Talk:Rod Dreher

Untitled
Why was this archived? The archive isn't that big at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortynateyate (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, grouped the talk headers for layout. Ottre 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Incomplete / out-of-date
The article states that the subject is a past contributor to the American Conservative, but he is now a full time blogger at that web publication.

The manner and order in which this article is written makes it seem like the most significant thing the subject has done is to leave the Roman Catholic church and criticize that church for abuse of children by homosexual clergy members. I am not sure the subject would agree with this characterization.

The article doesn't mention the subject's newest book, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming, either. This was written about the author's dead sister. Instead it mentions a proposed book titled The Benedict option which has not been written yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfry (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding information about views and controversies surrounding sexuality, gender, race, immigration
The user StAnselm recently removed extensive, carefully sourced additions to this article (made by me). He gave the rationale that these additions were recently challenged. This is incorrect. Prior additions to these had been challenged; these more recent additions are different and met the objections in the previous challenge - that is, they relied on secondary rather than primary sources, cited multiple sources, included qualifications relating to Dreher's disavowal of some of the language in "Camp of the Saints", and used neutral, non-POV language.

StAnselm also removed information regarding a controversy related to Tommy Curry, citing "undue weight" and "relying on a single source". The sourcing can easily be rectified - the controversy, and Dreher's role in it, was widely reported - including in Snopes, the Guardian, the Chronicle of Higher Education and elsewhere. I do not understand the attribution of "undue weight" - how can it not be notable or significant that Dreher published a misleading excerpt from a talk which resulted in significant racial harassment and intimidation of a scholar, an action which has been widely and extensively criticized in mainstream publications, and which had significant consequences for this individual and his family? If this is not notable, then nothing in Dreher's career is.

Likewise, there is no justification for the claim that providing details of Dreher's views on sexuality, gender, race and immigration are not notable or are somehow "undue". These views, as shown in the multiple citations from mainstream and reliable publications which I provided, have aroused extensive controversy, and are thus by any definition notable and relevant. Anyone familiar with Dreher's blog and other writings will know that he publishes with extreme frequency on sexuality, gender, race and immigration: how can reporting his views on these topics be giving them undue weight, when he himself clearly gives these views significant weight? I could just as easily argue that the section on the "Benedict Option" book gives "undue weight" to this, as Dreher's blog is far more widely read than his books.

As detailed in the career section, Dreher's blog receives over a million page views per month, making him a significant and influential public figure. It is thus appropriate and reasonable that he should have a detailed Wikipedia page, which provides summaries of his major concerns and opinions, as well as the major cultural reactions that these opinions have generated. It is also entirely appropriate that instances of journalistic misconduct, as with the Curry case (which caused a major scandal and had significant effects for an individual and his family), should be reported.

I note that StAnselm retained my edits to the "Career" section, presumably because these edits reflected well on Mr Dreher. I also note that StAnselm has not changed the section on the Benedict Option book, despite this consisting mainly of some laudatory cherry-picked quotations clearly designed to place the author in a positive light. Perhaps StAnselm defines "notability" and "dueness" simply as information which happens to place Dreher in a good light? This is clearly a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines, in which "notability" and "dueness" can cover both positive and negative information.

As I say, I will add additional sourcing with respect to the Tommy Curry case. Other than this, I don't see any reasonable justification for deleting my most recent additions. Unless rationale can be provided by StAnselm or other users, I will restore them. (It could be argued that for balance the section on the Benedict Option should also be extended to include a wider range of reactions - I am happy to do this.) --Robert12345678901 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your additions were challenged and removed by User:Genericusername57 (see here). You should not have restored the material without discussing it on the talk page first. Much of the material you re-added was substantially the same as the initial additions. I don't think it was so "carefully sourced". For example, in the "Views on sexuality and gender" section, the first two sentences are sourced to third-party sources, but the next two are sourced to Dreher himself. That's not really appropriate - he is a prolific blogger, so we would need a rationale for including certain things he says rather than others. Otherwise it's cherry-picking. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have extensively changed my previous edits, hopefully in ways that meet your objections. Everything is now secondary sourced - the rationale for including the things that I have included is that I have included things that have inspired wider comment or reaction - that is, I have chosen his writings, and the incidents in his career, that have been most impactful and widely discussed. As you will see, I've extensively added to the Benedict Option section in a way that reflects the extent of his intellectual achievements and the positive notice he has received. I have also added context on the theological background to his opinions on gender and sexuality, and have included balancing opinions in support of his opinions on gender, sexuality, and race, as well as a balance of opinions on the Benedict Option. Hopefully this meets your concerns about cherry-picking, balance, and sourcing.


 * I believe the current article, in its length and detail, is now appropriate to the prominence of Dreher as a public figure, as the previous article was not. If you have objections to my new edits, please do not, unless you can provide detailed, itemized rationale, delete all of the additions in one go, but rather edit any particular parts of the new article you believe are problematic or could be improved. I think it would be hard to argue that everything I have added is not allowable. I am sure there are still many ways the article could be improved, and I would be happy to collaborate with you in this. Hopefully we can work together, and with others, constructively on this! All I want is a balanced article which expresses the range of Dreher's achievements, his main opinions and areas of interest, and well as the controversies and criticisms, and praise and interest, he has generated. --Robert12345678901 (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my opinion the "Views on sexuality and gender" section is greatly improved, at least. User:Genericusername57, do you have any comment to make? StAnselm (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I cut VDARE (again) - if non-deprecated actually-reliable sources aren't covering it, it's not a thing that's up to WP:BLP muster - and if disputed, probably both WP:RSN and WP:BLPN would be the places to argue it - David Gerard (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're adding absolutely the fringiest sources - The American Conservative should be attributed at best, and the only reason Counter-Currents isn't formally deprecated is that nobody's bothered - this is increasingly looking like the sort of non-notable bio where a fan is pleading "they ARE TOO notable!!" ... and Dreher actually is, and doesn't need these tons of cruft on top - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point about Counter-Currents - I deleted this reference and the sentence it was supporting. The reason the American Conservative is used as a source (though never the sole source) is that it's the publication Dreher writes for. --Robert12345678901 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits coming from IP editor 108.45.91.166
I have reverted some of the recent edits by IP editor 108.45.91.166, while keeping others. Rationale is as follows:

1. Editor has changed “views” to “comments” on the basis that “The issue people have is that they feel [Dreher’s] comments reflect a lack of understanding not that he is racist.” This is incorrect and directly contradicted by multiple cited sources. The philosopher Leonard Harris is quoted in the article calling Dreher a “white nationalist”, and multiple of the sources cited for this sentence directly criticize Dreher for his *views* on race, not just for his comments. (Dreher himself has recognized that Sarah Jones, for example, author of an extended article in the New Republic on Dreher's alleged racism, has accused him of being racist.) The large number of cited reliable sources (including academic publications) for this sentence (and other sources referred to in the "Views on Race and Immigration", "Views on International Affairs", and "Controversies" sections) demonstrate the large number of separate controversies relating to Dreher's views on race that have taken place. I reverted "comments" to "views".

2. “Dreher later expressed regret at his comments on the funeral” is retained for context.

3. Context for Jan 2018 incident is kept in revised form.

4. On Raspail: “avowed admiration” changed to “qualified admiration”. Context, including his criticisms of the book, is retained and added to. See the quotes given, and the Jones article and other cited sources for evidence demonstrating Dreher’s “qualified admiration” for the book.

5. The addition of “assassination of” in the sentence on Pim Fortuyn is altered, because it is grammatically nonsensical to describe an “assassination” as a “martyr”. Clearly, Dreher was describing Fortuyn as a martyr, not the assassination, because a martyr is a person not an event. The fact that Fortuyn was assassinated is added.

6. The editor questions the reliability of sources they describe as “center-left”, while at the same time citing the Guardian as a source for a fact they find useful. If the editor has a problem with Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources they should refer here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and take the debate up in the appropriate forum.

Hopefully the new revision of the article addresses the IP editor’s concerns about context while also retaining accuracy, reflection of reliable sources, and grammatical coherence. Robert12345678901 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to establish a consensus version of the section on Raspail, incorporating the context desired by IP editor 108.45.91.166 while also retaining the factual, thoroughly sourced content that this editor is trying to delete.


 * I restored the inexplicably deleted sentence “Dreher has also referred to the "valuable" and "prophetic" lessons that can be drawn from the work, including Raspail's argument, which Dreher presents as potentially correct, that "the only way to defend Western civilization from these invaders [non-Western immigrants] is to be willing to shed their blood"”. This sentence goes a long way towards explaining why Dreher’s views on the book are controversial, and is clearly factual and backed up by the cited sources.


 * I changed “qualified statements for”, which is grammatically nonsensical as well as failing to explain the controversy, to “qualified praise for”, which is clearly justified by the direct quotations given in the previous paragraph, as well as by the cited sources.


 * Hopefully this paragraph now presents a balanced, thoroughly contextualized, thoroughly sourced account of the Dreher/Raspail controversy. If IP editor 108.45.91.166 persists in altering/deleting/reverting established, thoroughly sourced content, without first engaging in discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page, they will, as previously warned, be reported for edit warring. Robert12345678901 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction of Tone Needed
The tone of this article as it currently stands is inappropriate for a biography of a living person. I am going to clean up the heavy handedness of this piece. It is also terribly "over-cited". Seki1949 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just completed an initial edit of this article and I will let it rest awhile before proceeding with a second edit. Please don't revert without first discussing here. (I have this article on my watchlist.)

I believe this is a severely over-cited article and I would use it as a prime example of this. On the other hand, I respect that someone did some hard (but not very balanced) work and I will be careful if I decide to thin references.

I removed the following sentence and it's citations from the introduction: Dreher has been involved in multiple controversies regarding his views on race.[4]

I may restore it to the 'controversy' section further down in the article after I review the citations. As it is now, it reads as a list of everyone who ever said anything bad about the subject. I may decide to thin the citations to just the most significant criticisms. 47.143.9.113 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss reverts on this talk page. I removed the following sentence and it's citations from the introduction: Dreher has been involved in multiple controversies regarding his views on race.[4] I may restore it to the 'controversy' section further down in the article after I review the citations. As it is now, it reads as a list of everyone who ever said anything bad about the subject. I may decide to thin the citations to just the most significant criticisms. Seki1949 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I restored the second New Yorker quote in the intro on the basis of giving a better over-view of the subject that the race-bating sentence previously there.

Personally I think the Supreme Court citation is useful for balance in this article. Also goes to notability. Seki1949 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the term "race-baiting"? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2020 America charges are racism and fascism are loaded words and should be use with restraint in biographies of living persons. Seki1949 (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by baiting here? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the verbiage tagged on the end of Giorgia Meloni related to fascism. There is a link to her from which there is a link to the MSI (Italian Social Movement). Both Meloni and the MSI have changed and moderated their views over time. I trust the interested reader can click on the appropriate links to read and form their own opinions. Dreher, to my knowledge, has endorsed either Meloni or the MSI. He attended a conference where she was present. "Fascism" is, among other things, an economic theory not necessarily linked to the evils of "Nazism". As used in this article, "fascism" is being used on the smear the subject by "guilt by association." Before reverting, I respectfully request that this be discussed on this Talk Page before further reverts. Seki1949 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the "Excessive citations" template to this article. Among other problems, 15 citations in introduction for one sentence related to "racism controversy". All are not of equal weight. I suggest that this be cut down to 4 to 6 of the strongest citations. I respectfully request that this be discussed on this Talk Page before further reverts. Seki1949 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If Robert1234567890 persists in altering/deleting/reverting additional material and careful editing for balanced tone without first engaging in discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page, they will be reported for edit warring. Seki1949 (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? That editor hasn't made changes to the article since September.
 * As for the tag, you can't have your cake and eat it too. These references are useful in the lead to avoid unjustified removal. Additionally, the references in the lead are bundled into few citations. These references are not disruptive or distracting. As for your repetitious "respectful requests", see WP:BRD. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Further, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Added a citation to guide the reader to the blog post entitled "Tips for Not Getting Shot by Cops" Seki1949 (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC) It has been reverted for no good reason I can think of and with no discussion here. Certainly giving the reader direct access to the blog post being quoted is reasonable. Seki1949 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Added additional quote from Dreher (""Tips for Not Getting Shot by Cops"[62], that the police killing of the teenager Michael Brown was justified, in part because Brown was a "lawbreaker" who "hung out with lawbreakers". Dreher went on to state, "it doesn’t mean that there aren’t big problems with policing in Ferguson."[63][64][65]. The words "lawbreaker" and "who hung out with law breakers"  are legitimate quotes from the blog post, but lifted without any context.  The additional full sentence places Dreher's views in context. Seki1949 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Restored content In May of 2017, the New Yorker wrote, “Because Dreher is at once spiritually and intellectually restless, his blog has become a destination for the ideologically bi-curious.” [5] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/01/rod-drehers-monastic-vision. Adds balance to the article. I respectfully request that this be discussed on this Talk Page before further reverts. Seki1949 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing that my content continues to be reverted without discussion on this 'Talk Page' in an attempt to reach consensus. Interesting my use of quote for citation 4 which seems to be objectionable is from the same article used for citation 3 by other editors. Seki1949 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As I already said, see WP:BRD. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Repetitiously explaining your changes will not build consensus. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick note on this discussion, which re-treads ground that has been covered multiple times on this talk page. WP:UNDUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." MOS:LEDE states that "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The reason for the significant number of citations in the article, which Seki1949 questions, is precisely to demonstrate the prominence of the topic of Dreher's views on race in reliable, published sources, and therefore to demonstrate both the dueness of the significant coverage of this topic in the article and its inclusion in the lede. Robert12345678901 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Date of marriage
Citation needed: Date of marriage. "Citation needed" tag was restored for date of marriage, From the date of publication of the reference "heller" plus the number of years mentioned in the reference, you can calculate the year of marriage. I don't think this is a controversial statement that requires a more specific citation. Comments? Seki1949 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

POV problems
This article has significant POV issues. It looks to have been written from a perspective of piling on perceived controversies with the bulk of the over-abundance of citations coming from biased sources such as The New Republic. Yes, we can use biased sources (typically with attribution), but they shouldn't be the primary form of citation in an article about an ideological opponent, per WP:IMPARTIAL. Marquardtika (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dreher's own word contradict his defenders here (who use fallacious non-substantive attacks like the above to stifle criticism): https://twitter.com/edroso/status/1412458004146962437 P.S. A Tweet isn't a reliable source is disingenuous -- Jibal (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A Tweet isn't a reliable source. And this article (indeed, no articles on Wikipedia) should be about defending or attacking the article subject. We should be building encyclopedic biographical articles based on independent reliable sources. My concern with this article is that it appears some editors have done original research. Marquardtika (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is way over-cited and defended aggressively by editors with an agenda against Rod Dreher. I have made some improvements around the edges, but this article is a good example of biased editing in Wikipedia. Seki1949 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Finding someone who disagrees with something Dreher said or wrote is hardly encyclopedic, and smacks of original research. And what on earth does "Canadian scholar Sherene Razack"'s opinion on Fallaci have to do with Dreher? Take them all out and put one sentence in the Controversy section: "someone has disagreed with just about everything Dreher has said or written."  142.163.195.124 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh
I disagree with the present wording and inclusion of Dreher's Brett Kavanaugh comment. First having included sexual assault in a discussion about gender and sexuality is out of place. Instead, there should be a new section for either the hearing specifically or Dreher's comments on events in current US politics. Dreher wrote a lot about the hearings so there is more information to have. Finally, while this is a sensitive topic, remember to assume good faith. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

“Wiener” incident
I added a mention of the recent controversy about the blog post where Rod offered a detailed description of somebody’s, um, rod.

It sounds more like something out of South Park than reality, but it did in fact happen. And, since it directly led to him losing his blog at TAC and his main source of income, there’s really no way this article could avoid mentioning it. It’s now as notable as anything else about him. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:5FF9 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It is extremely weird. It actually was already mentioned, just without any details. These details are important for understanding what happened and why, so I have consolidated some of this and trimmed it for brevity. Perhaps if more than one reliable source discusses this or indicates lasting encyclopedic significance it might be worth expanding based on that source. Otherwise, despite being weird, it doesn't seem like it needs its own subsection yet. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Orban speech
A while ago Dreher reported some remarks made by Orban that were clearly meant to be off the record, causing an incident that included Ukraine summoning the Hungarian ambassador. The main story didn't get much traction outside The Bulwark, but the summoning was reported by Reuters and other large outlets. Unsure how to include this properly, it definitely seems like a notable part of his "exile".

https://www.thebulwark.com/how-rod-dreher-caused-an-international-scandal-in-eastern-europe/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-summon-hungarian-envoy-over-unacceptable-remarks-by-orban-2023-01-27/

https://www.thebulwark.com/lashing-out-rod-dreher-again-reveals-his-ignorance-of-hungary/

The SPLC also recently published details of Drehers employment at the Danube Institute https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/04/25/rod-dreher-should-register-hungarys-foreign-agent-experts

--jonas (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)