Talk:Desmond Fennell

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brybrydawg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unclear phrasing about time in United States of America.

The section Second "Abroad" Period contains this: In 1993, when he retired from his lecturing post, a month in Minsk, Bielorussia, was followed by a six-weeks holiday in the USA. That sojourn, followed by 15 months in Seattle, led to Fennell’s perception of the contemporary West as “postwestern” and to a related revised view of European history, themes which he has developed in his books since 1996. What is the distinctions between the six weeks and the fifteen months - it may be where in the USA he was, or the purpose of the two periods in time, but the article is unclear about this. Autarch (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction made between the holiday visit (in the Washington state) and the subsequent period of research in Seattle. Messalina 53 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

A lot of the material in this article seems slanted towards the views of Fennell and his supporters, in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Why, for instance, does it say Fennell opposed "the Dublin media" and "its soft line on abortion?" Why not just say Fennell disagreed with the views of Irish liberals on the abortion issue instead? And there's a whole paragraph beginning with "Remarkably" and claims Fennell's recent workk has failed to draw "any considered published reaction in Irish intellectual circles." This is a very serious claim, (that Fennell is producing "important" work that is being ignored by the Irish intellectual community) and no evidence whatsoever is given to support it. I believe the article should be rewritten in a more neutral style. 213.233.148.32 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I know the facts of Fennell's career, I believe in using words to reflect those facts accurately and in my recent changes of (or additions to) the text I kept strictly to this code. If what you say in the first sentence above were true, the article would contain some heroicisation of Fennell. But this is not the case and you do not mention even one instance of it. The page's tone throughout is one of dead-pan narration of facts. Your points in order:

1. Re the Dublin media etc. - the point you are making is not clear. It seems to be a question of reporting the fact either with more completeness and clarity (the present version) or less (your suggestion). However,see rephrasing I have done in the hope of displeasing you less.

2. The par referred to, beginning 'Remarkably', was removed by someone. You must have looked at an earlier version of the page.Messalina 53 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article still has several aspects which read as a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV stance, and read like

they were written by one of Fennell's supporters. For instance:

• The phrase " Fennell provided what he claimed was a critical analysis" has been replaced

with "with his critical analysis of American post-European liberalism, Fennell has taken a dissident stance towards the West's reigning ideology". This is the language of the book blurb, not the reference work.

• " A Connacht Journey (1987) was Fennell's finest book of travel writing." Who has stated

this? There's no reference for it in the piece. This what Wikipedia calls "puffery" : [1]

• A reference to Carol Coulter's description of Fennell's ideas as "conservative nationalism fed on pre-capitalist communalist ideas" against the values of "Western feminism" was removed.

I see no reason at all for this to be removed - most political scientists would see this as an accurate description of Fennell's beliefs. Fennell is often referred to as a "conservative" by many commentators on Irish politics, for instance the December 25, 1985, issue of In These Times magazine has a letter referring to him as "conservative nationalist commentator Desmond Fennell". (p. 14) Coulter may not agree with Fennell's ideas, but there is no reason why her description of him should be deleted. 176.61.94.25 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a suggestion in your comment that Fennell is not being presented in a sufficiently negative light - strange coming from a militant for 'neutrality'. To reply in order:

1. A 'critical analysis' of something means an account of its nature and its plusses or minuses. Fennell has been offering such an account of American post-European liberalism for some years past. Wikipedia can and must state that simple fact. To dodge the issue by saying merely that Fennell 'has claimed' that to be the case, is unworthy of an encyclopaedia and suggests hostile scepticism.

2. Re the book A Connacht Journey(1987), that literary judgement of its comparative quality was intended as helpful to Wikipedia users, but, as per your objection, it has now been deleted.

3. Throughout Fennell's long life there have been thousands of journalistic comments on various aspects of his work. There is no reason why this one alone, from an obscure journal, inserted in the page by a misinformed person should be cited. Glaringly misinformed, inasmuch as it contradicted what was clear in two earlier paragraphs of the Wiki page, namely that Fennell, author of The Revision of Irish Nationalism (1989), has been, in two key respects, a notable and contested modifier of traditional Irish nationalism. And these modifications had nothing to do with 'pre-capitalist/communalist ideas and Western feminism'. So it seems the adjective 'conservative' is used here and in the other obscure journal you mention, not in its accurate, literal sense of 'holding on to old ways and advocating their continuance' but in the prevalent, groupthink Western-liberal sense of 'critical of the liberal agenda and opposed to it and therefore to be disregarded'. Your wish to have Coulter's misleading journalistic quote on the page tells its own, non-neutral, liberal story to anyone, who knows, as I do, that free-thinking Fennell never ranks himself with any ideological group. As for your statement about 'most political scientists', unsupported by a single quote from any such academic, it is also glaringly untrue. Fennell's writings being only marginally political, most political scientists have had nothing to say about his 'beliefs'. The nature, range and development of these are objectively outlined in the Wiki article.Messalina 53 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the excerpt from the letter Fennell wrote to the IT , ""The American Century" on September 27th 1999,

has been removed. It quotes: "the rules of Western civilisation are well known. Massacre and abortion are grievous crimes. Christian morality guides the making of laws. Men's work and women's work are different. Chastity and frugality are admirable virtues. Homosexual relationships are an unnatural vice. Women are legally subordinate to men", etc. If the text was quoted out of context, or Fennell no longer agrees with ideas he espoused in the letter, that is fair enough. Otherwise, I see no reason it should be removed. 176.61.94.25 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you are pursuing your effort to depict Fennell as a 'conservative' in one sense or another. Clearly this is important for you. For myself, 'conservative' is simply a word which, being literate, I would feel obliged to attach to Fennell if his writings were characterised by 'holding on to old ways and advocating their continuance'. But that not being the case, to do so would be to mislead Wiki users, particularly in America. And you yourself have failed to cite even one sentence from his published writings that shows that stance.

You quote above from a Fennell letter to The Irish Times of 14 years ago. (Have you actually read anythingsubstantial by him, any of his 18 books and 13 pamphlets?) In that letter he cites a list of moral rules of 'Western civilisation' which you know to be long out of date and you take this to be evidence of a stuck-in-the-mud, out-of-date 'conservative'. But you don't seem to know that by 'Western civilisation' there, he was talking about a system he believes we have moved out of since the mid-20th century and was listing the main rules that it upheld. His books since 1996 take the view that we Westerners are living now in a 'post-Western, post-European' time. Your misunderstanding of the quote shows that you are not up to date with Fennell's writings and view of the world. Can I conclude by recommending that you abandon your zeal to rank Fennell inside any ideological position which he has not himself assented to or shown clear signs of occupying? That would be a non-neutral interference with the facts. As the first page of his Wiki page makes clear, he has been throughout his life a freethinker in many fields. And it is by definition impossible to fit a freethinker into any stock position or current ideology. let Fennell be - often as annoyingly as freethinkers are - what he is. Is that not a fair description of what 'neutrality' means?Messalina 53 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

To comment on your points:

1: Wikipedia is written like an encyclopaedia, not promotional material. Use of terms like "Fennell claimed" or "Fennell has argued" is common for encyclopedia writing, as a sign of impartiality. To quote as another example: "Rawls' two principles are,he thinks, rationally necessary and universal in the sense that any human being...will arrive at them as a matter of reason". "Fifty Major Political Thinkers", Dyson and Adams, Routledge, 2003. (p. 222)). The use of "He thinks" here is not "dodging the issue" or "suggesting hostile scepticism", but a sign that the authors of the book are trying to consider Rawls' political ideas impartially.

2: To say a book is "finest" or other praise without giving an external source for same praise, suggests, as I said, "Puffery". Stating, for instance, that "The Irish Press called the book his finest work" is fine if a source for this claim is cited.

3: Why is Coulter's quote inaccurate? Why do you believe Fennell's political ideas at the time Coulter's article was written were not "conservative nationalism fed on pre-capitalist communalist ideas" and "a commitment to communal values, against those of Western Feminism"? Can you give material from Fennell's work stating he does not hold any of the positions given to him by Coulter or the ITT piece? Simply calling Coulter's article "misleading" and "glaringly misinformed" doesn't explain why you believe it is factually inaccurate. "Free-thinking Fennell never ranks himself with any ideological group"...well, Fennell is not a liberal, a Marxist, or an anarchist, so he must be either be on the political centre or a right-winger.

4: "you yourself have failed to cite even one sentence from his published writings that shows that stance." On the contrary, you are the person who took issue with Desmond Fennell's entry having a statement by him about politics (the Irish Times letter). Indeed, there seems to be a lack of quotes from Fennell himself on what Fennell's positions on issues are in this Wikipedia article. Also, Fennell's recent piece on his website, "The Staggered End of Western Civilization" (Nov 2011), seems to argue that this " 'post-Western, post-European" condition is inferior to the period guided by "traditional" values that preceded it : "The liberals’ ultimate aim was to use the Big State, the mass media, the universities and science to bring about a perfect human condition...Implicit in that programme were Black civil rights and radical feminism; normalisation of homosexuals and of unmarried mothers and their offspring; political and financial empowerment of young people; maximal facilitation of the physically deficient; invalidation of intrinsic personal authority such as that possessed by clergy, men, parents, teachers and the aged; ample social welfare; unshackling of sex and of pornography of all kinds; legalisation of abortion; and a blank cheque for science....These new rules, combined with some European rules that seemed useful, would affect, besides laws and behaviour, thought and language... the ideological outgrowths from rule changes made the disheartening message clearer still. Out of the simple decriminalisation of homosexuality had grown an aggressive celebration of it; out of the decriminalisation of abortion, an imperious assertion that its legal availability was a necessary characteristic of a good society and that it was a good thing if a woman chose it; out of the opening to women of careers previously closed to them, had grown public celebration of any kind of female achievement or public service except that of good motherhood and out of the ending of legal preferment and privileges for men had issued a downgrading of fathers." http://desmondfennell.com/essay-staggered-end-western-civilisation.htm

This paragraph seems to me to confirm what Fennell said in the IT letter, that he seems to regard the social changes introduced in the 1960s (such as feminism and gay rights) as a harmful break from Western civilization. The rights or wrongs of such social changes are outside the remit of this discussion, but I will note that in "The Staggered End of Western Civilization" , Fennell, far from being a "freethinker" or sui generis in terms of Irish or world politics, certainly seems to be "holding on to old ways and advocating their continuance".

Hence, I do not see any problem with calling Fennell a "right-winger" or "a conservative", though I will add the statement "though Fennell himself rejects such a classification" should be added to any such description.

And to answer your question, yes, I have read "The State of the Nation: Ireland since the 60s " and "Nice People and Rednecks". 176.61.94.25 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

References to Fennell as being a conservative in discussions of his ideas:

• "Fennell defines humanism as basically-compassion and then goes on to assume that this must

be inspired by Christianity...He shows himself to be a conservative in the context of Irish Catholicism, railing against the Second Vatican Council..." Austen Morgan, " Horses for Courses" (Review of Nice People and Red-Necks by Desmond Fennell), Books Ireland, Books Ireland, No. 109 (Dec., 1986), pp. 243-245.

• "Mr Fennell, a conservative Catholic born in Belfast but reared in Dublin..."

John Cooney, "Review of Heresy:The Battle for Ideas in Modern Ireland", The Glasgow Herald, December 4th, 1993.

• "Fennell is one of Ireland's most unusual intellectual figures, a cultural conservative with

an international perspective and a fierce opponent of communism with little affection for the capitalism (sic) system." "Elegy for an Unloved State", The Irish Times, May 10th, 1997, p. 44.

• "In terms of the struggle between true Gaels and West Brits,

Fennell is an unapologetic anti-revisionist +, a sentimental republican, social conservative and keen fan of high church Roman Catholicism". Liam Fay, "Philosopher's Moan", The Sunday Times (Irish Edition), December 2nd, 2001.

+ Fay means Fennell is opposed to the "revisionist" movement in Irish history associated with historians such as Roy Foster.

Austen Morgan is a historian who wrote the books "James Connolly" and "Labour and Partition", so I'd say he is intimately familiar with Political Science in an Irish context. One Irish journal, "Books Ireland", (which, incidentally, Fennell has contributed to; see . "The Sweetness to the End" Desmond Fennell Books Ireland, No. 227 (Dec., 1999)), a British Newspaper, an Irish newspaper and the Irish edition of a British newspaper. None of those are "obscure journals". If all these people, analysing Fennell's work, use the term "conservative" to characterise it, then I see no problem with using it on the entry (with the caveat, of course, that "Fennell himself rejects such a characterisation of his political views"). 176.61.94.25 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last contribution points toward a solution on which we might agree. Fennell has written much, in his freethinking way, on travel, thinking, literary matters and art, as well as on the cultural, religious and social aspects of public affairs. Your interest is only in the public affairs part, and you seem to want Wikipedia to define Fennell's public-affairs writing as 'conservative'. But truth matters and the trouble is that you have not quoted from any work of Fennell's on public affairs that shows him 'advocating the continuance of old ways or a return to them' i.e. a 'conservative.

It would be difficult to do that in view of his many writings urging the completion of the cultural and intellectual aims of the Irish Revolution; his four years during the Vatican Council as assistant editor, then editor, of the progressive Catholic journal Herder Correspondence distributed worldwide; his writings, accompanied by maps, advocating the entire restructuring of local government in the Republic and of Ireland as a four-province federation; his contribution to a Richard Kearney book of the first full account (sympathetic in tone) of the history of Irish socialism; the academic course he chose to teach in the Politics Dept of University College Galway on the Constitution of Socialist Yugoslavia - a political system which he admired; his sympathetic account in his book Dreams of Oranges of the fall of the East German Communist state; and finally, in recent years, his writings for, and books published by, the successor group of the British and Irish Communist Association (see last par of Wiki page)...

The journalistic quotes about Fennell from years gone by that you have revealed in this Talk (you have obviously assembled a great archive of Fennell references!) do indeed refer to Fennell as a 'conservative' - without saying how or why. The reason is obvious. Since the arrival in the late 1960s of the new American liberalism, Fennell has been a critic of this ideology and the framework for life that it offers and imposes. (He has been with regard to it, in other words, what the so-called 'dissidents' were with regard to the reigning ideology in East European Communist countries.) The new liberalism defined itself as Progress and this definition of it came came to be generally accepted by the Western mass media. So, following the American lead, in English-speaking countries critics of the new 'Correctness' were termed 'conservatives', meaning opponents of liberal Progress. And the label 'conservative' in this special liberal sense came to be attached conventionally to Fennell in journalistic organs. I accept that this sort of factual explanation of references to Fennell as a 'conservative' (otherwise weird in the light of his actual career) should be mentioned and explained in the Wiki page, possibly at the end of the introductory paragraph, and I will see to it that this is done. Messalina 53 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request

I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The prior request in regard to this dispute was deleted as stale after being listed for six days, in accordance with 3O guidelines. I see that it has been relisted, which is acceptable, but you should know that if it wasn't taken by anyone in the first six days, it's pretty unlikely that it will in the next six. It would really help your chances, however, (a) if someone could go back and properly indent the above wall-o-text to make it easier to follow and (b) if you could narrow down the issues on which you want help upon into one or two specific issues and summarize them each in a paragraph no longer than Messalina's last paragraph, above (the one that starts "The journalistic quotes about Fennell..."). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (Note to other Third Opinion Wikipedians: I'm unlikely to give an opinion on this request, so feel free to do so if you like. — TM)

Thanks for weighing in, TransporterMan. The disagreements between myself and the other

poster can be boiled down to two issues;

• Fennell himself claims he is not a conservative, but many commentators on Irish politics (including ones

both sympathetic and hostile to Fennell's ideas) have classed Fennell's social or religous thought as conservative. Something along the lines of "Some writers have classed Fennell's thought as conservative, although he himself rejects this classification" would be fine.

• Some of the language in the article seems to me to be in violation of

Wikipedia's Manual of Style. [[2]]. Phrases such as "with his critical analysis" " would-be liberals", "he wrestled with the consumerist liberalism ", " it found fault with him" ... ...all these phrases seem to me to fall into the "Words that may introduce bias" category, and should be removed to make the article more like an encyclopedia entry. 176.61.94.25 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

On the first issue, are you referring to the sentence in the introduction that currently reads "As a result of Fennell's recurrent criticism of the American liberal framework for life, real or would-be liberals in the media have often termed him a 'conservative'."? If so, I would propose changing to "As a result of Fennell's recurrent criticisms of American liberal philosophy, some media commentators have described him as a conservative, though he does not personally identify as such." Or something like that. Your above proposal also seems reasonable. Are there any objections to this? (By the way, I am just trusting that these are true and verifiable statements. If they aren't, that's a problem).

Regarding the tone, I think you're right that this could be improved all around. There is something quite odd about the sentence structures that are used, and I would recommend trying to use more plain language. I'm not sure what else I can offer as a third opinion reviewer, but if there are any other specific issues, let me know. Keihatsu ^talk 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to poster 176 etc., I have made a number of changes on the page at your suggestion. Fennell has never said anything about conservatism regarding himself or others , so he cannot be quoted on the matter. But as the page now says, although media descriptions have frequently termed him a conservative in the sense of a critic of American liberalism, his career shows that he has not been an advocate of old ways or of a return to them. Can't we leave it at that? It is the neutral truth.Messalina 53 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is now, also at your suggestion, no reference to 'critical analysis'. Although 'would-be's' or fellow-travellers exist in every ideological grouping, I'll remove it to please you. The two verbal phrases mentioned are factual descriptions in plain English of two Fennell actions that occurred. I have nothing more to say about the Fennell page.Messalina 53 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those changes seem to be fine. Thank you. 176.61.94.25 (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the non-neutral notice on the Desmond Fennell Wiki page. Non-neutral means that the biog in question either heroicises or denigrates the subject, and I can't find evidence of either on the page. It seems to be an ordered statement of biographical facts. From reading this talk page, I understand that poster 176.61.94.25 seems to have inserted this notice but that, in the end, he/she was satisfied with the changes made by Messalina53. According to Wikipedia's policy, the NPOV tag ought to be removed once a consensus is reached, as seems to be the case with this dispute. Could 176.61.94.25 please remove the non-neutrality notice and spare casual visitors like me the pointless labour of inspecting the page to discover something that isn't there? Mitchmacp (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Introducing New Edits

I am a student editor at Texas A&M University, and I will be working on this article for the next few weeks. I will be working on fixing the tone of this article, and will be taking a look at the organization of it as well. I read through the previous issues discussed on the talk page, and I plan to address what was worked through within my edits. I will continue to update my future plans here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brybrydawg (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As I am working on this article, I want to respect the NPOV discussed earlier in the talk page. I see that @Autarch: has tagged NPOV most recently, and have myself found several instances where this occurs. I plan to address these issues (specifically NPOV, BLP, and NOR) in a Sandbox that I will be posting within the next week or so. My initial goal is to start with the reorganization of this article to shape it more like a BLP as well as to push it towards a more encyclopedic tone.

Brybrydawg (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Here is a link to my sandbox, which reflects all of the edits I would like to make. Please let me know if you agree with these changes and if I should go forth in enacting them. Desmond Fennell Sandbox Edits

I changed the organization of this article slightly. Certain headings had NPOV or no encyclopedic tone in their labels, such as “confronting consumerist liberalism,” and separated content that was very similar to one another. As a solution, I made most current headings subheadings, and used the similarities to form main headings.

I also marked quite a few areas in which citations were needed, however most information does seem to be Original Research. Certain claims appear to violate NPOV and NOR, unless there is an appropriate citation that can be listed to back up these claims.

The rest of my edits addressed NPOV. With a majority of instances, I made sure any claims were clearly marked as claims. Additionally, I cut out any information that did not contribute to any facts and that violated NPOV. The rest of my edits were largely grammar-oriented.

Here is a list of a few of my major edits:

• change "pioneering" to "developing" (NPOV)
• change "enjoyed a fruitful collaboration" to "collaborated" (NPOV)
• change "Confronting consumerist liberalism" to "Approaching consumerist liberalism" (NPOV)
• Germany again- global experience and activism
• change "An influential column" to "a column" (NPOV)
• change "An Ireland, a Europe and a world" to "an Ireland" (Encyclopedic Tone, NPOV)
• DELETE: "That American holiday proved an intellectual turning point." (NPOV, Encyclopedic Tone)
• DELETE: "Fennell's concluding views on Ireland and the contemporary West can be found in Third Stroke Did It: The Staggered End of European Civilisationand in About Being Normal: My Life in Abnormal Circumstances, Somerville Press. 2017." (WP:NOT, Promotion Policy)
• DELETE: "by failing to present to westerners the sense-for-life that enables any such system to endure," (NPOV)
• change "made bearable" to "reformed"(NPOV)

Once last comment: the author mentions the liberals' "soft line on abortion and their anti-nationalist historical revisionism as well." I would like a second opinion as to whether or not this is NPOV, or just factual. Brybrydawg (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Update

I went ahead and implemented these changes in hopes that bold edits will advance this article in the right direction. Still, much of the content in this article needs to be appropriately researched and cited. Brybrydawg (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)