Talk:Douglas Murray (author)/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Douglas Murray (author). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Murray and white nationalism
The article currently does not contain text identifying an association between Murray and white nationalism (using Bloomfield or any other source). Do editors want to add text along those lines? Perhaps best to start afresh, so that we are actually focusing on a proposed edit of some sort (something distinct from removing a source). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the opposition to the sources claiming Murray is White Nationalist or connected to it, I see no reason to include this and it would likely not pass BLP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we have to see what the sources say. If the only source explicitly using the term "white nationalist" and Murray is the one we discussed before then I think its UNDUE. If a source says, Murray thinks XYZ, white nationalists think Z, I would say include XYZ but I would be hesitant to include "white nationalist think Z". In that case is the fact that Z is something that white nationalist thing critical or inherent to understanding the problem with Z? This gets back to a common BLP concern I have. Many sources use labels as a handy way to dismiss criticism/political opponents. Often the actual positions are far more complex or at least less black and white. In the US bussing was opposed by people who's motives were racist and non-racist. Why someone opposed bussing is probably more important in understanding the person than just that they opposed it. This and because BLP should avoid contentious labels when not needed. If nothing else, an article filled with such labels looks like it's written to sway the reader rather than inform in an impartial fashion. Springee (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- At least one other source makes a connection to "white nationalism", so the connection is not as outrageously fringe-ish as some seem to think. Jonathan Portes: (Murray's) "recent book, The Strange Death of Europe, is essentially an intellectual version of the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory advocated by white nationalists here and the US – that liberal elites are plotting the demographic transformation of Western societies." so, summarised, Portes is saying the book is an intellectual version of theory advocated by white nationalists. Not exactly a "Murray is a white nationalist" claim, but a long way from a "clean slate". There may be other sources also. I've never asked the question this way round. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Two sources of dubious merit, as discussed above to my mind, are not enough to include especially for a BLP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- But no one wants to say that Murray is a white nationalist AFAI can see. Some editors (inc yourself) want to exclude these sources simply because they make links to white nationalist thinking or ideas. Jonathan Portes is a distinguished academic and former senior UK government adviser, The piece is an extended essay, and he's not even very left-wing, so what precisely makes him 'of dubious merit'? Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps of interest:
- From one of the founding members of the Henry Jackson Society: Mathew Jamison - Brendan Simms and the racist corrupt Henry Jackson Society, 18 February 2017.
- The Express - Douglas Murray - Britain has let in far too many foreigners, 15 April 2011.
- Perhaps of interest:
- But no one wants to say that Murray is a white nationalist AFAI can see. Some editors (inc yourself) want to exclude these sources simply because they make links to white nationalist thinking or ideas. Jonathan Portes is a distinguished academic and former senior UK government adviser, The piece is an extended essay, and he's not even very left-wing, so what precisely makes him 'of dubious merit'? Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Two sources of dubious merit, as discussed above to my mind, are not enough to include especially for a BLP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- At least one other source makes a connection to "white nationalism", so the connection is not as outrageously fringe-ish as some seem to think. Jonathan Portes: (Murray's) "recent book, The Strange Death of Europe, is essentially an intellectual version of the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory advocated by white nationalists here and the US – that liberal elites are plotting the demographic transformation of Western societies." so, summarised, Portes is saying the book is an intellectual version of theory advocated by white nationalists. Not exactly a "Murray is a white nationalist" claim, but a long way from a "clean slate". There may be other sources also. I've never asked the question this way round. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Marko Attila Hoare - The Henry Jackson Society and Douglas Murray, 29 July 2011.
- ← ZScarpia 00:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- 1. The first article is a hit piece by a disgruntled former member of the HJS who is simply mudslinging Murray and Prof. Simms. The second is an article by Murray where he expresses his view of that Europe should taken in less immigrants, people might not agree, but that is hardly a white nationalist position. He also defends David Cameroon, hardly a fringe far right leaders. Third has the same problems as three, but is a personal blog, which wiki discourages. None of these I find supportive of trying to allege a connection between white nationalism and Murray. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that these sources have no value for any connection to white nationalism and probably none anywhere, even if I don't agree with your analysis of them. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- 1. The first article is a hit piece by a disgruntled former member of the HJS who is simply mudslinging Murray and Prof. Simms. The second is an article by Murray where he expresses his view of that Europe should taken in less immigrants, people might not agree, but that is hardly a white nationalist position. He also defends David Cameroon, hardly a fringe far right leaders. Third has the same problems as three, but is a personal blog, which wiki discourages. None of these I find supportive of trying to allege a connection between white nationalism and Murray. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Portes wrote "Unsurprisingly, therefore, Murray shares Scruton's views that immigrants and their children – if they're not white – can't 'really' be British. He warns of "white Britons" becoming a minority in "their own capital city" and claims London has become a "foreign country". So black, Asian and mixed-race Brits – no matter if they're born here – seem under this view to be foreigners, and London isn't 'their' capital." So even though neither Murray or Scruton believe this, Portes says so because they object to Europe's current Immigration and assimilation systems, such systems that are also criticized by Merkal, Macron, and a host of mainstream European politicians. Mudslinging, bad-faith scholarship, and intellectual hackery are not sufficient evidence to accuse a BLP of being linked to white nationalism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is also this gem "Sadly, intellectual, political and street-level bigotry are inseparable, both in theory and practice. Just as there was a direct link from Powell's rhetoric to the rise of the National Front in the late 1960s, Scruton's writings from the 2000s could have come straight from the BNP manifesto of the time, and legitimised those who made such claims. The same spectrum exists today, between Scruton's defenders in the Spectator and Telegraph and Tommy Robinson and the newly-radicalised Ukip." Here Portes claims that Scruton for raising issues with said policy is some how the same as BNP thugs, this sounds an awful lot like when conservatives claim an criticism of wealth inequality is the same as communism, both are nonsense and both should not be used a proof. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- You think Portes has unfairly summarised Murray and Scruton - therefore Portes as a source is valueless IYO. If it's any consolation, I think most of the ++ reviews are twaddle, but we don't evaluate a source based on whether we personally think the writer has been fair, judicious etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Its hardly personal, when basic research shows that someone is wrong as in the case of Portes it displays basic issue of competence of this issue and also is a clear example of mudslinging and bad faith, it should be ignored. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know how long you have been editing here, but "basic research shows that someone is wrong" is WP:OR, which we don't do, EVER. I happen to think that you don't demonstrate anything AT ALL being wrong with Portes'analysis, but I consciously tried to avoid answering in those terms, because that isn't the point. Even if you were able to convince editors that Portes was wrong or that his criticisms were unfounded or exaggerated, it would make little difference. That is not how we assess sources. If we did it for Portes, why not do it for Murray? I did not mean to imply anything personal, but however you or I describe it, you consider yourself a more objective judge of Murray than Portes is. You are of course entitled to that opinion as a reader, but you are never going to persuade other editors of that approach to editing. It would simply be unworkable for us to operate like that. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- On talk pages we can do OR to evaluate claims sources are making. What we can't do is put that OR into the article. Per OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." OR is part of how we can establish weight (or more correctly WP:PROPORTION). Springee (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course WP:OR is allowed on the talk page, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise, but I've never known this level of OR being employed to discredit a source. Especially when the source is only currently being used to verify a relatively uncontroversial claim, and so much of the 'refutation' is framed as being self-evident to the writer - it isn't to me. However, to spare others the agony of reading my WP:OR response to 3Kingdoms' WP:OR about Portes, I invite everyone to read it and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. I strongly believe that its thesis and arguments are well within legitimate bounds and the objections to it boil down to "these criticisms are wrong", but if others form another opinion, so be it.
- A couple of reactions to 3Kingdoms' last points. I see no connection WHATSOEVER between Murray and Merkel or Macron, nor their prescriptions for immigration or dealing with existing minority groups. AFAIK, neither Merkel nor Macron has written a book, the very title of which implies that 'outsiders', especially one religious group, are causing "The Strange Death of Europe". No serious person doubts that there always have been limits on how many 'outsiders' any country can comfortably absorb. But most mainstrean European parties, politicians and religious groups find it utterly repellent to decide who gets in and who stays out on the basis of race or religion, or to demonise one group already within the society. Such people (who the old-Etonian Murray would probably label 'liberal elites") - think that, even the suggestion of doing so, is an anathema to European liberal and European christian values. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your point is quite valid. Any time we discuss weight/proportion we are engaging in talk page OR. That doesn't mean all of these OR arguments are equally convincing. I've seen a number of similar cases at other articles where an academic source publishing in the area of political science. So much of political science is often opposing opinions (is this comment a dog whistle or not, could a non "-ist" person legitimately hold this view). Wikipedia articles too often end up being a collection of quotes where editors find the unflattering things expert A said about person B. Rarely do we get a discussion that really helps readers better understand why a person might take a particular position. As a hypothetical, Mr Smith's article might have quotes saying "Prof Jones says Mr Smith is against equal pay for women since he is opposed to the new "Equal Pay for Women Now" law." Sometimes it's hard to find the RS article that says Mr Smith is against the law not because he is against equal pay but because the law has troubling specific rules like forcing employers to share salary data, legal presumption of guilt in the face of accusations of gender bias in pay, etc. Incidentally, I found this sort of thing very frustrating in the various gun politics related articles I've been involved with. It seems to be easy to find RS articles that explain why [gun rights group] is wrong for opposing [sensible new gun law] but finding RS approved sources that explain why such opposition isn't just "they oppose everything" is often harder. I guess part of my problem is I tend to believe these aren't black and white issues but often Wikipedia articles, in large part due to what RSs are readily available, are written as though they were. This is also why I find the emphasis on scarlet letter labels vs substance to be a problem ("linked to [label]") Springee (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here are two examples of both Marcon and Merkal talking about this issue[1] & [2]. I don't wish to go back and forth on this since its not the point. The point is that Portes at best misconstrued the views of Murray and Scruton or worse simply decided to mudslinging or lie about them. Its just not worth having it or other articles here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any parts in these in which either Macron or Merkel suggested entry into each's country should be on the basis of religion, nor where Macron or Merkel suggested returning the grandchildren of migrants to their 'home' country, as Murray has done, nor how any of this could be achieved in practice (how exactly do you work out who is a Muslim - especially as part of processing a refugee application on Lesbos). Nor do Macron or Merkel endorse most of the contentious aspects of "Strange Death". Saying that there are problems of integration is a whole different ball game from demonising a particular religious group, it's a difference of tone and content. The former everybody agrees with sometimes, the second stands no chance of being constructive or practical or, much of the time, even legal. You think Murray is doing the former, I think that both Murray - and to a lesser extent - Scruton are doing the latter. IMO they are both creating problems far more than they are identifying or solving them. Portes sincerely believes his analysis of Murray and Scruton AFAI can see. Quite a lot of people hold opinions similar to Portes, including that the content and tone in which people like Murray choose to express their opinions, directly impact on levels of abuse and violence against minorities at street level and achieve nothing positive. You may have contempt for such critics and dismiss them as 'mudslinging' but their views represent a significant part of academic and popular opinion. You are welcome to find academics or similar who praise Murray's ideas if you wish. Perhaps there are good reasons why they barely exist. The REAL point is that you want to exclude sources that criticise Murray and appear to look upon their criticism as so self evidently wrong as to be beneath anybody's contempt. I stand by my own view that Portes's assessment of Murray (which in part is a review of "Strange Death") is well inside the reasonable bounds of criticism and is a damned sight better informed and intelligently argued than the vacuously uncritical drivel from the Telegraph or Times. But let everybody read Portes and decide for themselves. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given your response its pretty clear that there is an issue with POV on your part saying "vacuously uncritical drivel from the Telegraph or Times" and a Varity of other statements. You have not provided evidence that Murray's argued that grandchildren of Migrants born in Europe should be deported. As Springge and myself have pointed out the issue is one of undue weight and BLP, along with fringe on my part, which to mind my has not been addressed. Finally "The REAL point is that you want to exclude sources that criticize Murray and appear to look upon their criticism as so self evidently wrong as to be beneath anybody's contempt." incorrect I have no issue with criticism on Murray on here I object to poor sources that given undue weight and fringe views on a BLP. Do not misrepresent what I am saying please. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The accusation that Murray proposed that the descendants of immigrants should be liable to deportation if they opposed UK or any allied govt military action, I have given before. But again, it was made by Paul Goodman, a former Conservative MP and associate of Murray's in response to a speech Murray gave in Holland. Murray's words:"European Muslims who "take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the west must be forcibly deported to their place of origin" … Goodman's response: Murray explained that by "the west" he meant western troops as well as western countries. "Where a person was born in the west," he (Murray) said, "they should be deported to the country of origin of their parent or grandparent … A reasonable reading of his words is that any British Muslim who opposed whatever war an allied Government was waging at the time should be expelled from his home country". Full sad sorry saga of Murray's refusal to distance himself from these words here.
- Given your response its pretty clear that there is an issue with POV on your part saying "vacuously uncritical drivel from the Telegraph or Times" and a Varity of other statements. You have not provided evidence that Murray's argued that grandchildren of Migrants born in Europe should be deported. As Springge and myself have pointed out the issue is one of undue weight and BLP, along with fringe on my part, which to mind my has not been addressed. Finally "The REAL point is that you want to exclude sources that criticize Murray and appear to look upon their criticism as so self evidently wrong as to be beneath anybody's contempt." incorrect I have no issue with criticism on Murray on here I object to poor sources that given undue weight and fringe views on a BLP. Do not misrepresent what I am saying please. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any parts in these in which either Macron or Merkel suggested entry into each's country should be on the basis of religion, nor where Macron or Merkel suggested returning the grandchildren of migrants to their 'home' country, as Murray has done, nor how any of this could be achieved in practice (how exactly do you work out who is a Muslim - especially as part of processing a refugee application on Lesbos). Nor do Macron or Merkel endorse most of the contentious aspects of "Strange Death". Saying that there are problems of integration is a whole different ball game from demonising a particular religious group, it's a difference of tone and content. The former everybody agrees with sometimes, the second stands no chance of being constructive or practical or, much of the time, even legal. You think Murray is doing the former, I think that both Murray - and to a lesser extent - Scruton are doing the latter. IMO they are both creating problems far more than they are identifying or solving them. Portes sincerely believes his analysis of Murray and Scruton AFAI can see. Quite a lot of people hold opinions similar to Portes, including that the content and tone in which people like Murray choose to express their opinions, directly impact on levels of abuse and violence against minorities at street level and achieve nothing positive. You may have contempt for such critics and dismiss them as 'mudslinging' but their views represent a significant part of academic and popular opinion. You are welcome to find academics or similar who praise Murray's ideas if you wish. Perhaps there are good reasons why they barely exist. The REAL point is that you want to exclude sources that criticise Murray and appear to look upon their criticism as so self evidently wrong as to be beneath anybody's contempt. I stand by my own view that Portes's assessment of Murray (which in part is a review of "Strange Death") is well inside the reasonable bounds of criticism and is a damned sight better informed and intelligently argued than the vacuously uncritical drivel from the Telegraph or Times. But let everybody read Portes and decide for themselves. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here are two examples of both Marcon and Merkal talking about this issue[1] & [2]. I don't wish to go back and forth on this since its not the point. The point is that Portes at best misconstrued the views of Murray and Scruton or worse simply decided to mudslinging or lie about them. Its just not worth having it or other articles here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your point is quite valid. Any time we discuss weight/proportion we are engaging in talk page OR. That doesn't mean all of these OR arguments are equally convincing. I've seen a number of similar cases at other articles where an academic source publishing in the area of political science. So much of political science is often opposing opinions (is this comment a dog whistle or not, could a non "-ist" person legitimately hold this view). Wikipedia articles too often end up being a collection of quotes where editors find the unflattering things expert A said about person B. Rarely do we get a discussion that really helps readers better understand why a person might take a particular position. As a hypothetical, Mr Smith's article might have quotes saying "Prof Jones says Mr Smith is against equal pay for women since he is opposed to the new "Equal Pay for Women Now" law." Sometimes it's hard to find the RS article that says Mr Smith is against the law not because he is against equal pay but because the law has troubling specific rules like forcing employers to share salary data, legal presumption of guilt in the face of accusations of gender bias in pay, etc. Incidentally, I found this sort of thing very frustrating in the various gun politics related articles I've been involved with. It seems to be easy to find RS articles that explain why [gun rights group] is wrong for opposing [sensible new gun law] but finding RS approved sources that explain why such opposition isn't just "they oppose everything" is often harder. I guess part of my problem is I tend to believe these aren't black and white issues but often Wikipedia articles, in large part due to what RSs are readily available, are written as though they were. This is also why I find the emphasis on scarlet letter labels vs substance to be a problem ("linked to [label]") Springee (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- On talk pages we can do OR to evaluate claims sources are making. What we can't do is put that OR into the article. Per OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." OR is part of how we can establish weight (or more correctly WP:PROPORTION). Springee (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know how long you have been editing here, but "basic research shows that someone is wrong" is WP:OR, which we don't do, EVER. I happen to think that you don't demonstrate anything AT ALL being wrong with Portes'analysis, but I consciously tried to avoid answering in those terms, because that isn't the point. Even if you were able to convince editors that Portes was wrong or that his criticisms were unfounded or exaggerated, it would make little difference. That is not how we assess sources. If we did it for Portes, why not do it for Murray? I did not mean to imply anything personal, but however you or I describe it, you consider yourself a more objective judge of Murray than Portes is. You are of course entitled to that opinion as a reader, but you are never going to persuade other editors of that approach to editing. It would simply be unworkable for us to operate like that. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Its hardly personal, when basic research shows that someone is wrong as in the case of Portes it displays basic issue of competence of this issue and also is a clear example of mudslinging and bad faith, it should be ignored. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- You think Portes has unfairly summarised Murray and Scruton - therefore Portes as a source is valueless IYO. If it's any consolation, I think most of the ++ reviews are twaddle, but we don't evaluate a source based on whether we personally think the writer has been fair, judicious etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is also this gem "Sadly, intellectual, political and street-level bigotry are inseparable, both in theory and practice. Just as there was a direct link from Powell's rhetoric to the rise of the National Front in the late 1960s, Scruton's writings from the 2000s could have come straight from the BNP manifesto of the time, and legitimised those who made such claims. The same spectrum exists today, between Scruton's defenders in the Spectator and Telegraph and Tommy Robinson and the newly-radicalised Ukip." Here Portes claims that Scruton for raising issues with said policy is some how the same as BNP thugs, this sounds an awful lot like when conservatives claim an criticism of wealth inequality is the same as communism, both are nonsense and both should not be used a proof. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do think that the Telegraph and Times reviews are vacuous drivel:"His overall thesis, that a guilt-driven and exhausted Europe is playing fast and loose with its precious modern values by embracing migration on such a scale, is hard to refute." It is actually very EASY to refute that the majority of people in Europe are "guilt-driven" or "exhausted". Equally easy to refute that any European govt has "embraced migration" from outside Europe on ANY scale for many years now. When people land in Lesbos or Lampedusa, you can't pretend that you don't see them or pretend that politely asking them to leave is going to persuade them back across the Mediterranean. There is no simple or perfect solution to that as any sensible person can see, but this is not called "embracing migration", it's called acknowledging the reality of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of you and trying to be as humane as possible in how you deal with it. So yes, IMO the Telegraph review is vacuous drivel written by someone without the most basic knowledge of the subject they are writing about, but I don't try to remove it from the article because it articulates a response to the book published in a notable publication. It isn't me trying to remove things I don't agree with. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Mr Murray's actual words differ from what you put inside quotes. If you correct your post, I will not object to removal of this response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a source. However Murray proposed this in the context of terrorism or abetting, it not simply opposing British involvement in the Iraq war or else where. Admittedly I find Murray's proposal to unworkable, and goes against the spirt of birthright citizenship, admittedly an American thing, but none the less. However on that note given that Murray was arguing this under the idea of the West being at war with radical Islam, this sounds similar to the reasoning of the US in deporting Clement Vallandigham In essence he not only actively opposed the war and with the enemy, so should he not be removed? Proably not, but it is an argument that people have when war breaks out. The second response is again POV and has little to no bearing on the issue at hand. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, I didn't put anything in quotes, I copied directly from the ConservativeHome website, adding only "Murray's words/Goodman's response because joining mid-sentence made the voices unclear. There are various versions of this speech on the net, partly because Murray has retrospectively edited those which he exercises control over - that editing is also made clear in the ConservativeHome website. I have every reason to believe that the ConservativeHome source and the one we use in the article are accurate as to what was said and originally published. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since you refuse to make the obvious and minor correction, I guess it will have to suffice that I quote what's on wayback going back to 2006, and which conservativehome says it is citing. Murray's words: "And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, sorry, I think I'm missing something. What is the minor correction that you say I refuse to make? I don't include, nor does ConservativeHome, the bit in parenthesis, but I don't see how the parenthetical alters the meaning, except to make the proposal even more outrageously impractical (how West is West?). Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since you refuse to make the obvious and minor correction, I guess it will have to suffice that I quote what's on wayback going back to 2006, and which conservativehome says it is citing. Murray's words: "And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, I didn't put anything in quotes, I copied directly from the ConservativeHome website, adding only "Murray's words/Goodman's response because joining mid-sentence made the voices unclear. There are various versions of this speech on the net, partly because Murray has retrospectively edited those which he exercises control over - that editing is also made clear in the ConservativeHome website. I have every reason to believe that the ConservativeHome source and the one we use in the article are accurate as to what was said and originally published. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a source. However Murray proposed this in the context of terrorism or abetting, it not simply opposing British involvement in the Iraq war or else where. Admittedly I find Murray's proposal to unworkable, and goes against the spirt of birthright citizenship, admittedly an American thing, but none the less. However on that note given that Murray was arguing this under the idea of the West being at war with radical Islam, this sounds similar to the reasoning of the US in deporting Clement Vallandigham In essence he not only actively opposed the war and with the enemy, so should he not be removed? Proably not, but it is an argument that people have when war breaks out. The second response is again POV and has little to no bearing on the issue at hand. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Mr Murray's actual words differ from what you put inside quotes. If you correct your post, I will not object to removal of this response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do think that the Telegraph and Times reviews are vacuous drivel:"His overall thesis, that a guilt-driven and exhausted Europe is playing fast and loose with its precious modern values by embracing migration on such a scale, is hard to refute." It is actually very EASY to refute that the majority of people in Europe are "guilt-driven" or "exhausted". Equally easy to refute that any European govt has "embraced migration" from outside Europe on ANY scale for many years now. When people land in Lesbos or Lampedusa, you can't pretend that you don't see them or pretend that politely asking them to leave is going to persuade them back across the Mediterranean. There is no simple or perfect solution to that as any sensible person can see, but this is not called "embracing migration", it's called acknowledging the reality of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of you and trying to be as humane as possible in how you deal with it. So yes, IMO the Telegraph review is vacuous drivel written by someone without the most basic knowledge of the subject they are writing about, but I don't try to remove it from the article because it articulates a response to the book published in a notable publication. It isn't me trying to remove things I don't agree with. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution suggestion
Given that it appears both sides are still firmly in their position. Should we ask for a dispute resolution or some form of third party intervention to decide how best to move forward? Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Murray
Pretty much the leftist establishment arguments against any serious and rational intellectual, that doesn't share their views. I have heard a lot of his speeches and arguments and they don't go in the direction the article suggests. Shortly he is very logical in his positions and is by no means anti muslim, just a critic of an ideology. Not an extremist but a normal right wing guy. And now it's pretty much offensive to be of the right in any sense. People compete of how leftist and tolerant they are. I do not know the real process of publishing the articles in this enciclopedia, but I have read thousands and there is clearly a unified version of the world and similar points of view, even similar, robotic almost, narrative style. Things that make me consider it is a minority view that is presented like a free, pluralistic enciclopedia, created by cultured people all over the world. 188.27.130.214 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- YOU'RE CANCELLED. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Criticism section needs secondary coverage
I tried to fix what I thought was an issue with this section, and it was reverted. The issue is that a lot of commentary is actually cited by primary sources. As I understand it, these are primary sources because we are directly interpreting the author's stance, rather than quoting something stated by the author in the source. Yes, for the purposes of this article, anything published by Murray would be a primary source, unequivocally. But pieces about Murray written by others can also be primary, if all we do is use the source to make a statement about what the author is saying in the work.
Here is an example:
Arun Kundnani, who has written on radicalization, said in an article for Security and Human Rights that the "counterjihadist" ideology embodied by Murray and other conservative intellectuals is, "through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse... able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence".
The source: "Blind spot? Security narratives and far-right violence" by Arun Kundnani.
Not only are we incorporating something with unknown notability (secondary coverage is an ideal proxy), we are interpreting Kundnani ourselves, risking original interpretation. There are many ways Kundnani could be used as a secondary source, but what is there now is NOT a valid way.
Now, suppose a NYT journalist wrote in a NYT piece: "Arun Kundnani says Murray risks empowering the right-wing...etc." THAT would be the requisite secondary coverage that would make the sentence appropriate.
As it stands, that sentence (along with MANY others, including statements/rebuttals by Murray) are NOT secondary, and thus are not "ideally-sourced", and per WP:BLP, MUST be removed. 174.193.197.29 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- You don't understand primary sources. In this context, the primary source would be the book, interview or article by Murray, which we would not interpret ourselves. Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
He has a new book
I was looking through audiobooks to listen to when I saw "The War On The West." I read the blurb and saw it was conservative ramblings. Mostly "the west is dying," "we need to bring back traditional values," "murica is the best nation evar," "political correctness I mean cancel twitter is evil and must be stopped"
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a review or any non-primary source for it aside from websites like Fox News and the Epoch Times. I don't think we're allowed to use them in 90% of cases? It's been a while though and I don't remember how reliable they're rated off the top of my head.
Here's the book if you wanna look into it further. Just judging from the blurb, I don't think it's worth reading. https://www.amazon.com/War-West-Douglas-Murray/dp/0063162024
Lord-of-Midnight-18 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Lord-of-Midnight-18
His books are brilliant and insightful - read The Madness of Crowds. Unfortunately, the media (broadly) resorts to censorship or name calling (e.g. far right, conspiracy theorist) any time someone shares a critical thought that differs from their own - behavior aligned to the fascist Nazi playbook and intellectually stifling. So much for original thought and intellectual curiosity right? How will we ever learn if we don't hear different perspectives from different points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.46.95 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022
 | This edit request to Douglas Murray (author) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Boris Johnson is referred to as the "current" Prime Minister. This is now false. 128.84.126.139 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Foreign policy
Valkrie11 why don't you like the sub-headings? Seems a bit hard to follow this section without them. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I find that it takes up more room on the page than necessary. Valkrie11 (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Valkrie11 OK. Do you object if I restore the sub-headings to Immigration? Murray deals with immigration to Europe and the US quite separately in his writings, I think it would be good to maintain a clear distinction. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like the reader can separate the way Murray approaches immigration in the US and Europe on there own I don't feel its necessary for their to be sub-heading Valkrie11 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Valkrie11 OK. Do you object if I restore the sub-headings to Immigration? Murray deals with immigration to Europe and the US quite separately in his writings, I think it would be good to maintain a clear distinction. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
"Seperation of criticism into distinct groups"
Pincrete has reverted the changes I made here Special:Diff/1116610521/1116663962 with the comment "The seperation of criticism into distinct groups clarifies and was the subject of considerable discussion on talk".
Pincrete can you elaborate? What distinct groups are you referring to?FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- FirstPrimeOfApophis, apologies, since the formatting of so many refs and quotes is so complex when looking at a diff, I misunderstood the effect of your edit. I have reverted myself. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pincrete no problem, thanks for restoring. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Eurabia and Great Replacement Conspiracy Theorists categories
Nomoskedasticity in future please discuss edits before restoring, see WP:BRD. I have added this section so you and Thismess can establish a consensus to add these categories.
I think they should not be added, because it is essentially saying in Wikipedia's voice "Douglas Murray believes there is a group conspiring to replace the European population" and "Douglas Murray believes Arabs are taking over Europe". The sources seem to be opinion pieces written by very hostile critics accusing Murray of holding those beliefs, but nothing to indicate Murray's own beliefs. Per WP:OPINIONCAT we should "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions". In this case, you only have a reliable source for somebody else's opinion about Murray's opinion. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't hold any strong opinion either way, but if your view is correct it is curious that for instance many people are labeled neo-Nazis or conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia when it is a term not self-identified by anyone. Thismess (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with FirstPrimeOfApophis. Re Thismess's insertion of the categories: WP:CATPOV says "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial ...', WP:CATDEF says a category is for when "virtually all reliable sources" mention it, WP:BLPRACIST might apply if one considers great replacement conspiracy theorists to be probably racist, RFC "Bias categories" and whether we can categorize people, groups, organizations, and media under them covered matters like this. Re Nomoskedasticity's re-insertion of the categories: WP:BLPUNDEL says "If it [i.e. contentious material about a living person] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." and even if this wasn't a BLP WP:ONUS would say "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Efforts to sanitize Murray are violations of NPOV. The sources supporting the material in the article related to the categories are by no means "opinion" sources -- one of them is a peer-reviewed academic journal, FFS. Which means it isn't contentious in the slightest. I get the sense we're headed for an awful lot of time-wasting here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- BLPCAT makes it clear categories like these shouldn't be used. This is not a NPOV issue as categories aren't the same as article content. This is actually one of the reasons we don't apply controversial categories to living people. While article content can include nuances and other information that helps to what extent a label might apply to someone, the label alone does not. In the article text we say that his critics make this claim. CAT labels are presumed to be in Wikivoice. Again, that is not acceptable. Springee (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't join in this discussion, but believe Springee is correctly identifying current policy. HOWEVER I think that policy is absurd - a book or an organisation can be identified as being (for example) virulently anti-Welsh, but the author of the book or founder/head of the organisation cannot be categorised among "anti-Welshness". Neither can any living person who studies, opposes or exposes "anti-Welshness" - even though all of these would be of obvious interest to anyone interested in the topic. It would obviously be better if we titled categories according to themes rather than 'accusations' (in this context "anti-Welshness", rather than "anti-Welsh writers"), since there would not be any implied accusation in the categorisation - this does of course already happen with 'bigger' topics, such as "anti-Semitism", where categorisation can be more explicit. Anyone wanting to know about the "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" would certainly want to know about Murray and "Strange Death of Europe" - whether or not either can objectively be described as a manifestation of that theory. Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Civilians 'claimed' they had been mistreated
On December 16, 2017, Murray lambasted a decision by the High Court to award large payments to Iraqi civilians who claimed they had been mistreated while detained by British soldiers calling it disrespectful to soldiers who served in Iraq.
Why does this say the civilians 'claimed' they had been mistreated? Presumably the court found that they had been mistreated, or else it wouldn't have awarded compensation. The use of the word 'claimed' seems to unwarrantedly cast doubt on their account. 185.115.7.211 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much else wrong with that text as well. We shouldn't be using Murray's own articles as extensively as we do as it inevitably leads to WP:OR as to which are the important views expressed. I've done a minor fix as the source itself (an Express article by Murray) doesn't record what the court found - apart from saying that no soldier had been prosecuted as evidence did not rise to that level. His support for the Iraq intervention is well documented, but this instance not so AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pending context from a reliable independent source, I've removed it. The use of the word "lambasted" is also a red flag, here. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Use of primary sources to support Murray's views
Murray is a columnist - that is a professional writer of opinions who gets paid to 'take a stand' on some topical matter on a near-daily basis. Quite a lot of the recent additions A) seem fairly trival or commonplace B) are based on using primary sources, ie his own writings. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree this is likely a problem. We're not an echo-chamber... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You've supplied zero examples, but as a generality: if the discussion is about a person's opinion the valid source is that person. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that wasn't the point was it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors should not comb through a person's writings, select what they find interesting and put it in that person's Wikipedia article. They should leave the selecting to secondary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk)
You've supplied zero examples
. Well there are a very large number of refs that link to Murray's own writings and which record fairly vague or routine opinions, but a good example of the commonplace is :"Although Murray is an atheist, he still believes that Christianity has an important role in European culture.[1]". This is an interview of Richard Dawkins, conducted by Murray, so it should in theory mainly reveal Dawkins' beliefs. But neither of them says this, so the content is a bit SYNTHY, though it is a reasonable, if slightly banal summary of what they do say. Equally important though is that it would be very difficult to find ANYONE that didn't think that Christianity has an important role in European culture - even if everyone saying that had a different view about that role (what that role is now and whether it should have such a role being obvious differences of opinions). Anybody who saw the funeral of QEII, listened to a day's classical music output, read a history book (or a Dawkins book), listened to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality or abortion, or took a look at European art or architecture would agree that Christianity is still central to European culture, but so what? Who wouldn't agree with that statement? Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Murray, Douglas. "Richard Dawkins interview: 'I have a certain love for the Anglican tradition' | The Spectator". www.spectator.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-10-10.
- Those objections seem to be about synth and due rather than primary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- That particular one is mainly about the commonplace-ness and vagueness of the 'view', since the level of SYNTH is not serious. Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Those objections seem to be about synth and due rather than primary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Belatedly, I have trimmed some of these arbitrary quotes from the article. More work is needed. He is a pundit, meaning that his opinions are his commercial product. We are not a platform for helping him sell his wares, so any particular opinion needs at least some bare minimum context from a reliable WP:IS. If these bland details aren't for promotional purposes, the only other reason I can see is to grind an ax. Neither is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have further trimmed the article, but again, I think more work is needed. As before, the article cannot possible catalogue all of the things he's said, no matter how inflammatory they may seem to us as editors. As always, we should rely on WP:IS to determine encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well done. I agree that the political views section is way too long and contains lots of fairly trivial things he's said. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Citing Murray's own article without a 3rd party reference
Jamousa, this edit [3] fails WP:V because it is not independent from Murray himself. Perhaps a better way to put it is while we can know that Murray said X in an article by Murray, we need an independent source to establish weight for inclusion in this article. Otherwise as editors we have to engage in wp:OR to decide what particular passage is critical/not critical to include. Also, once a passage has been challenged/removed then ONUS says the editor(s) trying to include it need to establish consensus before it is restored. Springee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Springee: How is that consensus to be achieved? There are numerous references and quotes throughout the article on Murray from his own publications. I've deleted my previous reference to a Twitter comment on what Murray wrote but it appears to me that the deletion of my factual quote is an attempt to disassociate an author from what he has published on a salient subject on which he has taken a clear public position. Jamousa (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Step 1 is do not edit war disputed content back into the article. I would suggest reviewing the wp:RS page. Basically you need a 3rd party source that says, "Murray said X and here is why we think it's important". The problem with just inserting some content from one of Murray's articles is that it depends on you the editor deciding what is important in that article (I can't view it due to a pay wall). Is that quote something that needs context? What leads into that quote or prefaces it? Are lots of 3rd party sources saying that quote is a problem or represents something about Murray? As editors we might feel something the BLP subject says is important but if no 3rd party wp:RS say the comment/quote/idea is important then we can't establish weight for inclusion. As an extreme example, if Murray said, "Kill all the Dutch" in an article but no 3rd party sources mentioned it then we would have to assume it wasn't a significant comment of his. It may seem like an odd thing but that is how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Twitter comments on Murray's statement have included ones by both Shashank Joshi, the defence editor of The Economist (which I previously cited) and Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College, London, as well as others. It is clearly regarded as significant as an extraordinary expression of support for ethnic cleansing in a mainstream publication. It is for this reason that I believe it merits inclusion. Jamousa (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those people may be notable opinions on Murray's comments but per WP:RS they need to come from published articles, not social media postings. Social media posts may be due in a wiki article but that is typically after RSs have published comments about the tweets. What we as editors are not allowed to do is find a social media post from a notable person and then add it to the article based on our personal view that the tweet, by a noted person, is important. Sadly that also often means we have a reverse situation where a BLP subject says something that in context may be very reasonable. For example, "Hudson Hawk was the best movie you will see this summer. That assumes you will see no other movies this summer". A source that thinks Hudson Hawk was a great movie, something that makes the source unreliable by definition, can selectively quote the first sentence. Now the BLP article slanders the subject by claiming they thought Hudson Hawk was good yet we don't have a second RS to say, "that's not what BLP meant". On Wikipedia this might also happen with politically contentious topics as well... Springee (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Twitter comments on Murray's statement have included ones by both Shashank Joshi, the defence editor of The Economist (which I previously cited) and Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College, London, as well as others. It is clearly regarded as significant as an extraordinary expression of support for ethnic cleansing in a mainstream publication. It is for this reason that I believe it merits inclusion. Jamousa (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Step 1 is do not edit war disputed content back into the article. I would suggest reviewing the wp:RS page. Basically you need a 3rd party source that says, "Murray said X and here is why we think it's important". The problem with just inserting some content from one of Murray's articles is that it depends on you the editor deciding what is important in that article (I can't view it due to a pay wall). Is that quote something that needs context? What leads into that quote or prefaces it? Are lots of 3rd party sources saying that quote is a problem or represents something about Murray? As editors we might feel something the BLP subject says is important but if no 3rd party wp:RS say the comment/quote/idea is important then we can't establish weight for inclusion. As an extreme example, if Murray said, "Kill all the Dutch" in an article but no 3rd party sources mentioned it then we would have to assume it wasn't a significant comment of his. It may seem like an odd thing but that is how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The underlying problem here is that a large number of the views expressed by Murray are solely sourced to his own writings. Incidentally, not only has he written the content that Jamousa and another editor wanted to insert, he's also said any UK defenders of Hamas should have their UK residence/citizenship taken away/be deported/ be imprisoned for supporting terrorism. I sympathise with both parties, the WP norm is third party sourcing but it really isn't applied very consistently here at present. Pincrete (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do think we have a larger problem about too much content being cited to non-independent, primary sources. The addition of this new source to the body slightly worsens that problem, but I don't have the energy to fix the overall problem myself and don't care to fight this new worsening. On the other hand, inclusion in the lead it enough of an undue problem that I view it as a BLP vio. Given how many such views/sources are present in the body, cherry-picking this one recent view for prominent placement in the lead is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm not generally a fan of Twitter references but could in instances, where something has sparked a Twitter controversy about a notable individual or publication, this be cited?
- Firefangledfeathers - I accepted the edit removing the mention in the lead, even though given the unprecedented nature of the statement appearing in a prominent British periodical it is a moot point whether it might merit prominence. Jamousa (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- How can we say this has risen to the level of a Twitter controversy? Often when something becomes a social media controversy we have a 3rd party reporting on it. Sadly, and often, those reporting parties are not impartial to the controversy so they may be reporting on it in order to magnify some aspect. However, it's that kind of independent sourcing to reliable sources that we need in order to establish inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Agree that what and when something can be deemed a controversy, and not just controversial, is, more often than not, down to subjective 3rd party reporting in another medium, usually broadcast or print media but increasingly also standalone online media platforms. Which is why the credibility and public profile of the individuals concerned, such as those I cited previously, the defence editor of The Economist and a leading UK public policy and economics academic, matters. Jamousa (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those opinions matter but they, as individuals, don't represent a Wikipedia wp:RS. If The Economist writes an article about what Murray says then we may have weight for inclusion but the fact that someone who works for them voices the opinion on social media doesn't reach the needed bar for a RS. The same is true for academics. That last one can be frustrating. Consider a case where academic A publishes a claim in a university press book. A second academic, well respected in the same field, says the claim is wrong for XYZ reasons. They publish this on their university lab webpage. Per Wikipedia rules the university press book is reliable even though it's quite possible the specific claim isn't well supported in the book or the reviewers of the book are generally supportive of the author thus didn't carefully scrutinize the specific claim. The academic who opposes the claim provides specific reasons and data why the claim is wrong. However, per our RS rules the book is likely to be a "reliable" source and the arguments put forth by the professor on his website are viewed as not reliable, not because he isn't a subject matter expert, but because they aren't "published". Why aren't they publishes? It's possible they aren't published because most reviewers would disagree but it's also possible they aren't published because academics basically need to publish and it's easier to get a novel, new idea published vs publishing something noting problem with some other claim that most people haven't noted anyway. Outside of Wikipedia this RS/non-RS distinction often makes no difference. Springee (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "doesn't reach the needed bar for a RS": agreed. WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS are explicit about this. Self-published sources (including social media) authored by subject-matter experts are sometimes reliable, but they are not usable for claims about living people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those opinions matter but they, as individuals, don't represent a Wikipedia wp:RS. If The Economist writes an article about what Murray says then we may have weight for inclusion but the fact that someone who works for them voices the opinion on social media doesn't reach the needed bar for a RS. The same is true for academics. That last one can be frustrating. Consider a case where academic A publishes a claim in a university press book. A second academic, well respected in the same field, says the claim is wrong for XYZ reasons. They publish this on their university lab webpage. Per Wikipedia rules the university press book is reliable even though it's quite possible the specific claim isn't well supported in the book or the reviewers of the book are generally supportive of the author thus didn't carefully scrutinize the specific claim. The academic who opposes the claim provides specific reasons and data why the claim is wrong. However, per our RS rules the book is likely to be a "reliable" source and the arguments put forth by the professor on his website are viewed as not reliable, not because he isn't a subject matter expert, but because they aren't "published". Why aren't they publishes? It's possible they aren't published because most reviewers would disagree but it's also possible they aren't published because academics basically need to publish and it's easier to get a novel, new idea published vs publishing something noting problem with some other claim that most people haven't noted anyway. Outside of Wikipedia this RS/non-RS distinction often makes no difference. Springee (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Agree that what and when something can be deemed a controversy, and not just controversial, is, more often than not, down to subjective 3rd party reporting in another medium, usually broadcast or print media but increasingly also standalone online media platforms. Which is why the credibility and public profile of the individuals concerned, such as those I cited previously, the defence editor of The Economist and a leading UK public policy and economics academic, matters. Jamousa (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- How can we say this has risen to the level of a Twitter controversy? Often when something becomes a social media controversy we have a 3rd party reporting on it. Sadly, and often, those reporting parties are not impartial to the controversy so they may be reporting on it in order to magnify some aspect. However, it's that kind of independent sourcing to reliable sources that we need in order to establish inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Tag atop the page - can we delete it?
I think the tag atop the page is not appropriate. There are oodles of non-primary sources. However, when I explained my view and deleted it, an editor immediately restored it. Thoughts? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:617F:95CE:45F8:1A42 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- IP, the issue is not (as is often the case with BLPs) - that the main facts of Murray's life are not verified. The issue is that so many of Murray's opinions, stances, views are only sourced to his own writings and are controversial. This inevitably leads to a certain amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, not least because individual editors are assessing which opinions/stances are significant and which are not. Not a small number of the views added in the past are also actually fairly trite - the sort of thing that almost anyone would agree with, such as UK being traditionally culturally Christian. Technically we should we removing all statements sourced to his own writings, but have 'tagged' rather than removed. If the consensus is that this problem has largely been solved, I will not oppose it, but I personally don't think that this threshold has yet been met. Pincrete (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- As I said above at #Use of primary sources to support Murray's views in June, I think more work is needed. I trimmed a few more opinions just now, but the problem is still clear. Nobody on the planet doubts that Murray has many opinions. Our goal isn't to blandly catalog all of them, it's to provide context, and the way to do that is via independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- There's still entire paragraphs cited entirely to primary sources. And as the section above notes, in some cases this might even be a WP:BLP issue, because the views we're ascribing to Murray via primary sources are highly controversial (ie. it's inappropriate WP:OR to go through someone's works and pull out all the most shocking quotes ourselves; when a quote or viewpoint is shocking enough to potentially harm the reputation of the subject, we should only include it if secondary sources focus on it.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Grammar of the theories
I tried to be a little more clear in the lead as to the thing about conspiracy theories; it's a little hard to phrase this succinctly.
Basically, the way I see it is that it'sgrammatically incorrect to say, e.g. that someone "is a conspiracy theorist and supports the lizard emperor". Like, "the lizard emperor" is the name of the conspiracy theory, but everyone who believes it thinks that the lizard emperor is bad!
Anyway, @Pincrete:, I think you have done a better job than me at putting it together in a way that makes sense. jp×g🗯️ 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
"Hateful"
Should we describe Murray's views as "hateful" in wiki-voice? IP 141.197.12.183 has been adding the descriptor, with me and Hemiauchenia reverting. So far, no sources have been provided to support the descriptor, so I see it as a clear BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's obviously a clear BLP vio when stated without any reliable sources, and it would a WP:TONE issue regardless. I have no love for Murray or his views, but per BLP there is need for basic decorum when writing about living people, even controversial figures like Murray. I won't be opposed to adding something like "critics have said Murray fosters bigotry towards Muslims" or something like that, but it would need to be properly sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. IP 208.87.239.201 joined in, with two sources. Neither calls Murray's views hateful. Not a lot to go off of here, even for an attributed mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- The articles been semi'd for a year, so that should quieten things down for the moment. I think threading the needle on a controversial BLP like this is difficult. On one hand, we need to mention the extemsive academic and journalistic criticism that Murray has received so that it's not just a hagiography, but on the other hand, we need to be careful to not go overboard on it otherwise it would just seem like an attack page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- All sources provided support this statement "critics have said Murray fosters bigotry towards Muslims". I'm okay with that adjustment. 208.87.239.201 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. IP 208.87.239.201 joined in, with two sources. Neither calls Murray's views hateful. Not a lot to go off of here, even for an attributed mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
His own reaction to this article
I recently added some detail to the Personal life section. One of those additions was sourced from an article in Haaretz that was based on an interview with Murray. The artcle states: one thing still makes him lose his temper, at least according to his own standards: Wikipedia. Specifically, the entry written about him. The sentence I added was Murray has stated that the article about him on Wikipedia makes him angry. Hemiauchenia reverted the entire edit (including additional material) with the following summary: "Person unhappy with their Wikipedia biography" is not encyclopaedic content. I have undone the reversion for two reasons 1) Per WP:REVERT, an effort should be made to edit out unwanted content rather than revert a complete edit. This failed that recommendation. 2) I don't see how this is unencyclopedic. WP:MOS generally talks about "encyclopedic" in terms of syle, emphasis, readability, etc., not content. I don't see how this isn't at worst a judgement call, and at best, it is relevant to a description of who he is, what he stands for, and how he thinks. It could be exapnded. perhaps. Dovid (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is encyclopedic. Is this a major aspect of Douglas Murray's personal life? In my opinion no. It's only been mentioned in a single newspaper article. If you look at Views_of_Elon_Musk#Wikipedia, its been covered by like 5 different sources over several years. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with this, yeah. It doesn't strike me as notable. Very few opinions which the subject of an article expresses just once, in one interview, are notable enough to be included in the article; the fact that this opinion is about Wikipedia specifically doesn't change that. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Notability is the worng standard, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Notability refers to articles, not content. A single sentence in a long article does not conflict with undue weight, balance (specific guidance provided in WP:NOTEWORTH), nor does the content conflict with any other content policy I can see. It is also quite relevant to the whole Mrray versus the world aspect of his personality. If you don't like it in the place I put it, we can discuss that, perhaps it doesn't belong in Personal life. But it is releavnt to the subject and fits perfectly with content and style policies. The argument about Musk's aricle is whataboutism; I would counter with, perhaps it should be there as well. Dovid (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I was using notability in the colloquial sense. While I can't off the top of my head think of a policy this content violates, there is, as far as I can see, no specific positive argument in favour of including it. As I said, it is plainly not the case that every view ever expressed by an article subject deserves inclusion; they are generally only included when they've been the subject of some amount of coverage and/or form some somewhat significant part of the person's public image. This fails both of those tests.
- The only thing distinguishing it from hundreds of other random throwaway subjects this guy has briefly brought up in interviews is that it's about Wikipedia; that is not a good enough reason alone to include it, and is, I would argue, an actively bad reason to use to argue in favour of its inclusion. We should not be in the business of going out of our way to write about ourselves. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agree that it isn't encyclopedic.
- Regular readers of this column might care to know that …
- The present photo on the article page was supplied and edited in by Murray's PA 4+ years ago. Someone, possibly me, reverted to the previous phote (showing Murray speaking at a public event). The PA then contacted WP admins to complain since, (if I remember this correctly), the old photo didn't reflect Murray's current presence on his social media channels as well as the new one did, (the idea that it wasn't necessarily WP's task to mirror Murray's "social media channels", didn't seem to occur to the PA). To my surprise the new photo was accepted (even after extensive cropping, to my mind, it looks more like someone modelling the shirt than a profile picture of a supposedly serious author and political commentator, but who was I to argue with the great man's PA and a supplicant admin urging us to think of the BLP's feelings?). The photo was taken by "AndyCNgo", whether that is the same person as Andy Ngo, I've no idea. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't include it. Part of the issue is the transient nature of such a claim. Let's suppose that tomorrow the entire article was rewritten and became a model of what Murray would want in a biography. Excellent... except that we have a part where we say he is unhappy with the biography. I do get the concern that much of what is included here is things written by those who oppose his views. We run a risk that when we use such sources to present "Murray's POV" we are actually getting a poorly filtered version of what he actually said/feels. That certainly could be an issue that would upset the BLP subject. Now if Murray is addressing a specific claim then, per ABOUTSELF, we could include that information as a response. However, that doesn't appear to be the case here. Springee (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
