Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

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)

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.". 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

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)

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)

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)

Citing Murray's own article without a 3rd party reference

Jamousa, this edit [1] 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)

(edit conflict)

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)

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)