Talk:Patrick Deneen (political theorist)

Sourcing
Is there any substantial WP:RS coverage of Deneen? From a quick WP:BEFORE he seems almost-notable, but the extensive coverage is in fringe sources, and the mainstream sources are passing mentions at best - has anyone got a good list? - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In my recent edit, I souced hirado.hu. This is a reliable source, as it is the Hungarian public broadcaster. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%ADrad%C3%B3 & https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_H%C3%ADrad%C3%B3 It has been used as a source in other Wikipedia pages, such as https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesyes. Also, for all of you who don't think foreign media from smaller countries is as important as US/UK public media, just think of Hirado as the BBC or NPR. Prauls901 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "just think of Hirado as the BBC or NPR” sure but without the editorial reliability or journalistic quality of the BBC or NPR. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right because the BBC and NPR have an impeccable record of never being wrong. Only small, non-English speaking countries have biased public media. Anyways, do you think this report by Hirado is fabricated?Prauls901 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to get out of sorts, you just seem to be unaware that state media is not automatically reliable and in fact the vast majority of it is not reliable. The BBC and NPR are exceptions rather than the rule. I think the point is that Hungary is 89 of 180 when it comes to press freedom and the state media is mainly consumed with fawning coverage of the big man in charge over there. They probably are reliable in context but I wouldn’t call it significant coverage of Mr. Deneen... Its significant coverage of Mr. Orban in which Mr. Deneen plays a role. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say you have a idealized version of BBC and NPR, but that's fine. I'm just defending my sourcing ahead of time because I knew that argument would come out. And also the argument against it being "significant coverage." Significant to whom? I would imagine it was of significant public interest to Hungarians, residents of EU and Central European countries, as well as some Americans. The man is an American professor who met with the head of state of a sovereign country. How many professors anywhere meet with the head of state of another country? I would say it's quite rare and noteworthy. And if he met with President Trump, Boris Johnson, or Xi Jinping and it was covered by the BBC, I imagine it would be considered significant under Wikipedia's rules.Prauls901 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing special about a professor meeting with a head of state. Nobody that I can see is objecting to your edits. Did I miss something? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree, the vast majority of professors in the world don't have public meetings with sitting heads of state, especially of countries that belong to both the EU and NATO. I see my edit is standing, but given the history of this page and its current marginal status, I'm making my arguments known ahead of time. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Prauls901 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of information about Hungary
Another editor keeps removing a section I added about how Deneen met with Victor Orban. Patrick Deneen is an influential public intellectual who met with a sitting head of state of a sovereign country. The meeting relates to his professional work and also provides context about his ideas. The sources are verifiable, accurate, reliable, and authoritative. The information is relevant to the life and career and Patrick Deneen, who is a professor, writer, and intellectual. The editor who is removing this section is close to engaging in an edit war. See WP:EW. This is now the 2nd revert I have made to this article in the last week. If there are are further reverts I will seek administrative action.

Also, I would suggest other editors look at the Spanish version of this article. It includes a section on Deneen's political philosophy. If you look at the history of the English page, you'll see that similar material was edited out of the English language version. This makes it look as though some editors are trying to limit the amount of relevant information available about Patrick Deneen on this page.Prauls901 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There was just another revert made by user 45.52.233.3. I will simply note that only contributions that user 45.52.233.3 has ever made to any Wikipedia page began today, and those are reverting my changes to this article.Prauls901 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User 45.52.233.3 has violated the 3-revert rule. WP:3RR. I am reporting User 45.52.233.3. Prauls901 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello user 45.52.233.3. I noticed you are reverting my changes. Can you please provide an explanation for why you are doing that? Which Wikipedia rule is that information violating? Let's try to resolve this amicably. Prauls901 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The only challenge I can see that should result in removal of the material is if the sources aren't reliable; they look fine to me at first glance, but I can't make that determination because I am utterly unfamiliar with both Hungarian and the Hungarian media landscape. There's also an article in Vox that says that Deneen described "the Hungarian government as a 'model' for American conservatives". This strikes me as noteworthy, considering that mainstream political science generally doesn't view recent developments in Hungary in a very optimistic or positive light (see 10.1353/jod.2012.0054 for example). Indeed, I think it would be worthwhile to expand the article and introduce a broader discussion of Deneen's views and their reception by others. I'll try to do so if I can find time. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 14:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll take a look at that Vox article. I agree, the article should be expanded. I will work on this also. Please note that if you look at the history of this article, attempts to expand it have been deleted by various editors. So there may be usable material in there that was improperly removed. For example, see this revision. Also, the Spanish language version has a section on the political philosophy of Deneen, which I think could be discussed here as well. Prauls901 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the cited references, the Vox article is misleading. Deneen does not himself endorse the view that Hungary is a model for American conservatives; the link to the interview (in Hungarian) cites Deneen as follows: “there is a growing debate among American conservatives today about how a non-globalist, national-conservative direction could be developed. To do this, they look for European examples and talk about what a modern nation-state should look like. Hungary is seen as a model in this matter.“ He refers to the conservatives who view Hungary as a “model” as “they.” In effect, he is describing how some conservatives view Hungary, I would assume speaking as a political scientist to a journalist. He is, in fact, doing exactly what the author of the Vox article reports: some conservatives do see the Orban government as a “model.” Deneen does not explicitly include himself. The line is sufficiently misleading that it should be cut, but if other editors think it should be included, then the word “some” before “conservatives” should be added. In my view, a political scientist commenting on how others view a political issue is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in a Wikipedia entry.

In the cited materials, I was only able to find positive commendation of Hungarian family policy (though Deneen admits to not knowing it well). He does not comment more broadly on “social” policy, and so it seems appropriate to change “social” (which can be very broad) to “family.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8C31:360:BDBB:BC77:4896:CA97 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Twitter references and recent updates
Regarding the issue of what Deneen said about Barr's speech on Twitter. You removed it because you say we can't use unverified Twitter accounts. Well here is an article from the National Catholic Reporter that reports that Deneen said that. It uses his Twitter account as a source. Since this is a separate point of independent verification, I think it is enough to be a reliable and accurate source. I've adjusted the citation on that section the NCR article and the "The Hill" article Prauls901 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use the National Catholic Reporter if thats a reliable source (it needs to pass WP:VERIFY as this is a BLP) but you still shouldn’t use an unverified twitter account. Note that although the words are similar the contexts of those two verify variants are different, I don’t want to cause any confusion. See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The new additions by you violate WP:NPOV. Examples: "prolific"; "popular intellectual journals and websites"; "best known as the author of the 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed" (what is your source for that?). Also, the lengthy excerpt from Obama's recommendation violates WP:RSUW Also, Facebook is listed as an unreliable source in Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so that may need to go. Finally, no justification for removing the section on Barr's speech. If you're going to say the speech was about religious freedom, then the part about blaming mental illness on secularism should also stay. Prauls901 (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of my sentence on Deneen's commentary on Bill Bar's speech: You say that the line should be removed because it relies on Twitter, which is not a reliable source under WP:RSP. However, the identity of Deneen's Twitter account was verified by the National Catholic Reporter, an independent publication which is a reliable source under WP:RSP. Therefore, the sentence should be included. Prauls901 (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick sidenote: You can't ping IPs, so you might want to use the talkback template. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Also, it looks like 45.52.233.3 is edit warring again, so any help you can provide will be appreciated. Prauls901 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User 45.52.233.3 is not making an effort to engage in constructive debate on edits on this page. For example, on revision 10:27, 7 August 2020‎ of this article, 45.52.233.3 deleted for a second time this sentence: "In October 2019, Deneen praised a speech by United States Attorney General Wiliam Barr on religious freedom, in which Barr blamed secular society for mental illness, suicide, and drug overdoses."

The justification given by 45.52.233.3 was this: "Removed line - cited source relies on same tweet flagged by Horse Eye Jack on August 4, relying on an unverified account."

When 45.52.233.3 deleted the sentence the first time, I replied on this talk page (see above): "the identity of Deneen's Twitter account was verified by the National Catholic Reporter, an independent publication which is a reliable source under WP:RSP. Therefore, the sentence should be included."

When 45.52.233.3 removed the sentence for a second time, they didn't discuss or respond to my earlier comment aside from repeating the same comment they made when they deleted it the first time. The user is not engaging in a conversation. Prauls901 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: this sentence, "Deneen has lamented the loss of knowledge about history among his students, having written the following:" and the following quote, I believe these are germane and relevant to this page. One, Deneen is an Ivy-League quality professor, which makes him unusual and noteworthy, and thus his opinions of his students, who are sometimes prominent socially, are of public interest. Second, the publication he was published in, Minding the Campus, is a reliable source, per WP:RSP. Minding the Campus is an educational blog run by the National Association of Scholars, which is a conservative advocacy group. So, while it likely does have some conservative bias, that is open and clear. Also, Deneen is conservative, so it's logical he would post on a conservative site. Finally, I haven't seen any inaccurate information on it. To sum up, I think Minding the Campus is a reliable source, unless further information comes to light. Prauls901 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)