This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hipal reverted my edit to delete a reference to Duchesne's newest book, without responding directly to the reasons I gave for including it.

With respect to your original reason, that you were unsure if the book was worth mentioning, it does seem to be the first attempt the author has made to publish a work of scholarship since 15 years ago, so it is significant to the subject of the article.

With respect to the allusion to BLP, it is important and legitimate to note that the book is published by a fascist press. In Duchesne's case, fascism is not a slur; the reason there is justification for a wikipedia article about him is not his scholarly contributions as such, but the fact that he is an advocate for racist and fascist thought, who, until his unwilling retirement, was doing so within the academic community. The fact that he advocates these positions is not a matter of controversy; he is explicit in claiming the inferiority of non-white peoples and cultures, and he has released on his blog enthusiastic tributes to every major fascist leader other than Hitler, including defences of Mussolini and DeGrelles and most recently Maréchal Pétain. The positions he advocates are clearly fascist, including articulating the need for strong authoritarian white leaders to save the West, and prioritizing national racial identity over individual freedoms. The fact that he has travelled in the last 15 years from being published by a serious academic publisher to being published by a fringe fascist one is an important and significant part of his intellectual and professional journey.

The comment I posted is fully referenced. The book itself is listed in the bibliography to the article, and the description of the publisher is referenced to local newspapers in the area where the publisher has its offices.

This author has published only four books in the course of a long academic career; it does seem appropriate to mention the most recent. 204.48.93.58 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion here.

References are required, they must meet WP:BLP standards, and we must be very careful in the use of any references that don't mention him directly (to avoid WP:OR problems). --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the objections, then the mention of the new book should be restored.

There are no WPOR problems; the material is sourced to readily available sources and there is no original research.

The BLP standards are met; there is no gossip or slander here, no intrusion into the subject's privacy, just basic undisputed facts.

The claim that only references that mention the subject of the article is something you are suggesting, but it is not Wikipedia policy by any means. Well-referenced discussions of contextual facts are necessary and standard in BLP articles. Bob Gollum (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those explanations don't actually address the policy concerns at all. --Hipal (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do address the concerns you raised. What policy concerns do you think make mention of a book written by the subject of the article problematic? It seems like a basic thing to include. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a new proposal here on this talk page that you feels addresses the policy concerns? --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Please let me know what the policy concerns are. I do not see any OR problems, and the references that were originally provided meet BLP standards. Can you help me identify what policy concerns remain, or be more specific about them? 204.48.78.138 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a proposal where all the references meet the high quality criteria required per BLP, all the references mention Duchesne directly, and the proposal does not reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy or rule that all sources have to reference the subject of the article directly. Not for BLP, not for anyone else.Context and background information is legitimate, often necessary, and can be included.

The earlier post did not reach or imply any conclusion that was not clearly stated by the sources themselves!

Perkomen Valley Patch: states that Antelope Hill "...specializes in translating historical works by Nazis, fascists and ultranationalists, as well as original works by contemporary white nationalists, neo-fascists and other members of the far-right community..."

The Mercury: “Antelope Hill has profited from hate by translating historical works by 20th-century Nazis and fascists, offering a publishing platform to contemporary white power propagandists and shipping books around the world using selling platforms including Amazon,”

These are the local newspapers that are the most direct and reliable source about the people in their area, who also reached out to the publishing company for comment, in at least one case making direct contact with the principles of the publishing company.

Primary sources can be used to validate reliable secondary sources; the Antelope Hill catalogue and website confirms the above, but it would not be appropriate to create links to such content. Bob Gollum (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about reliability, we could add footnotes to national newsmedia to supplement the local news sources:

The Daily Beast describes Antelope Hill as glorifying “"Nazi Germany, fascism, antisemitism, and white nationalism."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazons-still-selling-lots-of-nazi-books/

ABC News reports that Antelope Hill is linked to the National Justice Party, an antisemitic white supremacist group - https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-15/amazon-affiliate-advertising-far-right-publishers/101436432

and of course Wikipedia itself confirms that "Antelope Hill is an American white nationalist publisher based in Pennsylvania.It is known for selling translations of historical works by Nazis, fascists and ultranationalists, as well as new works by far-right writers." Bob Gollum (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not say anything controversial or disputed about Antelope Hill; they contain nothing that isn't stated even more explicitly on the Antelope Hill wikipedia page. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No proposal still? Are you arguing to simply restore the removed content? --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to understand your objection to the removed content; you have not explicitly stated any objection, and I have addressed your concerns. I would suggest restoring the old congent with additional footnotes to national news sources and a link to the wikipedia page on Antelope Hill.

I can't suggest a proposal until I know what your problem is with the removed content. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could help by:

- identifying any wiki policy that indicates all references must directly refer to the subject of the article;

- telling me in what way the comment you removed violates BLP.

If I know, I can address these issues in a more substantive way. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in my initial edit summary, the main content policies that I'm concerned about are BLP (does it meet all the requirements of BLP) and POV (does it deserve any mention). To elaborate, WP:BLPREMOVE and POV concerns that no sources have been provided indicating that such prominent mention of the book is DUE; and that the elaboration about the publisher, done without any references that mention Duchesne directly, creates an improper POV in an article about Duchesne. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is due as much attention as his other three books; if that is the criteria, we need to delete a substantial section of the article,which goes into excruciating detail about the various opinions book reviewers have had about him and which even mentions book reviews he has written about other peoples work (much of this was put in by Duchesne himself, in the course of his editing of the article). This adition to the article mentions that he has published a new book, his first in several years, but is a bare mention of it and can hardly be considered undue. It is not a particularly prominent mention.

The publisher is a neo-nazi publisher; that is its whole raison d'etre. I agree that we don't need to belabor the point, and have done so only because the issue was challenged by you.

We could shorten the mention of fascism, so that it is recognized but not given excessive attention:

"In 2025, Duchesne released a new book, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism within European Civilization.^[129] It was published by Antelope Hill Publishing, a small American press that focuses on white nationalist and fascist texts.^{[130][131][132]}" Bob Gollum (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content about his other books should be reviewed, and likely trimmed. While we have multiple independent sources for that content, we have none for Greatness, and so it is UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good reason to delete the article entirely, as recommended back in 2011. However, if the article about him exists, it should cover his work comprehensively, not just look at what gets press attention. UNDUE relates to its significance to the subject of the article, not how many reviews the book gets. Also, UNDUE is about the degree of attention should be given; it does not necessarily mean censor entirely.

The fact that his latest tome has been ignored so far by other scholars is a significant part of the subject of the article's evolution.

Perhaps the way to do it is to address your objection head on:

"In 2025, Duchesne released a new book, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism within European Civilization.[129] It was published by Antelope Hill Publishing, a small American press that focuses on white nationalist and fascist texts.[130][131][132]The book has been publicised in fringe right wing media (eg https://arktos.com/2025/06/10/eurosiberia-podcast-62-greatness-and-ruin/) and the blog Duchesne edits, but so far appears not to have received any consideration in scholarly journals or the popular press." Bob Gollum (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a third opinion. Regarding the mises.org ref, not only is it self-published, but the general consensus at RSN is that it's unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't self-published - the Mises institute is an institution, not a personal site. It is unreliable as a news source or as an analysis of economic issues, but there is no question of unreliability when it comes to a book review. Bob Gollum (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires better. --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is - if we have a page on a person whose main calling is writing, do we include a statement about books he has written or not? My own feeling is that going into the reception of his work by describing every book review is inordinate; but the existence of the book and the fact that it is not published by a mainstream publisher is significant. There is no disputing that the book is published, no disputing that the publisher is a white nationalist press with ties to white nationalist/fascist/antisemitic movements, and no disputing that it is a significant part of the ouevre of the subject of the article.

It reads as if you are objecting to the mention, and then coming up with different reasons for excluding it each time; the reasons are rationalizations for the conclusion, rather than the steps leading up to it.

BLP requires careful attention to accuracy, and an avoidance of intrusions into the subjects private life; it shouldn't be reduced to a barren formula. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...do we include a statement about books he has written or not? Not if they aren't noteworthy, meeting BLP and POV criteria. Such books might not even be listed in a Bibliography section as we have done in this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say as how that is consistent with BLP. If an author writes books that aren't noteworthy, delete his wikipedia entry. But here we are talking about a guy who has written only four books in his career - a book version of his PhD thesis that is clumsily written and overly reliant on the work of others, two personal screeds, and this new book. It seems to be the only noteworthy book he has written. Racist and not grounded in historical accuracy, but more noteworthy than its predecessors. The issue is not whether it is noteworthy to the world, but whether it is noteworthy to understanding the subject of the article and the evolution of his thought. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Looking at the sources, four of them are about Antelope Hill, one is about Mises Institute, therefore none of that information is DUE for inclusion in this article since they don't mention the subject (or the book). It'd be a WP:COATRACK situation. The sixth source, while a review of the subject's book, is published by Mises Institute, which is considered unreliable. The information from that source cannot be included either. TurboSuperA+(connect) 12:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed this entry from the third opinion noticeboard because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Erpert: That's not the case as far as I can tell. Bob Gollum has occasionally responded without being logged in (twice, it appears). I've restored the request, assuming it ok to do so in such circumstances. Please indicate if you disagree or I've overlooked something.

  @Bob Gollum: Can you confirm that the ip's are you? --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Bob Gollum (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne#Greatness_and_Ruin above:

I hope my edit summaries are clear: The quote in the lede is soapboxing, based upon a non-independent reference. Duchesne's denial, referenced to an independent source, seems DUE. Maybe not in the lede? I recall (old?) policy on situations like this, but I can't find it.

The details about his family members appear UNDUE and poorly referenced. None are notable themselves. --Hipal (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to explain what you mean by poorly referenced - they mostly refer to standard books on the subjects, or refer to the existence of books and articles the person has written. Several of the family members are not just notable in themselves, but more notable than the subect of the article, particularly the musicians and the older brother who is a serious academic.

Given the substance of the ideology of the subject of the article, his family history is significant and important to any understanding of him and his ideas.

I am concerned about the unjustified deletions by you of material from this and other articles. 104.195.202.130 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bob Gollum, for responding.

Ignoring the failure to AGF and FOC:

You've not addressed the policies/guidelines: NOT (especially SOAP), IS, POV, BLP, and COAT. Personal opinions about notability and significance need to be backed by references. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted properly referenced significant information because of your personal opinion as to notability and significance, without backing your opinion with any references. Throwing a lot of acronyms around without actual discussion is not helpful and does not contribute to consensus. BLP was followed, POV was not an issue. IS were provided for all references and there was no SOAP commentary. You have done this repeatedly on this and other articles, with respect to my contributions and the contributions of others. 104.195.202.130 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on content and how to create proper consensus:

I suggest you identify a specific reference and what content you feel can be properly included in this article based upon it, then we can discuss the specifics relevant to the policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That really shouldn't be the way it is done; if you are deleted numerous references and mentions of people from an article, you should be stating your objections to each one, not doing a mass deletion. But, okay, we can start with Rafael Duchesne Mondriguez. He is significant in his own right, as a prominent jazz musician on the Puerto Rican scene, and as a figure of cultural transmission, one of the musicians who introduced jazz music to Europeans. Given that the subject of the article is a proponent of an ideology of Western racial supremacy (not a slur - he is explicit about this and it forms the core of his work) it is significant that his ascendants include accomplished and notable Afro-Puerto Ricans. (Stating this is not doxxing or a BLP violation, as he readily admits it in interviews.) Bob Gollum (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specifics.

The relevant content/refs is:

Their grandfather Rafael Duchesne Mondriguez^[1] was a significant jazz clarinetist and composer who played as a soloist with the Harlem Hellfighters, the American regimental band that introduced jazz music to Europe, as part of his military service during the First World War. After the war he returned to live in Puerto Rico where he taught music and continued to perform and compose.^[2][3]

^[2]

References

I think that captures the content and refs. Is there an archived version of #3? Do any of these mention the person who's the topic of this article? Are there any Wikipedia article that mention Rafael Duchesne Mondriguez? Any Wikipedi article that mention or cite the author, Basilio Serrano? Any evidence that musicofpuertorico.com should be considered reliable? --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intead of #3, one could reference https://ladanza.com/duchesne.htm#english Serrano is a retired professor of Puerto Rican studies who has written extensively on Puerto Rico in general and Puerto Rican jazz in particular: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Basilio-Serrano including several books on the subject of Puerto Rican jazz: Puerto Rican Pioneers in Jazz, 1900–1939: Bomba Beats to Latin Jazz; Juan Tizol - His Caravan Through American Life and Culture; Puerto Rican Women from the Jazz Age: Stories of Success The first two references, from Centro Journal and the Latin Jazz Network, both by Serrano confirm that the musician is the grandfather of the subject of the article. One can multiply references to the musician and his life, and I can certainly add more if you think that would be helpful. Being mentioned on wikipedia cannot be the requirement; otherwise wikipedia would never expand. -Bob Gollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Gollum (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musicofpuertorico.com appears self-published, as does ladanza.com.

Thanks for the information on Serrano. He seems like an expert that we can use as a source. I see him cited more than a few times within Wikipedia.

I don't get any results searching for "Ricardo" in either of those sources. How do we verify that Rafael Duchesne Mondriguez was his grandfather? --Hipal (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His sister says that he is her grandfather in both articles.

Ladanza.com is published by Luciano Quiñones, a prominent Puerto Rican jazz musician; there is a wikipedia article about him at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Quiñones Bob Gollum (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't expect we'd be having basic WP:V problems. This is looking very bad for BLP info and I'm concerned that this is a waste of time.

How do we verify that it is "his sister"? Note we need clear verification that avoids assumptions, original research, or synthesis.

Quiñones is a musician with no apparent expertise that would apply. See WP:SPS. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The work of a wikipedia editor is to advance knowledge collaboratively, not to be a gatekeeper.

If you want to add extra footnotes, we can certainly document that Rossana Duchesne is Ricardo’s sister. Bear in mind that Hispanic people use both matrilineal and patrilineal surnames; to put it another way, they honor both their father and their mother.

We know that Ricardo had five siblings, including Juan Duchesne Winter and Rossana Duchesne Winter. Rossana is also identified as the daughter of their mother Coralie at

https://loscuadernosdevieco.blog/2021/06/22/carta-inedita-de-dylan-thomas-a-coralie-winter/

We know that Rossana Duchesne Winter worked with Basilio Serrano and assisted in his research on Puerto Rican musicians: https://www.uprm.edu/nuevoshorizontes/2024/10/06/that-fertile-darkness-mayaguez-the-mother-and-the-poet/

This means that the Rossana Duchesne mentioned in Serrano’s writing as providing him with research information is Ricardo’s sister.

This isn’t original research; it is noticing what is laid out clearly on the page.

The geneology is not necessary, but leads to the same conclusion.

Rafael I. Duchesne Mondriguez, the musician, married Maria Landron Gonzalez

https://www.myheritage.com/names/rafael_duchesne%20mondriguez

They had a son named Juan, who would have been given his parents surnames Duchesne and Landron

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/3229470/rafael_isidoro-duchesne_mondriguez

We know that Ricardo is the son of Juan Duchesne Landron.

As far as Quiñones goes, it is not necessary to have a PhD in a subject to be a reliable source. Quiñones is familiar with the jazz and musical world of Puerto Rico through his lifetime involvement in the field. If you don’t like him as a source, then Serrano gives us the same information. It is helpful in a wikipedia article, however, not to just rely repeatedly on a single source. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking for far better sources that clearly verify what we want to include, or dropping it altogether. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable source in which Duchesne's sister, who we know is an archival researcher with a focus is on Puerto Rican history and its forgotten personages, identifies the musician as her grandfather to Serrano. You have raised the speculative possibility that there might be two Rossana Duchesnes, and that the one who worked with Serrano and said the musician was her grandfather may well have been a different Rossana. We then provided a source confirming that Duchesne's sister Rossana did work with Serrano and provide him with information.

Do you really want to censor the article on the possibility that Serrano had two researchers named Rossana Duchesne who were both working with him, that he failed to distinguish which one gave him the info in his article, and that the one who claimed the musician as her grandfather was actually the (as far as we know non-existent) other Rossana?

It does seem a stretch.

(And, don't forget, in case you have any doubts, the geneological information also shows that Rossana and Ricardo's father was the son of the musician.) Bob Gollum (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are required for all information. As long as some of the ones being offered clearly cannot be used, this is a waste of time. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are all reliable; which one do you object to? Bob Gollum (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Note the RSP entry for findagrave and the RSN discussion for myheritage. --Hipal (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we were not relying on either of those. That was a supplement for this talk session, as a way of pointing out that other sources lead to the same conclusion. But we don't need to reference them in the article.

You have already acknowledged that Serrano is a legit and reliable source.

And Nuevos Horizontes is a peer-reviewed publication sponsored by the Department of Humanities of the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez and their graduate program in Cultural and Humanistic Studies, so it has academic respectability and can be considered reliable. Particularly when it comes to Puerto Rican cultural history.

Those are the only two sources needed to establish that the musician is Duchesne's grand-dad; the rest we have discussed are just extras that confirm what these two sources say explicitly. Bob Gollum (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take whatever content you think might work with the verifying references to WP:RSN. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about acknowledged experts in the field, and peer-reviewed university-affiliated academic journals, setting out simple statements of fact. No concerns have been raised by anyone about their reliability. There is no need to take this kind of source to RSN, absent any substantive dispute over the source or any reason to question their bona fides. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is clear, nor what content you intend to attribute to the reference, nor what other references you intend to use (if any) in order to avoid basic WP:V and WP:OR problems. --Hipal (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To accommodate your concerns, we could write up the passage this way; I would prefer to have the more condensed version previously used, but if you think it needs to be spelled out, this would be a way to do it.

Duchesne's sister, Gabriella Duchesne Winter, is an archival researcher with a particular interest in native Puerto Rican music. [2] She has confirmed that their grandfather was the jazz clarinetist Rafael Isidro Duchesne Mondriguez.[ https://latinjazznet.com/interviews/in-conversation-with-author-basilio-serrano/ and https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/377/37719206.pdf] Duchesne Mondriguez was a musician and composer who played as a soloist with the Harlem Hellfighters, the American regimental band that introduced jazz music to Europe, as part of his military service during the First World War. After the war he returned to live in Puerto Rico where he taught music and continued to perform and compose.[3] Bob Gollum (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

So you want to use "Puerto Rican musicians of the Harlem Renaissance". Basilio Serrano. Centro Journal 2007, XIX(2) (the last two links) and Serrano's Latin Jazz Network interview of Winter as the only references? You are citing Instituto Nuevos Horizontes to demonstrate Winter's expertise? --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the LaDanza bio of the clarinetist should be added; it is from the site of someone who, without a PHD in the subject, is particularly knowledgeable of the field. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it's safe to assume that the response to both of my questions is "yes"?

As already mentioned, LaDanza is self-published by a non-expert. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the reply to the first was no, since I do want to use the additional source. There are many different ways of acquiring expertise. Not all of them are from degree-granting institutions. I would say yes to the second, although it is a weird way of putting it; one doesn't need specific "expertise" to identify one's grandfather. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You included the Instituto link, so I'm just making sure I understand why, and that you're not proposing it as a reference.

So how are we going to verify that Winter is Ricardo Duchesne's sister? --Hipal (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were past that. Coralie's obituary mentions her six children, including Juan Ramon and Rossana as well as Ricardo. Juan Ramon Duchesne Winter and Rossana Duchesne Winter have published their mother Coralie Winter's early correspondence and are identified in the publication as her children. Juan Duchesne Winter has also published his own recollections of Coralie.

https://loscuadernosdevieco.blog/2021/06/22/carta-inedita-de-dylan-thomas-a-coral

(an online reference to the original print source, la Revista Literaria Taller Igitur)and

https://jrdewinter.substack.com/p/coralie-en-mi-menteie-winter/ Bob Gollum (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I was unclear.

How is that blog post reliable? What does it verify that helps us? The second link gives an error.

So we have no references directly verifying Ricardo with Rafael. Please be clear what you are proposing we rely on instead, explaining what's being verified and how, and how the refs meet BLP requirements. --Hipal (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is a print volume, which is a reliable Mexican journal. The blog post was there simply to allow you to easily see what is contained in the print source.

there was a typo in the link to the second source; try

https://jrdewinter.substack.com/p/coralie-en-mi-mente

There are a number of BLP requirements, so asking someone to explain how it meets them is asking them to hit a moving target. Do you consider that an identification of the grandfather by the sister is not sufficient verification? Bob Gollum (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of BLP requirements, so asking someone to explain how it meets them is asking them to hit a moving target. Not at all. BLP is very clear.

This doesn't appear to be a fruitful discussion, especially when comments like that are being made. Following BLP and WP:CTOP isn't easy. Apologies, but I'll likely be spending much less time responding here given how little progress we've made. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have satisfied the requirements of BLP, so it makes no sense to list all of them. If you think there is one that is not satisfied, then please specify.

I also believe I have properly addressed all the objections that you have raised, so clarification would be appreciated. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: I don't see that my original concerns are resolved, The details about his family members appear UNDUE and poorly referenced. I did not realize at the time there there were WP:V/WP:OR problems as well. Those problems remain, and poor sources are still an issue. UNDUE problems are yet to be discussed, but that makes sense given that we're still struggling with determining what sources can be used. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We actually did resolve these. We are relying on academic sources and journals, or well established literary journals, and all the articles are written by acknowledged researchers and academics. When you have expressed concern about a source, we have gone back to the source and established it is reliable, as with the University of Puerto Rico affiliated journal. The blog post refers to a well establisher literary journal that is migrating to a new web host; its old articles are off line, hopefully temporarily, but the print version can still be cited and we have numerous postings from the journal, of which the blog post is only one, to establish the contents. In any event, that reference is supportive but not uniquely supportive. We also addressed the UNDUE concern.

No original research; we are just repeating what the sources say. It is not original research to say that the grandfather of your parent's daughter is your grandfather, or that the son and daughter of your mother are your siblings.

Basically, BLP is there to make extra sure that there is no gossip or false allegations that could hurt a living person. There is none of that here. Bob Gollum (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. We need to move beyond assertions. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to make substantive points, and believe I have addressed all your concerns. However, it is hard to know what your concerns are when you simply repeat the same wiki acronyms or vague generalities. As WP:DNB states: "Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand." You have not given any substantive responses, and your objections seem to shift and change as you go along.You have not answered any questions I have asked of you.

The point is to work together to make the article contain more useful information, not to censor it of facts or engage in endless edit-warring. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gollum (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at BLPN, if we're going to mention stuff about family members, especially stuff about living family members, we really need reliable secondary sources which have connected these family members to the subject of this article which is Ricardo Duchesne. To be clear, this article isn't about his siblings, his mother, his grandfather or any other family members. It's about Ricardo Duchesne.

If other reliable secondary sources have made a connection between Ricardo Duchesne family or the background, history, careers, whatever and Ricardo Duchesne then it might be fine for us to mention this. But not based on sources about these family members which make no connection to Ricardo Duchesne. Especially since he's such a contentious figure and when these are living persons. There's zero reason why we should be mentioning the names of living persons just to connect them to such a highly contentious figure when these living persons are apparently not notable themselves.

I noticed an IP said above

Several of the family members are not just notable in themselves, but more notable than the subect of the article, particularly the musicians and the older brother who is a serious academic. Given the substance of the ideology of the subject of the article, his family history is significant and important to any understanding of him and his ideas.

My response to this is simple. For the claim that the other family members are "more notable than the [subject] of the article" then prove it. If you believe there is significant indepth coverage of these family members in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG then write an article on them either directly or via WP:AFC. Once you've done so then we can say these subjects are WP:notable from a Wikipedia PoV. Until and unless this happens the presumption we will make in any discussions on them is they are not notable. (Alternative maybe Ricardo Duchesne isn't notable either. You're welcome to start an WP:AFD if after careful evaluation of the sources, you think he doesn't met WP:GNG or otherwise have evidence of notability.)

As for "his family history is significant and important to any understanding of him and his ideas" again prove it. If this is indeed so significant and important to understanding him then reliable secondary sources should have discussed this very significant family history because it's so important to understanding him and his ideas. If you are unable to find sources about Ricardo Duchesne which discuss this family history and relate how it helps us understand him and is ideas, then from Wikipedia's PoV, it actually not very important since you have no evidence it's important.

Making something up here to serve as an example. I could say his like of dogs is important to understanding him and his ideas but if the only evidence for this I have is that he regularly likes pictures of dogs on Facebook and I say it's important, then others will rightfully say yeah nah. (To be clear, I completely made this up. I have no idea is he likes dogs, if he even has a Facebook, if he likes pictures of dogs etc.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Duchesne was nominated for deletion 15 years ago. The recommendation was that it be deleted. No reliable secondary sources have discussed his ideas in any depth.

If there is dispute over whether something is important, and some say yes and some say nah, then it should be included. Otherwise, nothing of significance would ever be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a press clipping service; there is no need to dumb it down. Bob Gollum (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then it should be included Policy clearly says the reverse, and we this encyclopedia is proof that your concerns over significance are groundless. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia does not follow that policy. That is your policy, not wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy says it is a matter of editorial discretion, and that one should include various points of view that are within the boundaries of reasonable discourse. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV, NOT, and V are policy. If you are backing down from your original statement that I quoted, please indicate so. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are. And noneofthose 3 policies are in contradiction with what I wrote.

You clearly understand those policies in a specific way that is not captured by the policies as written, so if you want to make a point, you have to explain your understanding. As it is, you are just reciting the alphabet. It is not at all helpful. Bob Gollum (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a new proposal, where we don't have WP:V and OR problems, then we can move on to discussing POV and NOT issues. Otherwise, consensus is against inclusion, and we've spent far too time on this. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the only issue seems to be relevance, which is a judgment call. You have stated baldly that there are V and OR problems, but have not actually identified any substantive ones. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop it. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that it's best to clearly identify what should change to an article. Bold edits are appropriate, especially initially or when there's clear consensus. Edit requests are usually more than needed, though something that's similar to an edit request is always helpful when it specifies exact content to be changed and the supporting references. [4] A bold edit at this point would be extremely helpful. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the BOLD edit. I've taken it to BLPN. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]