourced criticisms from other outlets, and I don't really think there's a plausible case for removing any mention of the controversies surrounding his work from the lead. Nblund ^talk 01:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is very much correct, because it is only logically, and I can give you right away an example: The article on HuffPost contains a lot of references to HuffPost itself, although it is considered by most an unreliable, often fringe source (footnotes 43, 45, 50, 61, 62 and many more). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus surrounding the general reliability of the Huffington Post, and there's certainly no evidence that editors consider it a fringe source in the sense of the Occidental Quarterly. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources can sometimes be used for non-controversial claims about themselves, but those uses should be limited, and WP:DUE weight still applies. Surely you don't think Wikipedia policies require us to just provide a repository for every utterance from a notable academic.

You didn't really address my question about what was missing from the previous version. And no one has given any justification for reverts like this and this that seem to be whitewashing reliable secondary sources. Nblund ^talk 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's stick to the first subject first. I can give you easily even more examples that your views on our fringe policy are mistaken:

• Wikipedia has an entire article on Robert K. G. Temple's The Sirius Mystery that outlines his theory that Africans had contact with intelligent extraterrestrials from the Sirius star-system, even though the book is considered fringe by the community.
• The article on Gavin Menzies covers in detail his fringe ideas that the Chinese discovered the Americas and ignited the Renaissance in Europe.

I could go on but you get the idea: Whether we consider a source fringe or not, has no bearing on it being relevant to be included in biographies or articles on works of these authors. Hence you have no basis to remove references to TOC etc., even if people would agree with you that they are fringe.

Regarding your WP:lead, that seems a bit intent to drop the scare term racism there. A balanced version would dictate that we must include then the counterviews of other scholars like Mark Mercer, Rick Mehta or pundits like David Solway and also his own university who have said that Duchesne is exercising his as freedom of speech, academic freedom and/or sharing legitimate criticism of multiculturalism, not to say Duchesne's own defence to these charges. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The page on Temple should almost certainly be deleted, and the fact that there are other bad pages on Wikipedia does not mean that we need to include more bad material on this page. Some citations can be warranted, but we generally avoid excessive reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources even when the authors aren't fringe.
• I'm totally fine with citing Mercer or mentioning the University's initial response, but none of that is inconsistent with the fact that Duchesne has been repeatedly accused of racism. We absolutely don't need to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by citing some random editorial from Pajamas Media in the lead. If it's worth citing, it will be covered in a mainstream reliable source. Nblund ^talk 22:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've asked Doug Weller to give this a look and weigh in on the question about fringe sourcing in bios of fringe figures. Nblund ^talk 22:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not quote anybody saying somebody is "exercising his as freedom of speech". That is the weakest possible defense: "saying what he says is not forbidden". Duh. Saying the Earth is flat is also allowed. So what? Why is that of interest? It's just meaningless page filler.

For what positions a fringe proponent stands for, we can use fringe sources - when there is nothing else available. If there is, we use something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I largely agree, but there's a line here, right? This accusation about Charles Taylor is essentially just a rehash of a nonsensical Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The paper is not cited anywhere, and it's published in a white supremacist vanity journal. Citing it here massively exaggerates Duchesne's importance, and it's impossible to offer appropriate context because it's really so fringe that no reliable source is going to even bother refuting it. I'm still unclear on how this version fails to hit the major bullet points. Nblund ^talk 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, we do not have to list really all the crazy ideas a person has, do we? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not. Frankly I think the stuff about Taylor verges on a BLP violation. I'm open to suggestions regarding what parts of his views are essential for the article, but I suspect we could scrap most of the stuff from the Occidental Quarterly without losing anything. Nblund ^talk 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

One by one. Just citing WP policies in an idiosyncratic, if not self-serving manner does not do the trick here.

• WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply here as the pages on Temple and Menzies are the result of many user discussions over the years. In case of Temple we even have a formal vote by the community. So, we can conclude that there is consensus that fringe sources can and should be included in biographies.
• But, of course, first you have to make clear why Duchesne's positions should be considered fringe at all. Unlike HuffPost, these journals you object to are not even listed as unreliable sources. Nor did you explain why the ideas RD lays out should be considered fringe. After all, the development that he objects to most, that Canada has a very high immigration rate, with all that which follows from it, is a fact. Canada IS the country with the fourth highest intake of immigrants in the western world (and highest relative to population size).
• What his colleagues say is relevant, as I already said, and has been long included in the article but should not be given WP:Undue weight. When you look closer, they merely repeated their accusations from 2015 and added nothing of substance in 2019. That is not enough to highlight it in the lead. We can do that as soon as there is a meangful scientific debate going on, with pros and cons, not just a, short, open letter. Or can you point us to other, comparable article where such a source is given this much weight? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Where the 2019 letter has 11x the signatories of the 2015 letter, and has attracted significant media attention (the letter was first featured in a Globe and Mail article before being published in full by HuffPo), I think the more substantial and notable letter deserves inclusion. Furthermore, HuffPost has not been deemed unreliable (it's section in WP:RSP says as much).

You have also removed a link to his university profile page as "unreliable".

Lastly, the substantial academic criticism of his ideas are what categorize them as fringe. See [1] for further evidence of this, from a non-HuffPo source (although the HuffPo article referenced in this article covers the same statement by the Canadian Historical Association).Rowsswag (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Gun Powder Ma: the discussion you linked to doesn't address the question of whether or not fringe sources should be linked in biographies. What essential claims are missing from this version? What are you willing to trim?
• Putting aside the question of the lead paragraph: you're removing the 'reception' section entirely and you removed a well sourced criticism from Charles Weller. We judge WP:DUE weight by prominence in reliable sources, not by our personal judgement. Is it seriously your position that the Huffpost criticisms can't be mentioned at all? Nblund ^talk 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about TOQ at WP:RSN. If you seriously think it's worth your time to attempt to convince people that The Occidental Quarterly is a reliable source please comment here. Nblund ^talk 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, why are you so intent on referencing to HuffPost? I have long included the reliable Globe and Mail piece instead which covers the letter against RD.

I am not categorically against including a mention of the controversy in the lead but it needs to cover both sides, in a balanced way. There are scholars and journalists defending RD. After all, his colleagues don't care to give any substantial reasons, but refuse to engage in a meaningful debate, like they did in 2015. Their letter is not at all part of a scholary discussion, but merely a media campaign, and it has to be treated as on outright opinion piece: "Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its article." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay: Mark Mercer is the only one I can find in a mainstream reliable source who is defending Duchesne. I don't have any issue with including a brief mention of his statement on academic freedom in the lead. There isn't going to be a "scholarly discussion" because Duchesne's screeds aren't scholarship. They're crackpottery by someone who just happens to have a PhD.

No one is soapboxing, this is a widely covered controversy. There's been additional coverage at this point, so HP might not be necessary - that said, if you're concerned about the lack of detail and substantiation, that article provides plenty of it: he's stopped publishing in peer reviewed journals, he supervised a dissertation that parroted a racist conspiracy theory, and he has made patently unscientific claims about European racial superiority. Nblund ^talk 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone give a brief synopsis of what you are arguing about? I read the article and it seems pretty coherent to me.

Cynistrategus (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The only notable things about Duchesne are that he is a prof who espouses views that the mainstream considers racist, and that he left his university under a cloud of controversy. In order to show this, you have to cite his writing, the worst of which appears in non-reliable sources, and the polemics against him. Neither of these are being cited as sources of facts or for the truth of their contents; rather, they are are evidence of who he is and the controversy surrounding him. It would be silly and less credible to cite reliable sources that describe what these things say instead; it is better to go to the actual evidence. I agree that the fringe writings would not be acceptable in an article about race or multiculturalism; but they should be acceptable in an article about Duchesne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.166.136 (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial edits

These three edits are fairly common sense problems that keep getting reverted without explanation. If you have some specific objection to these, please voice it or fix the issues rather than simply reverting. Claims that are unsourced need to be removed immediately. WP:BLPREMOVE Nblund ^talk 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the Frances Widdowson interview in the C2C Journal, Widdowson not call Duchesne a "white supremacist". Here is the quote: "At number one is Ricardo Duchesne [who recently retired early from the University of New Brunswick after being mobbed by his colleagues]. He was talking about white identity politics. And to be clear, I am opposed to all identity politics, white included. But that doesn’t mean we should shut Duchesne down and prevent him from speaking. Ideas and the policies necessary to implement those ideas are two completely different things. But they get conflated by a woke crowd that says if you discuss these things you are contributing to oppression. Having a discussion is a very different thing from saying I want to develop oppressive policies.

If something is labelled “not discussable,” that suggests to me there is an underlying problem that needs to be brought into the open. Whenever I hear, “Don’t say that,” I immediately ask “Why not?” But as soon as you say you want to have a discussion about what Duchesne is talking about, you’re accused of being a white supremacist."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:7a82:fa00:fd7d:c77a:7ac0:e9 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This page needs protection

There's a call on twitter for people to do hostile editing here so the page should probably be locked down https://twitter.com/ISASaxonists/status/1201251443665182720 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeeekamaus (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Westhues

Some changes I made, primarily concerning statements by Prof Kenneth Westhues were reversed as being disruptive and unsourced. They were neither.

To start with a minor matter, I changed “restless creativety” to “restlessness” and “creative spirit”. This was done for good reason.

The phrase “restless creativety” is not used by Duchesne in his book Uniqueness, nor is it used in either of the two reviews that he cites in the footnote at the end of the sentence. In the book, he speaks of the creative spirit of the West, and also of its restlessness. He does not speak of “restless creativety”, which is a nice-sounding phrase that does not mean anything.

A previous editor had included a discussion of reasons why Prof Westhues thought Duchesne had been mobbed by his more liberal colleagues, but left out one of the principal reasons discussed by Westhues, that Duchesne’s background and accent made him seem not like one of the boys. My inclusion of it was removed as being disruptive. It was not. It was creating a more accurate picture of Westhues’ actual statements.

The specific references to Duchesnes’ accent are an important factor cited by Westhues in both his article on Duchesne and in his oral comments at the conference. I was not the one who brought up these sources; both of them were cited by a previous editor, who in doing so editing quotes from Westhues in a misleading way so as to omit mention of this. It is a distortion of Westhues analysis to leave this factor out while including the others, and it is misleading to elide his statements about it from the quote taken from the web seminar without using ellipsis or giving any indication that key words have been cut out and skipped over.

To quote in full from Westhues’ article “Making fast work of Ricardo Duchesne”, found at https://www.kwesthues.com/Duchesne1906.html;

“The other explanatory factor that may be relevant to Duchesne’s mobbing is one I discovered by accident many years ago. It had not occurred to me earlier that having a foreign accent would increase a professor’s risk of being mobbed. From a young age I thought accents in an academic setting were like styles of clothing, largely irrelevant to the work of teaching and learning. I did not think anybody would hold a foreign accent against a colleague, so long as his or her speech were intelligible. I was wrong. I found so many cases of foreign-accented professors being mobbed that I put first on a list of conditions that heighten the risk of being mobbed: “Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent.” This point is relevant to the present case, as I learned when I heard Duchesne speak on a Youtube video. His English, while altogether fluent and understandable, is delivered in a marked Spanish accent, reflecting his origin in Puerto Rico. One of the reasons he was mobbed may be that he came across as too much of a foreigner to the colleagues at New Brunswick who ganged up on him, notwithstanding their professed allegiance to multiculturalism.”

The other source is the web seminar 
Academic Mobbing: The Whys and (The) Wherefores https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1wjFdv4r8Y The relevant quote can be found, word for word as I described it, shortly after the 16 minute mark in the video as part of Westhues’ presentation. The previous poster misquoted it by taking a chunk out of the middle without indicating the missing portion by “….” or some similar textual indication. The comment about his being a foreigner is at the 17:45 minute mark.

All other statements attributed to Westhues are taken directly from the written article, and are properly sourced by the footnote at the end of the sentence in which they are found. In cases where I modify or add to a sentence whose footnote already gives the reference, I had not added a second reference; this does not mean the statement is unsourced. For clarification, I have now added footnotes to each such reference, although this results in some duplication of references.

I do have mixed feelings about how this article should be edited. A wikipedia article is not the place to include mention of every single book review of a writer’s book, or the opinion of every single commentator. The subject of the article should not be sneaking in to plant all kinds of flattering out of context blurbs about himself, even if they are accurately sourced. On the other hand, if they are going in, the sources do need to be cited accurately, in a balanced way, which means adding more rather than less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.22.225 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Westhues section, as it seemed excessive to include a detailed recounting of a statement predicated on hypothesizing and speculation. At most, this article could mention criticism of his retirement and the university's actions, but not to the extent that was included previously - a sentence or two would suffice here. I also agree that this article includes too much regarding RD's books and related reviews, but cleaning these sections up is more work than I have time for right now. Rowsswag (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)