Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

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)

Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:Balance.

If we consider the views of far-right individuals who praise him and give it such WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, then the views of his critics merits the same weight and WP:Relevance. Otherwise we risk the failure of WP:Balance.

Note that accusations of Antisemitism or Islamophobia are significant matters that cannot be overlooked when discussing the subject's reputation.

Springee, the line upholds WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:Notability it should not be even up to concensus on whether to include it or not because WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable

182.183.58.243 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of what you are trying to add was discussed in the past. Packing such contentious labels/views into the lead is problematic. That he is critical of Islam is a better way of saying it as it is closer to IMPARTIAL tone. Going beyond that, the quotes from the journalism sources that you provided don't describe Murray directly as Islamaphobic (they might in parts you didn't quote). The academic sources are "correspondence", basically the opinions of the authors and it's not established that the authors are sufficiently notable to use those opinions in the article lead. Finally, the MCB appears to be an advocacy organization. It's not clear they are an independent source for such a view. Again, perhaps in the article body but not the lead. Springee (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well if we are to include the views of a not-so-notable author like Sohrab Ahmari and controversial activist like Ayaan Hirsi up in the lede then it is also problematic.

In the very least for the sake of WP:Neutral and WP:Balanced, the line "Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sohrab Ahmari have praised Murray's work and writing on Islam in Europe. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy has said of Murray, "Whether one agrees with him or not" he is "one of the most important public intellectuals today."" should be concisely reworded to "Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sohrab Ahmari and Bernard-Henri Lévy have praised Murray's work." 182.183.58.243 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the line I added does not has to be "He has been accused of being Islamophobic by academics and journalists." It can be joined with the before content "Critics claim his views and ideology are linked to far-right political ideologies, and accuse him of Islamophobia and promoting far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, the Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I honestly have an issue with lumping them all in as "critics", and saying that they "accuse" him, as many of those supposed critics are highly-respected researchers and academics, and they're not 'accusing' him. He has unequivocally and demonstrably promoted those ideologies, full stop. Including citing the biggest proponents of it, who are universally acknowledged to be conspiracy theorists. Both "critics" and "accuse" seem like borderline WP:WEASEL wording to me. Better just to say who's saying it, and not attempt to muddy the waters as to whether he actually does so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus I fully agree. In the very least, an appropriate rephrasing would be:

"His views and ideology are linked by some(Insert sources here) to far-right political ideologies, and he has been criticized of Islamophobia and promoting far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, the Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism.(Insert sources here).

On an important note, Ayaan Hirsi can hardly be taken as a neutral independent or respected individual, since her whole career lies around attacking Islam and Muslim countries so obviously she would support someone like Douglas Murray So mentioning her in the lede like that is just WP:UNDUE. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the article also needs input from other editors, @Apaugasma, @Bishonen, @Iskandar323, @Pincrete etc. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked quickly through the archives and - while their are discussions about Murray's views and seeming endorsement of various conspiracy theories, I cannot see any discussion about 'accusations of Islamophobia' in the lead. Islamophobia is probably the most frequently made accusation against Murray. Only recently, Jonathan Freedland said of Murray's response to the present Isr-Gaza war: Witness the associate editor of the Spectator, Douglas Murray, who has long railed against what he sees as the threat that Islam and Muslims pose to Europe and the west. He is using the current crisis to press that case, telling one US interviewer this week that Humza Yousaf has “infiltrated our system”, and that he is not really first minister of Scotland, but rather “first minister of Gaza”. Murray has thoughts too on the future of Gaza, writing that “it could be a good time … to clear all the Palestinians from that benighted strip”. Murray said even worse things about Yousaf's wife, at a time when her (Scottish) mother was trapped in Gaza, and the wife is barely a public figure. Freedland - usually a moderate defender of Israel - writes this in a piece referring to the vultures bent on exploiting Jewish and Muslim pain. Clearly it's an oped and doesn't specifically accuse Murray of "Islamophobia", but it gives a flavour of how Murray is viewed by critics (including some moderate Conservatives).

So, I broadly endorse that Murray's Islamophobia is an apt subject for the article, BUT, 1). it needs to be covered in the body of the article before being added to the lead. 2). I haven't checked the specific offered sources so am not able to comment on their worth either way. but it should be covered Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Pincrete, in the Criticism section, it is indeed covered. And the sources are , along with another that I added before it got removed without justified edit summary,

There are explicit mention of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment which is essentially the same thing.

Considering the lede is a summary of most important point and like I mentioned above that "accusations of Antisemitism or Islamophobia are significant matters that cannot be overlooked when discussing the subject's reputation", it deserves a brief inclusion. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are explicit mention of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment which is essentially the same thing.

The word Islamophobia makes people conflate criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry, which is very beneficial to the Islamic theocrats of the world. Torr3 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In the archives there was a discussion on this topic. My rough read was that there was a consensus against using the term in Wiki-voice. To be clear, he is critical if Islam and that should be in the lead. However, since this is a BLP and Islamaphobic is an contentious LABEL we need to be careful about applying it. If the sources don't explicitly call him Islamophobic (not in titles/headings) then we shouldn't. When looking at sources you need to ask if the source if an opinion, is the source biased etc. None of this says we shouldn't put criticism of his comments on Islam in the body of the article. Instead the issue is we shouldn't use contentious labels in the lead in most cases. Springee (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the reflist, this appears to be the same list that was recently added to the lead. One of the academic sources has basically no impact (cited by 1). The other does have more citations (72). That said, what does the paper actually say about Murray? Remember, if the label is to be applied to Murray himself it must be explicitly done by the source. As those sources are behind a paywall I can't say if they actually support the claim. Absent a quoted paragraph I wouldn't be OK given we are dealing with a BLP here. Sources like Sludge and MEE are not good sources for establishing weight for a controversial LABEL given their own strong biases. That said, MME doesn't call Murray Islamophobic. The Sludge article also doesn't call Murray Islamophobic. It says he is/was a member of the Intellectual Dark Web and then quotes someone else who claims the IDW has members who are Islamophobic. The Intercept doesn't describe Murray as Islamophobic. So none of the non-paywalled academic/media sources actually support what you want to do. Finally we have an advocacy group, MCB. Even it doesn't actually call Murray Islamophobic. It claims some of his ideas/assertions are Islamophobic but never says he is. Something about Islam could/should be in the lead but per LABEL it can't be "Islamophobic". Springee (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Springee look for instance, if Mush whose primary focus is about businessman, investment etc and is not actively being Anti-Semitic or Transphobic but has made some contentious comments, his lede contains these loaded words cause of those meagre comments. Now Murray on the other hand, is known for political commentary and is thus more liable for these type of criticisms if he is reputed to be.

Also Wikipedia articles on, for instance, terrorist attack by muslims no matter even if the individual does not know much about the religion, the article lead contains terms like "Islamic terrorist" depite it being in contravention to WP:CONTENTIOUS. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Along the lines of WP:OTHER, just because one article does something doesn't mean it is correct for this article (or even the article that does it). Springee (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

After reading the WP:OTHER, regarding the "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars", The lede is just not adhereing to the second point.

If you think that including the term Islamophobic is just not right, then in the very least it could be :

"Critics claim his views and ideology are linked to far-right political ideologies and anti-Muslim sentiment, and accuse him of promoting far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, the Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism."

What do you think? 182.183.58.243 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you are adding "and anti-Muslim sentiment" to the existing sentence. I don't see an issue with that. Springee (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Also in the Criticism section first line last sentence. "His fans have described him as a defender of free speech" I think it violates WP:NOTOPINION and WP:RS. Can it be removed? 182.183.58.243 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As a counter point for impartiality it should stay in some form. I'm not sure it's in the best spot but it shouldn't be removed outright. Springee (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For transparency, 182.183.58.243 asked me about this specific issue on my talk page, for some reason. The source is a passing mention in a softball interview conducted by the paper's restaurant critic. If Charlotte Ivers's assessment of the opinion of Murrays's fans is relevant, it should be possible to both attribute this as her opinion and also indicate to readers why it is significant. To include this solely as a "counter point for impartiality" based on this flimsy source is false balance and nakedly promotes Murray's self-aggrandizing anti-"culture warrior" public image. The interview specifically mentions that image, so ignoring the substance of the interview to include this blandly flattering tid-bit is absurd. Wikipedia isn't a platform for this kind of thing, nor is is this kind of isolated factoid helpful to readers without context. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the source is flimsy and this is presented as a bland factoid devoid of even the source's own context, I have removed this. The source and the rest of this article both already indicate that "free speech" is loaded and too vague to really be meaningful here. The willingness of his "fans" to parrot thought-terminating cliches is not encyclopedically noteworthy unless reliable sources bother to explain why it is encyclopedically noteworthy. If this is restored, it should use a better source and provide context. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As of writing, it says in the lead that Murray's views and ideology is linked to far-right political ideologies and conspiracy theories, if I understood it correctly. I might have lacked attention, but I read the sentence multiple times it wasn't really until close scrutiny that I realized that it doesn't actually say that Murray promotes conspiracy theories, just that he is linked to these things. It's a pretty strange accusation. Everyone is linked to everyone. Social democrats are linked to communists. Is it relevant?
I do not think Murray believes in conspiracy theories, and he considers himself a conservative. If this was in a separate chapter about criticism against him, and you wanted to have a paragraph that explains how he is perceived by his political opponents and some people in academia (mainly social sciences?), then fine, but this is in the lead about the guy. And it's in a sentence that starts off like it's attempting to characterize Murray's views and ideology, but shoots off in this (as I see it) weird irrelevant direction. At least make it distinct what are Murray's own views (that he would sign off on), and what are the mean things that others have said about him. I think it is generally unethical to describe someone's views in a way that they wouldn't agree with, especially if it's meant to be an information piece and not an opinion piece. Torr3 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot truly know what he considers himself, nor does it matter. All we can know is what he says and does. Per many sources, through his words and actions, he shares, promotes, and legitimizing fringe conspiracy theories. Your opinion that this is "a weird tangent" is at odds with many reliable sources which are already cited in this article. We attempt to summarize those sources neutrally. Dismissing critical sources as "his opponents" is a mistake. We are not citing them because someone has decided that they are his opponents, we are citing them because they are reliable sources. We want sources which are willing to discuss topics critically. Therefor, we want sources which will look at Murray's words and actions and come to conclusions for us about those things. That's how good articles are built.

For this and other reasons, it's generally discouraged to confine critical content to a 'criticism section'. Murray is encyclopedically noteworthy because other people have written about him, not merely because he is prolific. If those sources about him are not flattering, that's not a problem we should solve, and especially not with misguided attempts at false balance. Murray has many outlets for self aggrandizing. This should not be one of them. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You make some valid points, and I agree with much of what you said. I don't think you understood my main points. I should have probably phrased it differently. The lead doesn't say that Murray shares, promotes or legitimizes conspiracy theories, it says that his ideology and views are linked to the promotion of conspiracy theories. What does that even mean? He doesn't promote conspiracy theories himself, but he secretly hires other people to do it for him? Torr3 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"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)

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)

War in Gaza, interview with Netanyahu

This information was reverted with the following edit summary: "This is still far too vague. He's a pundit. Use WP:IS to indicate why any particular position is significant."

In 2023, he expressed support for Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip during the Israel–Hamas war. On 28 January 2024, Murray interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

References

Murray spent several months in Israel covering the war. His public support for Israel during the Gaza war is a significant event in his life and I think it should be at least briefly mentioned in the "Political views" section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

How long he spent there isn't the issue, and how significant this is should be explained via reliable, independent sources, not from individual editors. This is part of an ongoing issue (see the talk pages archives) with how to properly summarize Murray's activities. After all, he has 'expressed' support and opposition for many, many things. Rhetorically speaking, why is this any different from the rest?

To put it another way, as I've said before, he is a pundit so his opinions are his commercial product. It isn't our job to help him sell his wares, so we need specific reasons to include any of this. Merely mentioning one example of his professional activity, or one example of his opinions, would be arbitrary. We can explain his support of the invasion of Gaza, or his time spent in Israel promoting the Israeli government, but we need to use reliable, independent sources to contextualize this. Without context it doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

let's be more careful

@Hemiauchenia: and @Michael Bednarek:: you're making substantive edits but using edit summaries that suggest otherwise. If you don't intend the substantive edits, then great -- please undo them. If you do intend them, then please undo and discuss. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Did you even read your version before you published it? It has obvious duplication problems that mean that it really couldn't remain in mainspace. [1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My edit summaries couldn't be any longer or explain more of what I did. The edits may seem substantial, but when half a dozen or more identical citations are re-used, the diff looks that way. I didn't remove a single word from the body of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The recent changes should probably be rolled back until there is a consensus regarding the changes. Certainly the current lead which uses a contentious label in the opening sentence would require clear talk page consensus. Springee (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. Overwhelming consensus among high-quality academic sources is that he's described as far-right. And by the way, since when is "far right" considered a contentious label? It's a descriptor of political beliefs, no more, no less. Stop acting as if someone described him as a neo-Nazi. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That appears disputed and per LABEL and BLP concerns this is a change that needs consensus. The question I have is which version of the lead is the stable version we should revert back to. Springee (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the editors that have provided reasons for describing Murray as "far-right" (those reasons being, that's how he's described in high-quality sources), the stable version is one that describes him as far-right. I have not seen any reasons offered by any editors that wish to remove this descriptor from the lead, so I don't see an issue with the current version. In any case, the current version is very close to the last stable version before the whitewashing attempts started, so I think it's fine as is. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The version with "far right" in the opening sentence is not the long-term stable version and has been repeatedly been contested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I think you have rolled back to Fred Zeplin's first edit, rather than to the stable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_%28author%29&diff=1212495690&oldid=1212360412. Was this intentional? 2A02:C7C:A85E:8500:4D6:6C49:6084:A1D (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice the other changes to the lead, but I don't think they really are different in substance from the stable version. Anyone else is free to revert deeper if they wish. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Springee I suggest reverting back to this edit [[2]] by Michael Bednarek. Is there a good reason to keep any of the changes past this point? Unless I have misunderstood, you do not support them, nor does Peter Gulutzan, nor do I. So I can't see who Fred Zepelin could have got consensus from. It would also fix the uncalled-for rebundling of citations. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a rationale for rolling back changes. So far, the editors in favor of the current wording have cited the fact that reliable secondary sources (dozens of them!) describe the subject as "far-right" in his politics. The editors who don't like the wording have cited... nothing. No policy-based reasons at all. This isn't a "count the votes for and against" system. It's a system where reliable secondary sources count the most. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. This is a disputed change and there is not a clear consensus for the changes you have made. Technically IDONTLIKEIT is a bad reason for AFD, not to revert a disputed change. In this case the NOCON is the correct policy to cite. Springee (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I should have you read Wikipedia:I just don't like it, then. Because that's the sum total of the arguments of editors that don't like "far-right" in the lead, despite the voluminous sourcing. Right now I see @Grayfell:, @Nomoskedasticity:, @Aquillion:, and myself pointing out that "far-right" is supported by dozens of sources. I see other editors saying "so what, we don't like far-right in the lead and so you have to take it out." That's not at all how this works. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And other editors have pointed out issues with your sourcing as well as BLP concerns related to this edit. The simple fact is you don't have consensus for this change and NOCON is policy. Springee (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This is about "far-right" in the lead? I'm not sure I've ever seen an article subject that is more solidly described as such by reliable secondary sources than this one. There's literally dozens of sources already in the article. Where's the sourcing that says he's not a far-right political commentator? I don't even see one. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin made a large edit of the article before posting the above statement. I believe the sources now in the first sentence do not sufficiently support far-right. Just looking at the quote parts of the cites ... Cite #8 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Viktor Orbán is on the right and liked Mr Murray's book. Cite #7 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Prager University is far-right and published Mr Murray's video. Cite #6 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is white nationalist right. Cite #5 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is among EDL activists. Cite #4 does say Mr Murray's ideas are "entangled" with the far-right, but what that means is an exercise for the reader. Cite #3 has no quote but is probably this which after quoting Adrian Tudway and Douglas Murray says "Both these statements suggest that counter jihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence." -- as if evading categorisation as far far-right proves you are far-right, eh? Cite #2 says Mr Murray's book "remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has long history in far-right thought", which if true would only suggest that the book discusses the theory. Cite #1 has no quote but it's easy to look up the Economic Times article, I didn't find what statement in it is relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If even some of the sources are describing him as far-right, and the rest of them say he promotes Islamophobia, The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory, the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory (all basic tenets of today's far-right), and still others say he promotes the work of and admires other far-right figures, it's an open-and-shut case to me. Feel free to start an RfC on the BLP Noitceboard about it. I suspect you'll see 90% of established editors agreeing that "far-right" is the most accurate descriptor. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We might want to bundle that massive list of citations, but yeah, high-quality academic coverage overwhelmingly calls him far-right (and often uses him as a primary example of the modern far-right when discussing it.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: is there a handy help article/tutorial on how to bundle citations? I was about to tackle it, thinking the same thing as you, but I cannot find out how to do it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, just found it here, thanks to Scopecreep posting that template at the top. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the recent edit warring is about. Murray is described in the lead as "linked to far-right political ideologies". What am I missing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved that to the first sentence and a couple editors didn't like that change. Incidentally, I don't really have a hard position on the cites, just bundled them after Aquillion suggested it. They're technically not needed in the lead anyway, as long as they're in the body. I'm fine with your preference, after the RfC below gets worked out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a fair summary of the change. The previous lead said "linked to far-right political ideologies" later in the lead. Your lead put "far-right" in wiki-voice in the opening sentence. That's quite a big change. Springee (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Whats happening with the lede? I left a tag so folk could take notice. Is there somekind of faceoff that led to about a dozen refs in one spot. Its excessive. scope_creep^Talk 22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to figure out how to merge those right now, found the link in the template you posted, but I haven't attempted this before. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead was recently changed in a way that has BLP concerns regarding putting a contentious LABEL in the opening sentence. Absent a clear consensus to make the recent changes it should be rolled back to the last stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

scope_creep: Read the previous thread = let's be more careful. This appears to be just a continuation of the same topic, if you agree then please change your heading to show that this is a sub-topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I finished consolidating 9 of those refs, so I think we're all set on this topic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation bundling: IMO the bundling of citations, as currently presented in the article, is sub-optimal. It leads to a bloat of the "References" section with large swaths of bibliographic material and quotations duplicated because they are also used elsewhere. I suggest to either return to the unbundled state and accept a list of citations in the article, or, more complicated, use the {{harvnb}}/{{sfn}} mechanism and bundle those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You preferred the bloat of numbers 2 thru 12 in the lead itself? The text of the article being bloated, in my opinion, is far worse than the References section being bloated. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

On balance, I prefer each citation marked as such on its own. The previous bundled state produced many duplicated references, which is confusing and not conforming with normal citing practice on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

Douglas Murray does not belong to the far right, he’s a centrist modern thinker. 2A01:4B00:9E32:2300:38E2:4E92:FAFF:9E8A (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source to support this opinion? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment

What should the opening sentence of this bio read?
A: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British far-right author and political commentator."
B: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British author and conservative political commentator" with links to far-right located later in the article lead.

Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment to better align with the stable lead I noted that far-right was part of the long term lead. Springee (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• A - There are dozens of reliable secondary sources, already in the article, that either (a) describe Murray outright as a far-right figure, (b) describe Murray's endorsements/promotion of far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism (all described by Wikipedia as far-right in those articles), and/or (c) describe Murray's positions that align with far-right ideologies. A handful of additional sources were removed in the last reversion. The only documented opposition to this descriptor comes from Murray himself, and of course, that does not count on Wikipedia, as he is a primary source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• B – Readers can make up their minds about Murray's leanings themselves; the lead alone will allow that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)