Talk:Douglas Murray (author) - Wikipedia


3 people in discussion

Article Images

Template:Vital article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Murray is clearly active on the "culture war" front, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to attempt to marginalise his writing or narrowly define it politically from the off.

At time of writing the current reference is a YouTube link which I've watched a few minutes of but can't see a backup for the claim he is right-wing, and even if he is to claim that seriously somewhere, its not obvious why it doesn't just belong in a subsequent information section, rather than in the definition of what he is (an author/writer).

I think also that youtube links are of limited acceptability as references - at the very least please add exactly where in the video it backs up this claim.

Failing that (or somebody clarifying here why it is standard practice with reference to Wiki guidelines or examples perhaps from the opposite side of the political spectrum) I'll remove the tag and regardless perhaps move the political pigeon-holing to a less contentious section. I note the conservative claim is already made in a more appropriate section so there is clear redundancy anyway.

TIA

You are quite right, Conan The Librarian, but please sign your posts.

(Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.)

I don't think Murray should be described, especially not in the first sentence of the lede, as a "right wing political commentator". And I agree that such a definition represents marginalization. Murray says in the linked-to YouTube video (found in the lede of the article) that "The political fact in this is the same thing it is this fear that these people who are around who have these ideas that absolutely aren't in lockstep with a particular dogma of the day, it's the other people are going to catch it, you know if we're not careful our kids will grow up not far left and then where will we be?" (That is found about one minute into the video.) Murray clearly is not right wing. He is for tolerance and open-mindedness. He references the "fear" that the "far left" seems to display. Anyway, the link provided does not support the labeling of Murray as "right wing". That source tells us to look at 7:28 in that video, which I did, and no surprise it does not support the characterization of Murray as "right wing". Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks (and apologies) for the signature guidance, I'll try with this one. Yes, your comments pretty much reflect my observations as well. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

“Right wing” is a definition the subject of the article accepts in press coverage and it is helpful to allow readers to put his work into context, but I can see you find it to be a definition you'd not like to be applied. I have no interest in pursuing this discussion further right now. Ambrosen (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ambrosen—you are using this as a source and saying see 7:28 in that source. What do you find at 7:28 supporting Murray being "right-wing"? You cannot say "I can see you find it to be a definition you'd not like to be applied". If it is applicable I would "like [it] to be applied". The problem is that the video does not support that application. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Bus stop - you say “I don't think Murray should be described, […] as a "right wing political commentator". And I agree that such a definition represents marginalization.”, so I think it's reasonable for me to characterise what you're saying that way. Ambrosen (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ambrosen—conspicuously missing from this discussion is your explanation of 7:28 in the YouTube video. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've added a short piece into the "Views" section on his recent public comments on Wikipedia. The transcription of the entire relevant section of the conversation is below.

I think this is a valid and relevant addition, and is in line with the existing content:

  • The "Views" section is a series of short statements on his public views on a variety of subjects of public interest, so this short "capsule" on Wikipedia fits the overall "feel"
  • It being relevant to Wikipedia, and being particularly pointed criticism on a matter of public interest, makes it relevant content
  • From the conversation (I've listened to the whole thing, not just this section), I think my interpretation is correct.

Transcription (starts at the 4 hour 28 minute mark)

Murray: We have to find a way through this - we have to find a way to not have timorous people. Or at least not to have everyone be timorous.
I noticed some years ago....there was an event in London where 5 people gave speeches, totally different fields - one was a biologist, one was a novelist, one was.... and it wasn't a particularly interesting evening, except for in one regard - I think 3 or 4 of the 5 speakers at some point, if not at the beginning, involved the speaker saying, "...and it's not what you read about me on the internet..." And I just thought, "that's interesting"
Eric Weinstein: Well, this is the age of misportrayal
Murray: Because I had only heard of one of the speakers once before, and I actually said to one of them afterwards, "you know, we don't actually spend our time reading about you on the internet, we don't Google you."
The problem was they weren't on to nothing - which is that if you did put their name into the Internet, whatever comes up on the fallacious, totally appalling and abhorrent site Wikipedia, would include a load of untrue information about them which they were trying, like me, which they were trying to correct, and there's no mechanism to correct them, so a version of your life is put out there by this despicable company.
These people were afraid of one legitimate thing, and they had also all been suffering through the fact that this era which everyone pretended wasn't going to change everything, meant they were all, every day, imbibing criticism of themselves that before they would only have heard in a row, from somebody who knew them quite well and even then very rarely. And they were all, sort of, I thought, sort of traumatised - and I think, to an extent, that in the same way that our era has imbibed a form of catastrophism about everything, we've imbibed this, we've imbibed the feeling that we are all being assaulted or assailed all the time, because we can't get off our damned phones. And we are seeking out...it's self harm, it's self harm...we're seeking out people that don't like us, and listening to them...
-"41: Douglas Murray - Heroism 2020: Defense of Our Own Civilization (4h 28m mark)". The Portal, Kast Media Network. Retrieved 18 December 2020.

Hank Stamper (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hank Stamper: In the future, in order for this not to be a WP:COPYVIO, you should provide clear attribution when quoting sources, including on talk pages. I copied the source from the article for you, and adjusted formatting to make this even more clear.
I have also reverted the edit itself. A passing mention in an otherwise unreliable podcast is not a demonstration of significance. As I have said on this talk page before, we cannot include all of Murray's opinions, and we need reliable, independent sources to demonstrate why any individual opinion is significant. Am I reading it right that this podcast is almost five hours long? Obviously this podcast must include an awful lot of opinions, and it is not appropriate for editors to select which opinions belong here based on their own interpretation of them. That would be WP:OR. If you know of a reliable independent source which mentions Murray's opinion of Wikipedia, propose it here for discussion. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the note on attribution, which I'll be sure to do in the future but is somewhat academic now for this edit.

While I understand your argument on my edit, I don't agree.

  • I do agree that a couple of minutes discussion in a 5 hour podcast could be considered a passing mention (although I'm not sure what you mean by "an otherwise unreliable podcast"?). But the discussion "section" that it's a part of takes up a fair piece of the conversation, and free speech, "cancellation" and the how the tenor of public debate is affected by the internet is both a matter a public significance and a recurring theme in Murray's work.
  • I'm not sure why Murray himself isn't considered a reliable source on Murray's opinions?
  • The podcast does "include an awful lot of opinions". But the vast majority are restatements or explorations of the opinions/views already mentioned in this section of his biography - so there's no point in restating them. I can't see what point you're making with this - does the dross you have to sift to find a nugget make the gold less valuable?
  • I think my "interpretation" is the obvious meaning of what he said. My original use of the word "interpretation" was in its broadest possible context - it wasn't suggesting that one had to parse the passage closely to divine a possibly contested meaning. The context makes it completely obvious what he's talking about, so there is no WP:OR issue.
  • I find it unusual that "Wikipedia" wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a major public intellectual on Wikipedia - particularly given that the view isn't an anodyne bromide, but is a sharp and very blunt criticism.
  • If this isn't of significance, are Murray's views on pandemic lockdown? His involvement with NGO Monitor? It's a biographical piece about him - he liked fishing as a boy, but is that significant? I understand that "two wrongs don't make a right", and you have been consistent on this point ("we cannot include all of Murray's opinions") but clarity on criteria would be helpful.
  • Wikipedia is, among other things, a cultural phenomenon and an important entity in its own right - does this clear a statement need a reference in The Guardian to make it noteworthy? If he said on the podcast, "all redheads should be executed", would that not be worthy of mention until it's reported in The Times?
  • And I may have missed it, but I can't find anything else you've "said on this talk page before"? CORRECTION - found the references on the archived Talk page.

No point in doing anything further, I'm really just sounding off. I first started making casual minor edits to Wikipedia pages 10-15 years ago - the increasingly arcane nature of the process being wielded by anonymous guardians is making it a pointless exercise. As an example, I made a well-rationalised edit to a page early this year, that was reverted on spurious grounds - 8 months later, exactly the same edit was made by one of the cognoscente, for the same stated reasons, and stood without question. Congratulations - it's now just a slightly different Britannica. Hank Stamper (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

In order:
  • We should use reliable, independent sources to explain themes in Murray's work. As I said, your interpretation that this podcast reflects these themes is OR. It doesn't mean you are factually wrong, but it doesn't mean it belong in this article, either.
  • Murray is probably a reliable source for his own opinions, but this has limits. He is not, for example, an impartial source for those opinions. When articles include people's opinions based on WP:PRIMARY or otherwise flimsy sources, we functionally elevate the importance of those opinions. This is done based on our own editorial decision instead of via reliable sources. Sometimes this can be used as a form of back-door criticism such as when we highlight an obscure comment to prove a point, and sometimes it's flattery as when we present an opinion as though it were insightful. Either way, it's non-neutral. The way around this is through WP:IS. As a practical compromise, some articles attempt to use examples of writers' work to summarize their opinions. This is never ideal, and should not be seen as a precedent.
  • Your assessment of this as "gold" is part of the problem. If this lengthy podcast is mostly redundant with better sources, that doesn't actually make anything in it significant. It doesn't mean it isn't significant either. The existence of a flimsy source proves nothing.
  • It may or may not be an accurate interpretation, but it's still an interpretation. It's not just about how factual this is, it's also about whether or not it is significant. By interpreting it here, you are presuming that this is important enough to summarize, but reliable sources do not support this presumption.
  • Giving special treatment to people's comments about Wikipedia merely because this is Wikipedia would be non-neutral. Clearly, we cannot be entirely impartial, but we should still stick to reliable, independent sources to decide if this is really important for the article itself. Murray's apparent inability to change this article to his liking may or may not be a reflection on Wikipedia's quality, but this podcast isn't a reliable source for that anyway, even if he were talking about some other website. There are many places Murray could go (Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself, etc.) but the article itself obviously isn't the place to explain that to him.
  • Eric Weinstein's podcast is not a particularly reliable source, and his chat with Murray is not an independent source for Murray's views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source which summarizes other sources), not a news outlet, and your hypothetical is no different. If he advocated for executing people, sources would cover it, and if they didn't, this wouldn't be the place to fix that oversight.
Grayfell (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Noteduck:, I removed this edit[[1]] on several grounds mostly related to WEIGHT and RS. Starting with the material under Views, the references to the Bridge Initiative Team is a primary source. As such it should be used with great caution especially since this is a BLP. There is very limited information on Middle East Eye in WP:RSN and the specific articles you used were opinion articles which again are problematic with respect to RS. If they are low on the RS list then they are also going to be limited in terms of WEIGHT. These are the reasons why the content under Views should be removed.

The next block of edits was sourced to The Guardian which is a respected source. However, that section was saying Murray was a favorite of Orban. Such claims have to be used carefully as they can create an association that may not be two way. Unless it is shown that Murray seeks out Orban's praise. That may be the case but that isn't what was in the Wiki article and again, the question of WEIGHT should be addressed if this sort of association is going to be included. The other source, intellinews also appears to really not be about Murray but about others. A better case needs to be made for WEIGHT.

The final addition was related to the PragerU video. That material is almost exclusively sourced to Realsludge. This again appears to be yet another newish cite. Without being able to find much information on Sludge it's hard to establish if the material is reliable or DUE. Given the extensive use of appeals to emotion in the article I don't think it looks good.

So basically all of this looks like marginally sourced material making disparaging claims about a BLP subject. That is something that should be avoided as a rule. Springee (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

For convenience, here are the sources in question:
I've adjusted the templates slightly, such as to include wikilinks to outlets.
Calling Bridge a primary source is not strictly accurate in this context. Bridge is a primary source only for info about Bridge itself, so it cannot be used to claim that its own report is significant or telling. In other words, the source doesn't show that the source is itself significant. However, an academic project like Bridge is exactly the kind of source we should be looking at. Any conclusions made by the source about Murray are not primary, it is WP:SECONDARY. Murray is not involved in the project, and the fact sheet is not an interview of Murray. The source cites many links to primary sources such as columns, videos, etc. The project's director is John Esposito, who as far as I know is a reputable figure in the field. This will need a closer look.
I don't recall having heard of Sludge before, but glancing at its about page, it may be a reliable outlet. My reading of the source is that it includes many directly cited facts and figures in a mostly dry style. Compared to almost every PragerU video I've ever seen, this article is remarkably restrained in it's "appeals to emotion" so I do not think this can be dismissed so easily either. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The academic project is self published, that makes it primary. If other sources talk about their findings in this context then it can be included. Sludge had way too many appeals to emotion and crosses commentary with some facts. That makes it a poor source (ignoring if we should give it any weight as a virtually unknown source. The MME articles are Op-Ed this not ok in this context (and again questionable source in terms of weight). The Guardian articles are not about Murray and the content added to the article is not due regardless of the quality of the sourcing. Springee (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Georgetown University is publishing this project. You can argue that the project isn't notable, but this has very little to do with whether or not it is reliable. This is only self-published by the most narrow, or pedantic, definition.
I dispute that the Sludge source uses too many "appeals to emotion". Your individual claim that it's emotional is not sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source. If you are looking for excuses to excluding unflattering sources, you are not engaging with those sources in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Springee: @Grayfell:

Georgetown is self publishing the project. That makes it a primary source. Sludge is clearly using emotional appeals and does not have a history of reliable reporting. Remember we are including contentious claims about a BLP so we need to have higher standards not laxed ones. Also, it isn't on me to prove the source is quality. The accusation of bad faith is uncalled for and is not a valid argument. Springee (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for listing the sources in detail Grayfell. I don't see how the deletion of the material from The Guardian and Middle East Eye can be justified at all. I don't understand the assertion that Bridge is a PS in this case or is not a RS - its an extensively referenced academic project. As for the Sludge article, a few thinks deserve to be mentioned:

  • the credentials of the writer, Alex Kotch, are impressive - he's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, International Business Times, VICE... [2]
  • Kotch interviews Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center of Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League, hardly a fringe or marginal group. Check this NPR interview where Pitcavage is described as an expert with decades of experience [3]
  • Sludge is a newish source (founded 2018) but their "about" page looks highly professional and is unusually transparent about their funding model [4]. The only current listed members of the Sludge team - it seems like Kotch has moved on - are Donald Shaw [5] and David Moore [6] and both have quite extensive experience in political journalism

All the material I added related to Murray accords with the assessment of his work and beliefs in academic literature (and I believe that more of the academic assessment of Murray should be added to the page). I believe that the edits I made should be reinstated in their entirety Noteduck (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Noteduck:, your restoration of disputed content goes against good editing practice. Per NOCON this content should stay out until a consensus to include is established. If nothing else, the MEE articles are Op-Ed and thus inappropriate for contentious claims about a BLP. Sludge is also not appropriate. Please self revert until we can reach a consensus. Note that consensus doesn't mean "all agree" but currently we don't have a consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've started a BLPN discussion. There is simply too much wrong with the edits to use as is. That doesn't mean they can't be saved but straight up restoration was not the correct call. Springee (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Springee: to be frank I am quite new to editing Wiki and might not always be familiar with correct coding, acronyms, etc but I'm doing my best. You haven't rebutted my points about the Sludge article and made a case against its inclusion. As for Georgetown "self-publishing" the Bridge Initiative - surely this standard would make most academic evidence invalid? As for the Middle East Eye source being "contentious", here is the excerpt: "Murray's criticisms of Islam have been described as a form of far-right entryism". A few pieces of academic commentary on Douglas add context to this:

  • "Murray's views [are] entangled with the Far Right (p161)" [7]
  • a claim that Murray "extemporizes on the basic theme" of the far-right Eurabia conspiracy theory (p218) [8]
  • a description of Murray as a "radical European conservative" and a claim that is "one of the mainstream writers...that have adopted elements of the Eurabia concept" [9] (pp37, 44)
  • in a quantitative study of "far right echo chambers, the Douglas Murray Archive is listed as a "far right" site (p29)[10]

I.e., there is nothing particularly unusual or provocative about the Middle East Eye's claim - it reflects the mainstream academic assessment of Murray's views Noteduck (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, I understand you are new and I don't want to discourage you. Sometimes it takes some practice to get an idea what sources are good and bad or have sufficient WEIGHT for inclusion in articles. This is also why I noted that it's best practice to not restore disputed content right away. In this case one of three things could happen. First, through discussion you may be able to convince enough editors that you are right and your edit will have consensus for inclusion. It might take a few days but it will always look better if you don't restore it while the discussion is in process. Second, we might hit a true no-consensus state and the content would have to stay out per NOCON. Third, and this is often the best case, the objections can be reasonably addressed and we end up with a better final edit. In this case I'm concerned about both the quality of sourcing and WEIGHT/DUE for inclusion. If a weak source can be replaced with a strong one then the problem goes away and the net result is a better edit. Take the Georgetown content. This is a bit like when the ACLU says "Group X is bad". We don't put that in X's article unless a RS says the view about X is signficant. So if the New York Times (as an example) says Murray was profiled by GU then we would cite the NYT article and the GU material as, in effect, a notable opinion. It's notable because the NYT tells us it is. As for Sludge, I have pointed out the issues with it. First, the source is rather unknown so regardless of how correct it might be, WEIGHT comes into question. Second, I'm not convinced it is a reliable source. Sources that mix opinion and facts and use appeals to emotion should be treated more like an OpEd article. It might be OK to use such a source to say this video had X million views but the fact that Sludge had an issue with the video wouldn't be significant per WEIGHT. Also, when the article is primarily about something other than the article subject (Murray) but it is being used to say something about Murray, again we need to ask, is this a good source for that information and is the information DUE for inclusions. If this is something significant about Murray then why isn't it appearing in a source with a stronger reputation? You could raise the Sludge question at WP:RSN. I wasn't able to find a good, previous discussion of the source. Your other sources may be good for the claim you want to make but again, please be cautious. We need to be careful when views are aligned vs their motives are aligned. Two senators may oppose a new spending bill but that doesn't mean they oppose it for the same reasons. One may feel it goes too far while the other says it doesn't go far enough. Anyway, if this discussion pushes you to find better sourcing for the content then it's a win for all concerned. I don't know much about Murray and I'm not interested in protecting the man. My concern is with the way you were using sourcing to put negative things about the person in his BLP. Springee (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW, just going over the four links you provided: The first doesn't work for me. I get an error.

The second does support the idea but again I am always reluctant to use something that mentions Murray only once and in context of a larger group of writers to make a negative claim about him. I don't have access to the 3rd so I can't see how the Murray content is being used other than it shows in a footnote. The 4th is not usable as it is not published. Also, just putting Murray in "far-right" doesn't really mean anything. There likely is enough here to work with but I think we would serve the reader much better if we could find examples rather than just say "X said Murray was Y". Instead, According to X, these views of Murray are similar to those of Y. Springee (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Based on the BLPN discussion there is not consensus for this material. An uninvolved editor found Sludge was not sufficient to established weight for the material being claimed here. Additionally, just as something from the SPLC is considered self published, so are materials from the Bridge Project. Springee (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Springee: First, the sources: source 1 is James Rees, Catherine Needham, Julia Lux and John David Jordan, "Alt-Right ‘cultural purity’, ideology and mainstream social policy discourse: towards a political anthropology of ‘mainstremeist’ ideology," in Social Policy Review: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy (p161)[11] The quote is there, as well as an extensive discussion of Murray and far-right discourse. Source 4 has been published on arXiv but is awaiting peer review - it certainly carries less weight than a peer-reviewed source but not no weight - and the point made is phrased in terms of "is argued", rather than speaking in Wiki's voice. The credentials of the authors are formidable.

There is never going to be complete consensus with a controversial figure like Murray, which is why I have taken care to include disclaimers like "is argued" and "X has said" rather than speaking in Wikipedia's voice. Your argument about the Bridge Initiative doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's a source bringing together an impressive team of academics[12] and extensively refers to multiple third-party sources. If you want the Bridge Initiative source removed I'd like you to refer it to a source reliability discussion first. You still haven't addressed my points about the Sludge authors impressive journalistic credentials and the fact that the article consulted a reliable expert source from a storied mainstream outlet.

The mutual admiration between Murray and Orban is extensively documented and believe your point is pedantic but if need be I can find a source that focuses on Murray's repeated enthusiastic statements about Orban.

Frankly, I believe that the sources that have recently been added are being removed for ideological reasons rather than evidentiary ones. Anything that reflects the orthodox position in academic circles - that Murray is best described as either a far-right intellectual or an "entryist" or "mainstreamer" into far-right politics - is being unjustly removed. Just because these sources do not concord with Murray's ideological self-identification does not make them unreliable. I believe the edits should be reinstated in their entirety, and that the sentence Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] neoconservative[6][7] and a critic of Islam.[8] should be amended to add "far-right". As for the argument that terminology and Murray's political classification is irrelevant, I think this is nonsense - why does Wiki then have pages like Category:Far-right politics and Category:English_far-right_politicians after all? Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, Wikipedia editing is not about righting great wrongs. Douglas Murray, as a living person, should be covered in a fair and neutral way to reflect how he is discussed by reliable sources. Sludge is a two man band and therefore is a self-published source, and the arXiv paper is definitely a self published source. Regardless of the authors credentials, per WP:BLPSPS, self published sources should never be used for claims about living persons. I don't agree with Springee's argument that SPLC is a self-published source, in the same way that something by the ADL isn't the SPLC is a reputable organisation with a reputation for expertise in hate groups. The bridge initiative is directly funded by Saudi Arabia and therefore may be undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hemiauchenia: I agree with the "fair and neutral" comment, which is why I have not added anything about Murray that is not supported by evidence. Even if we reject the arXiv paper, there are still three academic sources (which haven't been added to the page - they are simply being mentioned because they bolster Sludge's point) which make the same point about Murray's political messaging. Can you explain what you mean by the "directly funded by Saudi Arabia" comment? As for the points about Sludge, I've addressed them here[13] Noteduck (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hemiauchenia:@Springee: I believe the argument in favour of Sludge being an RS in this context has been vindicated on the Noticeboard. Please have a look. Absent further rebuttals I believe the deleted edits should be restored soon[14]
No, the notice board discussion had not reached a consensus of reliable also Chetsford's comment notes concern related to weight. Since this is a BLP weight is a big concern. Springee (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why are dubious and accusatory warnings being placed at the lead of this article without prior discussion and agreement? I suggest they are removed quickly to avoid accusations of bias against the subject. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Donoreavenue and Praxidicae:, absent any talk page explanation I support the removal of these recently added tags. I haven't followed this article so if there is a prior discussion please point to it so other editors can know what needs to be addressed. Springee (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm removing the tags as neither editor had defended them. For one this was the only edit in 6 months. For that other they this was their last edit before retiring. Absent any started reason for the tags they should be removed. Note that the tags may actually be correct but per the tags themselves there needs to be an accompanying justification on the talk page. Springee (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

In recent years, similar themes are found in the writings of celebrated British neoconservative author, journalist and public intellectual Douglas Murray. In his bestselling book The Strange Death of Europe (2017),17 Murray echoes many of Huntington’s postulations, telling a story of liberal elite betrayal, where the western political establishment has ignored the national/civilizational interests of its populations through (1) support for mass migration from non-European nations, while not addressing Europe’s negative birth rates; and (2) devaluing and ignoring Europe’s Christian culture and unique civilizational identity. In the book, Murray (2017: 239) describes far-right anti-Islam street protest movements such as PEGIDA and EDL in a sympathetic tone and criticizes the public condemnation these groups have received from their liberal governments. Murray also attempts to rescue the legacy of Powell and Raspail by awarding a prophetic wisdom to their sensationalist warnings. Acclaim for Murray’s thought has been widespread, and ranges from liberal French public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy, who claimed him to be ‘one of the most important public intellectuals today’, to authoritarian anti-immigrant hardliners such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who went so far as to promote The Strange Death of Europe on his Facebook page in Spring 2018... Murray’s book [The Madness of Crowds] remodels a much older theory of so-called ‘cultural Marxism’, which has long history in far-right thought.

— Stewart, Blake (2020). "The Rise of Far-Right Civilizationism". Critical Sociology. 46 (7–8): 1207–1220. doi:10.1177/0896920519894051.

With regard to the EDL, there is a reluctance by many officials and advisors to recognise the group as a significant threat. For example, in April 2011, Adrian Tudway, the police’s National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism, wrote in an email to Muslim groups that the EDL is ‘not extreme right wing as a group’.32 Similarly, in January 2011, Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy, stated that, in relation to the EDL: ‘If you were ever going to have a grassroots response from non-Muslims to Islamism, that would be how you’d want it, surely.’33 Both these statements suggest that ‘counterjihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence.

— Kundnani, Arun (2012). "Blind spot? Security narratives and far-right violence". Security and Human Rights. 23 (2): 129–146. doi:10.1163/18750230-99900008.

Ye’Or’s Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis (2005) is the canonical work of the genre (Bangstad 2013; Larsson 2012), but extemporizations on her basic theme can be found in the work of many conservative writers during the late 2000s and 2010s, such as Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray and, more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam. The conclusive differentiator between counter-jihadist and more mainstream conservative laments about Western decline is the former’s decidedly conspiratorial framing...

— Pertwee, Ed (2020). "Donald Trump, the anti-Muslim far right and the new conservative revolution". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 43 (16): 211–230. doi:10.1080/01419870.2020.1749688.

Media pundit, journalist, and conspiracy entrepreneur Douglas Murray is a prime example of illustrating the influence of an ‘organic intellectual’. Murray has written passionately in support of British fascist Tommy Robinson (Murray, 2018) and describes Islam as an “opportunistic infection” (Hasan, 2013) linked to the “strange death of Europe” (Murray, 2017a). Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections. He is organic not to the working class but to the middle-class and his books and comments therefore are more influential among politicians from a similar background as well as other intellectuals, like biologist Richard Dawkins (2013b) who comments that Murray “sees through David Cameron's ingratiating Islamophilia.” Militant atheism, of which Dawkins is the leading figure, has played a preeminent role in promoting and scientising crypto-racist narratives of religious believers as a savage, ignorant threat to white cultural purity (Arel, 2017; Gray, 2018; Robbins, 2013) Both Dawkins and Murray are atheists, yet both invoke the notion of ‘cultural Christianity’ to underpin their claims that Islam is a threat to progressive ‘European values’ such as LGBT and women’s rights, as indeed do several European far-right groups. Murray, for example, has provided support for European far-right activist Geert Wilders on the grounds of his putative defence of European liberalism (Murray, 2017b)... In the UK, ‘immigration conspiracy’ allegations have focused on assertions of a Labour Party conspiracy to change the cultural face of Britain (Murray, 2017;...

— Lux, Julia; Jordan, John David (2019). "Alt-Right 'cultural purity' ideology and mainstream social policy discourse - Towards a political anthropology of 'mainstremeist' ideology". In Elke, Heins; James, Rees (eds.). Social Policy Review 31: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 2019. Policy Press. ISBN 978-1-4473-4400-1.

Popular commentators and public figures among the [EDL] activists that I have met include Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Melanie Philips, Andrew Gilligan, Douglas Murray, Pat Condell, and some of the commentators who contribute to forums like Alan Lake’s Four Freedoms website.

— Busher, Joel (2013). "Grassroots activism in the English Defence League: Discourse and public (dis) order". In Taylor, Max; Holbrook, Donald; Currie, P. M. (eds.). Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism. A&C Black. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-4411-4087-6.

In the post‐Enoch Powell era, the UK has evolved a broad, cross‐party consensus that maintains that British citizenship and identity is not defined ethnically. The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that.

— Bloomfield, Jon (2020). "Progressive Politics in a Changing World: Challenging the Fallacies of Blue Labour". The Political Quarterly. 91 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12770.

(t · c) buidhe 22:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Buidhe: You are absolutely correct that this material belongs on Murray's page. This is not a fringe assessment of Murray's work and views but the consensus in academic assessments of Murray and much of the news media as well. Unfortunately, in my opinion every source that does not accord with Murray's self-definition as a moderate conservative is being removed from this page - see the discussion here.[15] Given that this page has a history of COI and other issues this is particularly concerning. See also [16] There should be a separate sub-heading "far-right themes in Murray's work" that can collate the wealth of academic and journalistic evidence on Murray and his connections to the far-right Noteduck (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Noteduck, those are inappropriate accusations. The content in question was not removed for the reasons you claim. They were removed because they were inappropriately sourced per Wikipedia's BLP policies. Springee (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

A significant amount of new material and sources has been added to this page in December. Despite extensive referencing and a wealth of source material, much of this new material has been repeatedly deleted from the article. The sources that have been edited out of the article include:

Tags pertaining problems with this page have also been removed[23]. I believe that the only consistent factor in these deleted sources is that they are perceived as being unflattering to Murray, and that they do not accord with his self-identification as a mainstream conservative. It is the mainstream academic view that Murray's work can either be characterized as far-right or having far-right themes[24] and journalistic sources that echo this view should not be unjustly removed from the page.Noteduck (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

No reason to spread this discussion out all over the place. The issue isn't NPOV, it's sourcing requirements for controversial claims about a BLP subject. Just in case it was missed in the discussions above let's review these sources. The Bridge Initiative and the hatewatch claims by SPLC are self published. They can be used in articles if mentioned (ie given weight) by independent RSs. So if the NYT says, "The SLPC says Murray is X" then we can use it. In that case we would cite the NYT and possibly the SPLC as well. We don't go to the SLPC or Bridge Initiative and cite them directly if they haven't been referenced by others. MEE is an opinion article and thus not appropriate for a controversial claim about a BLP. You already opened a RSN discussion regarding Sludge. The Guardian is reliable but the way you want to use it is not appropriate. Essentially this isn't a question of reliable sourcing rather WEIGHT. That person A is admired by "bad person" doesn't mean that "bad person's" admiration is due for inclusion in an article about A. That is a guilt by association logical fallacy. Springee (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
if you contend that the Bridge Initiative and the SPLC are "self-published" in this context could you please submit the sources to discussion at[25] or point to where they have previously been discussed. By your standard, absolutely any academic project could be considered "self-published" - would you regard, for example, the Innocent Project as a self-published source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest you raise the question. As the editor trying to get consensus for new material it is on you to make the case. Springee (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Here are some existing pages that cite the Bridge Initiative[26][27][28][29][30]. I'll be reinstating the majority of my prior edits (with some alterations) soon as a persuasive case has been made for their inclusion Noteduck (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
This sort of "other articles do X" is a common on Wikipedia. One must keep in mind that it could simply be a case of other got away with it rather than it was right. If you think the BI should be a RS then raise the question at RSN. The noticeboards are there to answer questions like this. Springee (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
If information unfavorable to the subject is consistently removed, that is a NPOV issue.
Many sources discuss the far right themes in Murray's work as well as the admiration of many far-right individuals for him. It's clearly due weight for inclusion in some form. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Noteduck is constructing a false dichotomy. My concerns are RS (and WEIGHT related to those sources). Why worry that primary or lesser sources are being disputed when you have shown there are good sources that could be used instead? Springee (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Springee, buidhe and myself have produced a wealth of evidence from academic and journalistic sources demonstrating Murray's ideological and personal links to figures acknowledged as far-right. Please indicate if you would object to any of the following, as I'd rather discuss it here than see my edits promptly removed on the main page

  • an amendment of the sentence "Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] a neoconservative[6][7] and a critic of Islam" to "Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] a neoconservative[6][7], far-right[some of the many sources that have been collected on this point] and a critic of Islam"
  • inclusion of mentions of Murray's extensively-discussed PragerU video, including a restoration of the material collected from the Sludge video which you deleted
  • a restoration of the material from the Bridge Initiative discussion of Murray, buttressed by some of the academic sources that support the Initiative's argument
  • at least a passing mention of the frequent accusations of Islamophobia directed at Murray
  • at least a passing mention of the well-documented personal links and mutual personal admiration between Murray and Viktor Orban

I believe all of these points merit inclusion in this article and that your previous deletion of new material was unwarranted Noteduck (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will object to any restoration of the disputed content that repeats the same sourcing issues. Buidhe provided what look like good alternative sources. The sourcing rules for BLP don't make exceptions for poor sourcing just because it appears to align with quality sources. Springee (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Noteduck:, you have restored the disputed sources without showing consensus (please see WP:NOCON). On the Sludge RSN discussion Hemiauchenia questioned the reliability of the source for reasons similar to mine. Chetsford felt they may be reliable but DUE was still an unanswered question. I also raised the question of DUE above. MEE, one of the sources you used, is an Op-Ed column. Op-Eds are almost never seen as reliable for contentious material about a BLP subject. On the BLPN, Kyohyi agreed with me that the Bridge Initiative is self published since it isn't published via normal academic journals or press. Grayfell disagreed but that simply means we don't have a consensus. Again, buidhe has provided a long list of what appear to be good sources, why are you trying to use Op-Eds, self published and sources with limited reputation/weight? Springee (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

the "limited reputation/weight" claim is spurious. The discussion on the Noticeboard[31] makes it clear that Sludge meets the criteria for RS and as for DUE, I made a very strong argument on this about the reach and relevance of PragerU and received no response from you. Kyohyi claimed that SLUDGE was self-published, not the Bridge Initiative like you contend. The argument about Sludge being a self-published was addressed and then rebutted, as Chetsford acknowledged on the page. The argument that Bridge is self-published is baffling - by your standard, so is the Innocence Project... You're asserting an evidentiary standard that could exclude virtually all academic output. The MEE article is not being cited using Wiki's voice and the caveat "has been described as" is present. The academic sourcesbuidhe kindly provided have been incorporated into the article. Springee, other editors have repeatedly voiced concerns about your potential problems with NPOV and advocacy on controversial issues. Please don't remove edits without good reason [32] Noteduck (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Again, there isn't consensus that Sludge is reliable much less that it would have weight for including this content in a BLP. Your comment about academic output is flawed. Most academic output comes in the form of papers published in journals or conference proceedings or in the form of books published by an academic press. What we have here is effectively the same as a think tank. It may be very high quality work but the authoring and publishing of the work is internal to the project. That makes it self published. Beyond all that, you restored other disputed material. The guilt by association content is disputed precisely because it is guilt by association. This is an article about Murray so if someone is a fan of Murray you need to show why that is significant in context of Murray. You have not. And you restored the MEE sourced material which is content sourced to an Op-Ed. It is basically never OK to use an OpEd article to insert contentious material into an article about a BLP. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Suggestion: My comment about DUE/UNDUE at RSN was hypothetical and not in reference to this specific article as I haven't looked at it closely enough to make a determination one way or the other. Perhaps one of you two could open an RfC to help determine what content should be included and what omitted? Based on a very cursory glance I would say it is problematic to cite this [33] to declare his views are proximate to Islamophobia since the source only mentions the word "Islamophobia" once in a quote from Murray himself. I would also say the claim that he is a "critic of Islam" should have better sourcing than a single reference to a source (the Evening Standard) that does not have a reliability consensus despite six attempts to obtain one (WP:RSP). That said, some of the other claims in the parade of horribles that form the lead seem perfectly reliable and well-sourced. Again, this is based on the most cursory of examinations only. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've offered an example below under the heading "Islamophobic" that I think would help better focus the discussion and make it more comprehensible to those not as invested in this page. This is currently very free-wheeling and hard for a newcomer to digest or comprehend. Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, when restoring this content [[34]] you claim the multitude of issues, including using an Op-Ed to make controversial claims about a BLP subject have been addressed and thus have consensus. Can you tell me which editors support those claims? I'm seeing some mixed support but nothing that would appear to be a consensus. Springee (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, please self revert this edit [[35]]. Mcrt007 removed it on solid ground, that the lead is a summary of the body. I've said the same thing and support the removal as well. Springee (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Springee and Mcrt007, I've added a much-overdue subsection under "views" on Murray's ideological links to the far right,[36] which hopefully should assuage your concerns about the lead not matching the body. Feedback and comments welcome Noteduck (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, it's a mess and needs to be reverted. Springee (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Noteduck:, your recent additions to the lead are not good BLP practice. The lead should be a summary of the article. Adding a long list of citations to the lead describing Murray as "alt-right" is bad practice. Instead, those source should be added to the body of the article, perhaps with a statement like, "Murray has been widely described as alt-right", followed by those citations (or just the 5 strongest, see WP:OVERCITE). In the lead you would just say "he has been described as alt-right without citations since the body of the article would support that content in the lead. Note: I haven't reviewed the sources to see if they are of BLP standards but a quick skim suggests they are. At least some are not as the list includes Op-Eds and disputed sources. Springee (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Edit Springee (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Reply

the footnotes have been bundled. Given the frequent demands for an extremely high evidentiary standard on this page, I believe the sources should be kept for the time being — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Bundling is a good way to handle that and thumbs up for keeping the statements out of wiki-voice. Again, it's best if the citations are in the body, say where a discussion of why his is considered to be alt-right would be. Then the lead doesn't need any citations. Also, if the body doesn't discuss why people call him alt-right then it really shouldn't be in the lead. It seems like there are plenty of reasons so this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Conan The Librarian, Noteduck, and Nomoskedasticity:, I think it's worth discussing the recently added/removed citations from the lead. Personally I don't see an issue with the attributed "Islamaphobic" statement in the lead. It seems to fit with some of the body content. I think Chetsford's pole below is trying to get at some of that. I would say my answer is D. Anyway, there is an issue with this content [[37]]. First, as I said above if these sources only exist in the lead then there is a problem. With very few exceptions no content or citations should exist solely to support something in the lead. If it doesn't need to be in the article body then it shouldn't be in the lead either. I don't think that is too hard to fix since I suspect many of those sources would be useful in the body. Still, the content is disputed thus the problems should be corrected on the talk page rather than via back and forth editing. Also, just because a source is from an academic source does not mean it can't be removed. That just means we presume it is reliable. That doesn't mean it's DUE, isn't OR or that the edit isn't problematic in some other way. This edit has a number of issues. Going down the list of included sources

  • Black Stwart's work - This one doesn't support the Wiki article claim (at least the included quote doesn't). The quote says Murray's book remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has a long history in far-right thought. That doesn't support that Murray's views or ideology is "proximate to the far-right". That talks about the content of the book, not the person overall. I would agree they likely go hand in hand but as a BLP we should not stretch what a source says to fit what we want the article to say. It would be the same as taking a statement that describes Mr X as being sympathetic with some racist ideas to mean Mr X is a racist.
  • Arun Kundnani - Again this one is being stretched to call Murray far-right. This is simply too far removed from the Wikipedia article statement to be valid.
  • Ed Pertwee - This one lists some authors including Murray then later says "...more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam." It does not say Murray is alt-right in any capacity.
  • Lux and Jordan - This is closer, "Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections." However, this still seems to be skirting the issue. This "far-right" association is rather weak for something stuck in the lead of the article.
  • Joel Busher - I'm not sure this is an academic source which means DUE could be an concern. The quote doesn't say "alt-right" so perhaps the activists are "alt-right"? Assuming yes, popular with alt-right doesn't mean the ideas are specifically alt-right, only that the people they are popular with include alt-right. Yet again, this is a weak source on which to hang an alt-right tag in the lead.
  • Jon Bloomfield - Well, it doesn't directly support "alt-right" since this one calls Murray "white nationalist right". So I would say this one doesn't support "alt-right" but rather supports "white nationalist". Do be careful about using a single source to describe, with attribution, Murray as a white nationalist in the lead.
  • Nafeez Ahmed - This is an op-ed article from Middle East Eye. As an op-ed it's absolutely not acceptable for a contentious claim about a living person. Additionally, this one again dances around the label.
  • Alex Kotch - this is the Sludge article which currently sits as WP:NOCON for inclusion. In this case it call PragerU, not Murray far-right. Since the edit associates the label with Murray himself this is not an acceptable source even if Sludge were both RS and DUE.
  • This last one doesn't even make sense as it's several sources but used in a way that we can't tell what source is meant to support the far-right claim. The part that includes an LA Times quote does not support associating Murray with the far right.

So in the end we have a 9000+ character edit that tries to pin the "far-right" label on Murray (which may be an appropriate label) but simply doesn't pass any sourcing muster needed to do the job. It's honestly just a mess. This might have been part of the issue Atsme was raising [[38]] in response to Noteduck's BLP in inquiry. While my gut feeling is there are probably RSs that support the attributed alt-right label, this edit should be removed and started over. As is, it's basically unfixable. Springee (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Springee: You have frequently confused the terms "alt-right" and "far-right" in your commentary. Go back through the sources and rephrase your rebuttals please. However, extricating the terms far-right, alt-right, white nationalist and so on is indeed a difficult exercise in the context of this article. It's also true that the extensive academic and journalistic source material linking Murray with these groups should be explored in more detail in the body. In my opinion the body needs to be reordered so I'll create a new subheading to discuss that. The matter with Sludge was settled conclusively even if you disagree with the conclusion[39] Other claims you have made about the Bridge Initiative, SPLC etc being "self-published" were dubious and were comprehensively rebutted by other editors. Again, I would point to the extensive concerns raised about NPOV issues and advocacy on contentious matters by other editors on your talk page[40] and ask you to examine your own biases. Please refrain from removing material from this page absent stronger rebuttals backed by other experienced editorsNoteduck (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
How would you feel about changing the lead sentence to this - "Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right, alt-right or white nationalist right by a number of academic[9] and journalistic[10] sources, and his views have also been described as Islamophobic.[11]"?
Any swapping of far-right vs alt-right was unintentional. There was a lot of text to dig through and it's late. I think the first thing is the lesser sources must go (Sludge, MEE). I think the academic sources are probably fine for what you want to do. Don't say "a number of academic". Also, we have to be careful about "views and ideology". Are those specific terms supported. It might be better to say something about his "statements" or "commentary" (not sure those are perfect words either). Still, I think if you dumped some of the sources and tightened up the language you might be across the finish line. However, you also need to make sure the body of the article really supports this content in the lead. Once of the worst things people do with Wiki articles is find something they want to see in the article so it gets jammed in the lead. In general nothing should be added to the lead unless it already exists in the body. The idea that you are adding a large number of new citations to the lead vs the body means you are probably doing something wrong. Again, this doesn't mean what you want to add to the lead shouldn't be there, instead it means you should think about what body text supports what you want in the lead. It may already be in the body. Take the part about Islamaphobic. Sources that support that statement should be in the body of the article talking about his views on Islam. Ideally there is a section in the body that follows something like:
Commentary on IslamParagraph(s) summarizing his viewsParagraph talking about reaction to his views.
In the reaction you could say, "Murray's views on Islam have been described as Islamaphobic". In the lead they you could also include a statement about his views being controversial and described as Islamaphobic. Then if anyone says why is that in the lead, you point to the body. To some extent this follows the good practice of showing the reader and allowing them to reach a conclusion (with help) rather than telling them what to think before showing the evidence. Springee (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, there has been some back and forth with the citations in the lead as well as the other disputed content. Conan The Librarian removed a large number of your recent changes. I partially support that move. With respect to the body edits discussed/disputed in a previous section, there simply is no consensus that the sourcing is acceptable. That means per policy the edits should be reverted until consensus if established. As for the content in the lead, I've indicated a number of issues above. Again restoring an Op-Ed article to support a contentious claim is not acceptable. That doesn't mean the other sources couldn't be used. I would also note that "proximate" to the far-right is too vague a statement. If he is personally, widely considered "far-right" fine. Proximate is just too wishy-washy. Same with some of the other negative categorizations in the lead. Again, I get back to the best way to handle this is to come to an agreement on the body text then use the lead to summarize it. if we are putting this content in the lead first then we are doing it wrong. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The wholesale removal of that content was (also?) against policy. Some specific proposals and edits are the way forward here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Which policy? I think there is salvageable sources in there but that doesn't mean the text as added can't be reverted. Rather NOCON states that is the correct thing to do. Also per ONUS it's really on those who want to make the change to fix things rather than restoring edits that include things like OpEds used to make contentious claims about BLPs. I agree that a compromise is the correct option here. Ideally that means remove the disputed edits, talk it out and then put up new compromise text. That isn't what had been happening here. Springee (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the very patient efforts of Springee in looking into the sources above and from what I've seen they generally look like accurate concerns. I removed the mass of them as despite their weakness the labelling is derogatory and with what appears to be activist intent (in the sources if not the edit) to besmirch a mainstream writer as an extremist simply for questioning culture warrior over-reach - there is even reference to him being a white nationalist in there! IANAL but some of it seems borderline libellous and has no place here with so little weight behind the references. I'm surprised that anybody thinks such accusatory material belongs in a biographic article without overwhelming consensus. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I hate to disabuse you, but 10 years ago the UK Conservative party severed relations with Murray and his org because of his incendiary comments about 'immigrants' (a term which appeared to include British-born citizens whose parents or grandparents were born elsewhere). The views included implying that ALL Muslims should be punished for the crimes of any extremists and that if people were critical of UK govt, or NATO, actions around the world, they should be forcefully 'deported', regardless of them having been born British in the UK. The conservative party at that time was kind enough to assume Murray's views were injudiciously phrased and gave him the opportunity to 'recant', which he declined. The conservative home website also pointed out that his ideas were absurd, legally unworkable and contrary to the very 'liberal' and 'Christian' political values - which Murray ostensibly defends, apart of course from alienating large sections of people for no useful purpose. Therefore the idea that THE CENTRAL controversy about Murray is NOT whether and to what extent he is simply a gentrified 'Paki-basher' and an opportunist - an old-Etonian "shock-jock"- is slightly bizarre to me. I don't have a view as to how this should be represented here, nor anything useful to say about the WEIGHT which should be attached to the sources (reliability isn't much of an issue since there is no suggestion that criticism should be put in WP:VOICE), but people thinking he is often incendiary in what he has to say about Muslims/immigrants, possibly intentionally so, is hardly a novel, or marginal, observation. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The volume of discussion here is hard to follow but I agree with Springee that the longer version is a serious case of overcitation in the lead. The lead should summarise the body and if the body doesn't mention "alt-right" etc it shouldn't be in the lead, and leads should not have this level of footnoting in any case. However, I think many of the deleted refs are probably strong enough to include in the body and so moved theere rather than simply deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bobfrombrockley. I agree that many of these sources look good. Cutting the lesser sources and primary sources shouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure about the very loose phrasing we are using when adding these labels. I appreciate that they aren't in wiki-voice but "proximate to far-right" and "linked to alt-right" are very weaselly. Those are nebulous terms that could be used to connect Milton Freidman to the alt-right [[41]]. If the linkage is that weak, and some of the sources say it isn't weak, then it shouldn't be in the lead. In that section the "linked to alt-right" is not supported by the single provided source. The sources for "far-right" do support the "proximate to" claim but such a claim shouldn't be in the lead. The sources could be put to better use in the body. Basically there is content with which to work but not all of it is good and it needs to start in the article body. Springee (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee, let's try to narrow down what your actual complaints are about the lead. Is the Middle East Eye article the sole source that you contest on evidentiary grounds? The Sludge article has been EXTENSIVELY discussed and justified on the Wiki source reliability noticeboard[42] Unless you can produce new evidence against its reliability it looks like mere obstructionism at this point. If Murray's extensively documented links to the far right/alt right/white nationalist right do not belong in the header, then surely the description of him as a "conservative, neocon, critic of Islam" etc also has no place in the header.

Also, there seems to be a remarkable naivety about Murray and his views among editors here. As Pincrete has mentioned, it is the academic CONSENSUS that Murray has links to the extreme right, which is why the Tories distanced themselves from him in 2007! Please look at the quotes provided from some of the sources that have been added - it's very widely accepted that Murray gives a kind of socially acceptable face to the UK far right - which is why terms like "mainstreaming" and "entryism" [ie to the far right] are often used in association with Murray. The fact that Murray is a highly visible public intellectual but does not make these arguments any less valid. Conan the Librarian I've noticed with some of your edits you seem almost disbelieving that anyone could say such things about Murray - but these are the conclusions most serious scholars have come to when assessing his works. Noteduck (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh I have no problem believing people would cast such aspersions, especially in academia; we are well known to be living in an age where anybody critiquing cultural over-reach by idealogues does so at risk of such abuse.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Would people support a subheading within "views" called "far right associations" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, you are simply approaching this from the wrong direction. You need to start by saying what the sources say. Then organize it then decide what to call it. Additionally, what label sources choose to apply is far less important than their arguments why that label should be applied. Springee (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Noteduck, tiny correction. AFAIK the conservative party distanced themselves from Murray because of HIS views, and because the views were legally unworkable and expressed in ways they thought to be needlessly offensive and because he refused to explicitly distance from his earlier statements AFAIK, his links to any right-wing groups were not an issue at that time for them. Otherwise I agree with your general point. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which, if any, most closely reflect your opinion(s) based on available WP:RS? Please select all that apply, or describe your thoughts if none apply.

  • A: Douglas Murray should not be described, in WP's voice, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • B: Douglas Murray should not be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • C: Douglas Murray should be described, in WP's voice, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • D: Douglas Murray should be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Chetsford: I appreciate your input. I may have jumped the gun with my reference to Islamophobia in the lead. Note the "about us" page on the Bridge Initiative website:

"The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University. The Bridge Initiative aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia."[43]

I have put in the body that " Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia."[44] But yes, you're right that Bridge does not explicitly call Murray an "Islamophobe" at any point. I can find some sources which explicitly call Murray Islamophobic[45][46] or note that activists have addressed him as such[47]. I checked each of these sources and each of them seems to have editorship as well as authorship and no obvious RS red flags. That said, if you think the "Islamophobe" designation doesn't belong in the lead at all let me know Noteduck (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck - this is purely a question for the community and does not represent input of any kind by me. If you could, would you mind properly indenting and clearly indicating your thoughts (bolding a basic summary is often helpful, but not required). My hope is that, by asking a succinct question and obtaining clear and coherently organized responses, we could accurately weigh the sense of the community and refresh the rather nuanced, rambling tête-à-tête above. Here are some examples of how these discussions usually go: [48], [49]. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Chetsfordit should be D: Douglas Murray should be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic"). Here is an academic source that describes Murray as Islamophobic [sic] and another that describes him as "Islamophobic" [sic]

Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Niall Ferguson, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Diana West, Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011), Paul Berman, Frank Gaffney, Nick Cohen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray (Kundnani 2012b, 2008; Carr 2006; Gardell 2010).

— Mattias Ekman (2015) Online Islamophobia and the politics of fear: manufacturing the green scare, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38:11, 1986-2002, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1021264

In addition, in Busher’s (2015) ethnographic study of EDL activism in the South East, he confirms that – while EDL activists’ ideological sources were largely drawn from ‘esoteric [Counter-Jihad] authors’ – they also ‘extended well beyond this niche’ to include mainstream ‘Islamophobes’ such as Douglas Murray and prominent New Atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (p. 84), whose characterisation of the Muslim faith as ‘evil’ or ‘mad’ adds grist to the group's Islamophobic cause.

— William Allchorn (2019) Beyond Islamophobia? The role of Englishness and English national identity within English Defence League discourse and politics, National Identities, 21:5, 527-539, DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2018.1531840

Additionally, I think a footnote citing to the Bridge Initiative should be added next to these sources with an adjoining note "Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, an academic project aimed at documenting Islamophobia, has extensively profiled Murray's views" Noteduck (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck - these types of unformatted, walls of text tend to derail discussions. Have you had a chance to complete the WP:ADVENTURE yet to learn a bit more about how to use Wikipedia? If not, it might be a good idea to check it out. With your permission, as we're the only two who have commented here, I'd like close and archive this thread since it's fairly unreadable at this point and quickly turned into a mirror of the somewhat rambling discussion it was designed to corral. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The wall of text stuff seems to be present in the article as well, regardless of who's responsible. There is far, far too much "detail" on the Islamophobic and absurd far right accusations. I've removed some of it but the whole article needs a clean up with a succinct summary of Murray's critique of Islam, not the meandering war of words present at the moment, especially the nonsense about him being far-right.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to struggle to engage with academic sources simply because they portray thing in ways you don't like, this might not be the best article for you to work on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'd support D. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Of course you would - you forgot to mention though that we just disagreed on one of the related wiki pages. Both of you, please consider your own biases before you imply my own and remember to assume good faith. The references at fault have been discussed ad nauseum above for their flaws and need severe editing before reinstating. Edit: I missed the "D" and assumed you were supporting the tone of the comment you were replying to; if I misread, my apologies.Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Conan The Librarian: it was just a !vote, not a response to the comment. But ignoring the tone, I'm concerned that you either don't understand our sourcing policy or disagree with it - or are perhaps ignoring it, but I can't read your mind. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Damaging claims based on contested sources were placed in a biographical article without consensus despite repeated objections and so were removed. I disengaged after a couple of reversions due to the edit war policy. Please clarify exactly what I did wrong and future guidance for dealing with edits that seem to have more in common with a political campaign at best and character assassination at worst ("white nationalist" in the references, "far right" in the text). Conan The Librarian (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Doug Weller: I repeat - please clarify your criticism in the light of my reply above or - better still - take an actual look at the "far right" accusations being made by what appears to be an activist editor who is refusing to move forward with consensus despite repeated objections by multiple editors including myself, and are having the effect of traducing a mainstream (if provocative) cultural critic. Conan The Librarian (talk)
  • A - I am dismayed that we must continuously debate the obvious in light of prior discussions at BLPN that have confirmed we should not. Labeling and name-calling is not encyclopedic. We are obligated to follow WP:PAGs, specifically as they relate in this case to MOS:LABEL, WP:BLP, and WP:INTEXT. Also see prior BLPN discussions in which Jimbo participated, including here & here. Jimbo's statements align with my statement here and at BLPN. Atsme 💬 📧 11:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
For such serious accusations, any summary relying on the sort of sources so far suggested would need to be careful in pointing out their weaknesses (political biases of the writer etc), and the tenuousness of the links proposed. Conan The Librarian (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A and probably D Clearly we should not put a contentious label in wiki-voice so that makes A all but required. D is depending on sourcing. Looking at the article we have 3 sources used to support that he is called Islamophobic. The Bridge Initiative is listed as a 3rd supporting the claim but, in addition to questions of SPS, it also doesn't actually label him as Islamophobic. I think this is sufficient sourcing for an attributed label in the article body. With just two instances and given the way the sources are listing people rather than talking about Murray specifically and providing examples about Murray I don't think this has sufficient weight to be in the lead. Springee (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Slightly pointless exercise on two grounds. Firstly I don't think anyone believes that Murray should be described in WPVOICE as Islamophobic/far right etc. Murray is a controversial figure and the extent to which his views support/coincide with far-right groups or individuals is the question, not whether he IS an acknowledged far-right figure. Secondly, experienced editors are advising a relative newcomer to work FROM the sources to establish what is an accurate, weighted text - but here we are discussing how to represent this issue, without reference to ANY sources! Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A and B There have so far been no sources presented that are sufficiently strong enough to carry weight backing what are essentially aspersions. Note this especially applies to the "far right" claim, not just the Islamophobic one. Conan The Librarian (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A and B I agree with Conan for the most part. In addition to that, not every critic of Islam is an Islamophobe (some major intellectuals, like Gandhi, Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul, Wole Soyinka or Sadegh Hedayat have also criticized, at times harshly, the violent imperialistic expansion of Islam and various of its aspects). Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which seems to be quoted 5-6 times in this article and given undue-weight doesn't seem to be a noteworthy source either: their content is not peer reviewed, and seems rather activist in nature, mixing within their "factsheets" genuine Islamophobes (like neo-nazi groups, Pamela Geller and so on) with the smearing of occasional critics (like Tulsi Gabbard) but also reformists including women rights activists Seyran Ateş, Maajid Usman Nawaz, none if which is labelled on Wikipedia as "Islamophobe". Mcrt007 (talk)
  • D. The breadth of sources is plainly enough to show that this description of him is prominent enough and mainstream enough to be worth noting; and the argument that "the sentiments he's expressing are not islamophobic because [reasons]" is head-scratching when applied to attributing opinions - we don't omit attributed statements simply because an editor disagrees with them. --19:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Anyone who thinks "the sources don't justify it" evidently has a severe allergy to the idea of making an effort. To assist, here are two google scholar searches that produce a wealth of material to work with:

FFS, he is discussed in The Routledge International Handbook of Islamophobia. [50]. The sort of anti-expert commentary we are seeing above in this section shows a real weak spot of Wikipedia in dealing with "controversial" topics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Murray has made it clear he supports reform of Islam from within, not abolishment of it; his concern is what he sees (rightly or wrongly) as the assumption that Europe must change its ideals to match those of Islam, rather than vice versa. And as I've made clear my biggest problem is with the "far right" labelling. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you would drop the repeated veiled insults against me. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think the Islamophobic claim is clearly supported by sources published in academic literature. The body of the text should say this label is applied and say why. If the label is due for the lead should be decided after the body is done but my gut feeling is the answer will be yes. I want to make clear that my objections to some of the sources is not a rejection of all of them. Springee (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee is correct - the sources are sufficient - even if Murray sees himself differently. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nomoskedasticity this speaks to the heart of my concerns about the edits and revisions made to this page. It's the academic CONSENSUS that Murray provides a socially acceptable face for Islamophobia and the far right, which is why terms like "entryism" and "mainstreaming" [of the far right] have been applied to him. The fact that Murray himself seems to self-identify as a moderate conservative should not detract from this. Some editors here should keep in mind that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. A wealth of high-quality material has been added to this page since December 2020. Unfortunately, every source that does not align with Murray's self-identification as a moderate conservative has had to contend with repeated removals and tendentious editing. I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep a close eye on this page and prevent its quality being affected by partisan attacks Noteduck (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Noteduck, we can't claim it's academic consensus because we haven't heard the opinion of a sufficient number of academics. We can say these academics say this about him. Also, if, hypothetically, 5 academics and 1 blog all say the same thing we might conclude that the blog is correct. However, we still cannot cite the blog in a wiki article. A source of questionable reliability that says the same thing as good academic sources is still a questionable source per WP:RS and thus not suitable for contentious claims about BLP subjects. Please review BLP sourcing here [[51]]. Springee (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Additionally, I checked a couple of the links in the search results above and it wasn't obvious at all that they reflected a consensus view (even over those results!) that Murray is Islamophobic (or just reflected the bias of the authors). Conan The Librarian (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are paragraphs on The Strange Death of Europe and The Madness of Crowds that are somewhat awkwardly integrated into the "views" subheading of Murray's page. I believe they should be moved to the "publications" heading. Any disagreements?

Also, there is a mainstream view in academia (I would say a consensus) and a mainstream view in journalistic sources that Murray can be considered some combination of far-right, alt-right or Islamophobic.[52][53][54][55] Accordingly, appropriate categories for Murray include those related to the far right and Islamophobia in the UK, eg [[56]] [[57]] [[58]]

I realize that these claims are contested - PLEASE address the volume of evidence presented in footnotes 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the Douglas Murray page before rejecting these categorizations outright. "These sources sound biased/POV/etc" is not a weighty response. I am open to discussion about what categories Murray should be added to Noteduck (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think moving specific commentary on his books to the publications section makes sense. The views section should be more general. Also, we shouldn't conflate the contested sourcing (an issue that has not been resolved) with an assumption that sourcing for these statements doesn't exist at all. If we have two good sources and one questionable one that all say the same thing then we should dump the questionable one and simply rely on the good ones. Springee (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
MEE cetainly not a source that can be used at WP:BLP --Shrike (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shrike I disagree completely, but let's see how things play out on the reliability noticeboard. I don't understand how a book review from an esteemed Georgetown professor in a respected outlet doesn't belong on the page. If no-one objects to moving the paragraphs about The Strange Death of Europe and The Madness of Crowds from "views" to "publications", I'll do so in the next day or so Noteduck (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think we can break this down a bit. Let's assume Almond were to publish this review on his confirmed, personal blog. Would we cite it? This isn't like citing the opinion of Alan Dershowitz with regards to a supreme court case. Dershowitz's legal and scholarly resume is such that just about anything he says would be DUE. Almond doesn't appear to rise to that level where his opinion on any book related to Islam and Europe is automatically DUE. That means we would have to rely, at least in part, on the quality of the publication. That is problematic when the publication's reputation is being disputed. I did a search for Almond and Murray and found Almond has published some opinion articles about Murray, one in Aljazeera and one in "Islamic Human Rights Commission". I'm sorry, so far I'm not seeing that either Almond or MEE is earning much in terms of due WEIGHT here. If the use of this source is limited to the book review only and not given more weight than other reviews I think it could be acceptable but certainly not for any claims about the author himself. Springee (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I want to untangle your contention here. Which of these are you arguing - or you arguing something else?

  1. Almond's review should be removed because MEE should never be cited as a RS on Wiki for any reason
  2. Almond's review should be removed because a review of Murray's book is not due weight - in which case, the Telegraph, Times, NY Times etc reviews should be removed as well.

Which is it, or is the problem with Almond's review simply how critical it is of Murray? Noteduck (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

They don't untangle. If Almond's review were published in the NYT it would be easy to say its due even if we didn't know who Almond was. In essence, the NYT is providing the reputation for us. MEE doesn't have such an established reputation. Rather some sources are saying it is a propaganda outfit (see RSN discussion). That means the weight of this book review would have to rest entirely on Almond's reputation. So far I don't see that Almond is, if you will, the Dershowitz of this field. Springee (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I note these extremely contentious claims are still up and more activist material being continuously added with aggressive edit notes. A reminder that these derogatory "far right" claims need overwhelming consensus before being published, not after. I propose they are taken down immediately until their discussion has some resolution. Conan The Librarian (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

After several more days, there's still been no consensus so I've removed the content in the lead; I suggest the new stuff in the body (which addition I'm guessing has been encouraged by the other editors not wanting to engage in the blatant edit warring of the instant reversions of any removals of inflammatory material) is removed for the same reasons. Conan The Librarian (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

‎Nomoskedasticity, CTL's removal was sound. First, CTL didn't remove any sources since the same list of sources was included in the newly added (yet still questionable) right wing associations section here [[59]]. Second, this means you have restored a lot of poorly edited content. Even if one supports the material in the lead a wholesale restoration (vs fixing it) of badly edited material is something we all should avoid. That section was added as a horse to support the cart that had been already added to the lead. That is not how these things are supposed to work. Currently the far right section is still a mess that needs to be sorted out or split up and integrated into other parts of the article. The "proximal to the far-right" claim is very vague and as such probably shouldn't be in the lead of a BLP (WP:DONOHARM). This and similar content has been opposed/removed by CTL, Shrike and myself. That means there isn't a consensus for it's inclusion. Given the many back and forths we are well into the phase of discuss first then add after consensus is established. Springee (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As per my edit summary: I'm not going along with the removal of numerous high-quality academic sources. The fact that they are already present elsewhere in the article makes it less clear why we should do that. Perfectly happy to discuss alterations to the wording. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nomoskedasticity, I don't think I made my point well enough. Conan The LibrarianRemoving that block didn't actually remove any references from the article. When Noteduck added the new section they simply copied all the references. For example, the first ref in your restored block of text (citation 10) is Blake Steward, The Rise of Far-Right Civilizationism. That same source is in Citation 112. Other than the Jon Bloomfield source Citations 10 and 112 appear to be the same. Bloomfield is a repeated in Citation 116. Anyway, there is no removal of sources thus the only question is should the lead contain the specific sentence, "Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been criticized for promoting the Eurabia and Great Replacement conspiracy theories about Muslim immigration to Europe, and of being Islamophobic."? That is then a question of DUE for the lead as well as do the sources reliable support the claims made in that sentence. Given this is a BLP and those are contentious claims about the subject they should be out until a clear consensus for inclusion has been established. At this point I see something like a 50/50 split. Springee (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, why are you restoring an OpEd article as a source for a contentious claim about a BLP?[[60]] Shrike rightly removed it per WP:RSEDITORIAL, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY a primary source can only be used in a BLP with extreme caution. Using a primary source to support a contentious/disparaging claim about the BLP is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Springee you have a good grasp of relevant Wiki acronyms. I don't know what you mean by "primary sources" in this context, and other editors have raised problems with your comprehension of this term on your talk page (as have I, though you deleted my material). On whether the Nafeez Ahmed source belongs on the page, let's have a look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. On the subject of material from opinion pages:

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

The source is not being treated as authoritative - it's not being said in Wiki's voice - and Nafeez Ahmed is a renowned expert on Islam and politics (read the credentials on his website).[61] When you refer to Ahmed's claim about Murray embodying "entryism for the far right" as "disparaging", you are betraying your bias. This is not an "extraordinary claim" but rather encapsulates the mainstream scholarly understanding of Murray's views. As Buidhe pointed out on the Wiki sources reliability noticeboard[62] "far-right entryism" is a good summary of what almost all academic sources say about Murray. Please refrain from deleting this source without justification Noteduck (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand that as a new editor (less than a month) so many of these things can be hard to understand. That is why I provided links to the guideless and policies in question. Nafeez is not sufficiently notable such that we can use his opinion to label a BLP subject. That is simply a non-starter, especially when the source, MEE, has itself been criticized. Beyond that, you need to understand Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. When several editors are telling you no, you can't decide that their voices don't count. Shrike and others have disputed the quality of that as a source. Op-Eds are not acceptable sources for contentious claims about BLP subjects. Let's put it a different way, if his particular opinion was significant why wasn't it published in a more reputable site? Springee (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
consensus is not unanimity, and you have not established that MEE is not reputable beyond your own personal bias. What point of Buidhe's do you disagree with? Again, I call you to examine your own talk page and consider the repeated contentions of NPOV and advocacy issues there. Please refrain from deleting this source without justification Noteduck (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Noteduck, saying someone is an entry to alt right is a contentious claim on wikipedia. If you had consensus 3 editors wouldn't have removed the edit. Why are you so intent on keeping this low quality source given you have similar statements from academic sources? Springee (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
the reference is to far-right entryism not alt-right. As with your pushbacks against the Sludge article, we are witnessing a familiar pattern in which you contest every source perceived as unfavorable to Murray by holding it to an impossibly high evidentiary standard. The MEE article in question is just used as one of three journalistic sources to make a point about Murray's links to the far right, and then occupies half a sentence in the "views" subheading - hardly undue weight. If material continues to be removed from this page without justification it may be necessary to escalate to WP:ANI, but we'll see Noteduck (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The fact that it's one of three means it shouldn't be an issue to drop it. The "links" to the far right need to be expressed carefully. There is no evidence presented that Murray is a member of a far right group. Springee (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have provided multiple references because of your relentless and baseless contestations of every edit I've made to this page. "Multiple journalistic sources" is better served by three sources than two. Murray's proximity to the far right is ideological not physical. Unless you have further rebuttals please refrain from deleting without justification Noteduck (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
First, this is a BLP so we don't use a weak source just because we like having three vs two. Second, as I've said before, the correct place to start is the body, not the lead. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The PragerU material starts with an WP:OR opinion saying the video produced by Murray "led to considerable discussion and controversy." That is a subjective assessment and not one directly supported by the provided sources. Those sources may be critical of the video but they don't support the wider claim here. Ignoring questions about Sludge as a DUE source for the moment, it is reasonable to say, "the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage, who stated that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[1]". I think we need to be very careful about using the opinion/commentary of the Sludge author given the limited information on Sludge as a source. I will acknowledge that Bridge does cite sludge in their PragerU write up. However, Bridge is a primary source and the only Murray specific material is the very general (he did a video and a book) or cites Sludge this Brige citation should not be included. It's probably worth asking at RSN if SLPC can be self cited for a specific claim about a video by an author. As with other special interest groups there is always a question of "do we need an independent source to lead us to the information first?". When the information is generalized the answer is typically no. When the information is specific to an individual I think the consensus is typically yes but I could be mistaken. Springee (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Kotch, Alex (27 December 2018). "Who funds PragerU's anti-Muslim content?". Sludge. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 20 December 2020.

Given the extensive discussions on this page about the best ideological label to associate Murray with, I thought it would be good to add what Murray himself identifies as politically. Here is one source calling him a "self-described neoconservative":

In March 2018, Hungary’s authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán posted a photo of himself to his official Facebook page holding up a book, titled “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam”. The title is similar to Sarrazin’s Germany Does Away with Itself mentioned above. The author of The Strange Death of Europe is a self-described neoconservative British journalist, Douglas Murray.

  • Yörükoğlu I. (2020) We Have Never Been Coherent: Integration, Sexual Tolerance, Security. In: Acts of Belonging in Modern Societies. Citizenship, Gender and Diversity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45172-1_2

Does anyone have any other sources in which Murray or others describe him as a "self-described neoconservative"? Or perhaps he sometimes gives himself a different ideological label? Noteduck (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

He certainly considered himself a neo-conservative 15 years ago (after/at the same time as being a Labour supporter); I don't know what he describes himself as now, "classic liberal" is popular with other similar "IDW" types. All are more appropriate than conservative I think; he's clearly distressed at the illiberal over-reach discussed here above. Obviously, he wrote a book on it, and you can find multiple examples of his self-affiliation at the Social Affairs Unit. Example: "Neither I, nor any other neoconservative ever expected David Cameron to proclaim himself a neocon." http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001104.php And one of his most provocative talks (The Pym Fortuyn speech referenced in the article) is explicit: "My position – the neoconservative position ", etc. Unfortunately, like I said, they are quite old. Conan The Librarian (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
the term "neoconservative" isn't that common these days. I've been looking for a recent-ish source in which Murray calls himself a neoconservative but so far haven't found one Noteduck (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As a number of editors have repeatedly stressed on the talk page, a wealth of academic and journalistic evidence links Murray ideology to the far right (including the far-right Eurabia conspiracy theory), the alt-right, the white nationalist right or some combination thereof - this is not a fringe theory but the academic CONSENSUS about Murray[63][64][65][66] This material absolutely deserves either its own heading or a subheading under "views". If I don't hear any pushback against the inclusion of such a heading/subheading, I'll add one in the next day or so. Looking forward to hearing input from other editors Noteduck (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

First attempt made! Feedback welcome Noteduck (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)I oppose any article level edits until you propose the edits here. What is not acceptable is simply a section titled "Far-right ideology" or similar followed by a list of sentences more or less of the form, "[Author] says Murray/Murray's book is/shares far-right/alt-right/white nationalist ideas". Rather such a section needs to actually say what the ideas/views are first then say who/why they are far-right/alt-right etc. The latter actually tells the reader what the views are and allows them to see the evidence that lead others to apply labels. The former method is simply a list of labels from people most readers will have never heard of. Springee (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Your first attempt was exactly what I was concerned about. I oppose the section as written. Springee (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee I didn't see this until I had written up the section. I disagree that it's "a mess" and think that it takes a reasonable, editorially neutral stance on the well-documented ideological links Murray has to the far right. I'm happy for any substantive commentary, additions or edits, but I reject the contention that the subheading should be removed in its entirety Noteduck (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Given the timing it was perfectly reasonable to have missed my comment. I say mess for several reasons. First, you have added the same citations to the article multiple times. There are proper ways to do multiple references to the same source. This is, if you will, an under the hood problem. Since I didn't go back into this to see if all the sources were the same as last time I'm not sure if we would agree that all the sources are usable but for the moment I will assume they are. The big surface problem is that you are telling, not showing. As a reader I can see that a source thinks Murray has an alt-right view. OK, which view? The end of the article says Murray is gay. Is his (presumed) support of gay rights the alt-right view? A constant BLP problem on wikipedia is sources that use what might be called throw away labels. This is something even a quality source might do. A common way this plays out is a highly respected source runs an article on a topic (say a new finance bill). The reporter will, somewhere in the article introduce an opponent of the bill, "conservative economist Dr X opposes the new bill". So then we have the NYT saying Dr X is a conservative. Now the article on Dr X the economist is changed to "Dr X the conservative economist". The latter sentence may be true but the reader doesn't know why and the NYT article didn't support why. Take something like opposition to immigration. There are many reasons why people say they oppose immigration and the issue gets more cloudy when illegal vs legal immigration get mixed in. Second example, a NYT article says Dr X is an immigration opponent. Is that because Dr X opposes all forms of immigration, illegal immigration, the current immigration quotas per country, etc. That section reads like the intent is to vilify rather than inform. I would suggest reading this recent discussion with regards to NPOV. It's not a resolution rather just shows what a number of editors are concerned about. [[67]] Springee (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee I think your use of "vilify" is unfair. I've reported what many (I believe are now 10+ academic sources in this subheading) sources have said about Murray and have maintained editorial neutrality throughout. If you believe the material that I've included should be reworded or altered, feel free to make suggestions. While I haven't found any DIRECT rebuttals by Murray in relation to his purported far-right leanings, I've included no less than three articles by him which make clear his opinion that the term has lost all meaning. If there are respectable third-party sources saying something like "it is totally erroneous to connect Murray to the far right" they should also be included, and feel free to look for them. Noteduck (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
by the way, I think it might be good to have an additional subheading "criticism of Islam" under "views". His strident criticism of Islam is kind of lumped in with a lot of other stuff. Happy to see your edits/hear your input on this Springee Noteduck (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Vilify is a reasonable term. It may not be your intent but per the VP discussion it is often seen that way. I don't think you will often find direct rebuttals to such claims. Many sources will simply remain mute on the subject but rarely are they going to say, that source was wrong when it used this label. As for the actual text, I think you should review WP:ONUS. That material is a mess. I don't see that a whole subsection devoted to just saying people have applied a label to a BLP subject is worth including and you haven't shown what others have asked for, showing what the sources actually say rather than just the label they contain. A section discussing and summarizing his views on Islam would be fine. It should not be yet another section with a large number of variations of "source X says his views are Islamophobic". Instead, something like "Murray has said X about Islam. [These sources] support/oppose this view [because]." Again we show, not just tell. Springee (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've got another concern, and this is more generalized. In a number of edits you have said things like "Murray [or other] is often/frequently..." Terms like often and frequently are subjective. How often is often? Is it an absolute number or just a percentage? Unless a source says that we shouldn't. Also, as a general rule (and this may not apply here) if a number of sources are criticizing someone like Murray but one source has a unique criticism of him, then we should be careful in deciding if that is DUE. Another frequent pitfall of Wiki articles is they turn into a dumping ground of every negative thing an editor can find about the subject. Wiki articles are meant to wp:SUMMARY, not be a complete history. Springee (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
establishing when to use qualifiers like "sometimes", "often", "frequently" etc isn't easy. In terms of controversial topics, the Wiki for Tommy Robinson cites six sources(note that all are journalistic, none academic) to justify the claim he is "far-right" and "anti-Islam", On the page for Armenian Genocide denial, ten academic sources are listed as "evidence for the killings". I haven't counted, but I believe this page has collected at least 10 academic sources making some kind of connection between Murray and the far right. Frankly, I believe this page is exceptionally conservative in not referring to an academic "consensus" of any kind. Noteduck (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
That is why we should simply not use them. Many people do but I've also seen many examples of debates about their use. The best course is to not use them. Springee (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
This section is still a mess and needs to be cleaned up. Springee (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree, I also think we have gone from one extreme to the other - from understating how controversial Murray is and why, to including every accusation against him, somewhat regardless of the WEIGHT of the source. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Several IP editors have removed this section. Some of the sources are good and probably should be included in the article but this section, as written, really should be removed and started over. I don't think there ever was consensus for it's inclusion, at least not in this form. Springee (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Some of the sources are good" -- implies that some are not. Which ones? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Up the page I've discussed a number of the sources that are problematic. I also think the "proximate" to the far right needs to go from the lead and be redone in the article body. The material that people have been edit warring recently was, in my view, added to justify including a statement in the lead. Anyway, I wanted to see if others had an idea how to better integrate this materail. As Pincrete said, the article went from perhaps too gentile with the subject to looking like a pure hit peace. If you do a web search for some BLP subjects it's very clear they are considered "not good" rather quickly. That doesn't seem to be the case with Murray (whom I really hadn't heard of just over a month back). Even in the case of some of the sources here it seems the editor who added them was focusing on the most negative quotes thus the material in the Wikipedia article looks more scathing than the source. Other times we have sources that just say, "the far/alt right like this guy" and it's presented here as if he is specifically catering to the far right fringe. Such associations were quite effective when the pro-Vietnam interventionists associated those who felt the war was a bad idea for practical reasons with "druggie-hippy beatniks". This feels similar and I'm sure we can improve it without people feeling it's a simple whitewash/blackwash. Springee (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agree; I'm saddened but not surprised this character assassination of a centrist writer for the criminal act of writing about social-activist extremism is still up. A demonstration of the bias of Wikipedia if ever there was one. Conan The Librarian (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Not many "centrist writers" suggest Mosques should be pulled down, defend the EDL, are looked upon as too divisive by the UK Conservative party for it to be associated with - nor are gay atheists speaking of the need for Europeans to defend traditional European Christian values (which until very recently had no place for either gays or atheists) from marauding hordes of Muslim rapists, fanatics and murderers.
Fundamentally what you are saying is that you know better than journalists and academics what beliefs Murray has espoused - that's called WP:OR. I'm the first to say that some of the criticism at present is not necessarily well-written may not be using the best sources, and may be over-weighted, but the idea that Murray is not HIGHLY controversial is 'head-in-the sand' time IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
That you need to misrepresent or decontextualise even his most provocative comments is telling. And let's be clear that by "journalists and academics" you are mostly talking about activists using their positions to push their very non-centrist agenda. Yes he's provocative and controversial; that's his job as a front-line counter to the ideologues referenced in the various sources used to suppress his voice by describing him as "proximate to far right", which cowardly description is proximate to "far right". Honestly, it's disgusting. Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Do me a favour please! Let's just stick to the sources and rendering them accurately and neutrally. Murray's voice is hardly suppressed and whatever low opinion you have of his critics, they have the same right to speak as he does and a lot of people find Murray repellent. I'm not aware of having misrepresented anything about him, certainly not in the article. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • If you have sources describing him otherwise (especially high-quality academic ones to match the breath and depth of the sources describing his well-established ideological affiliation with the far-right) you should present them so we can assess which sources are best and how they disagree. But I'm really not seeing any reputable independent sources describing him as "centrist". The sources in the article are both generally high-quality academic ones and pretty strongly-worded (eg. Murray has writtenpassionately in support of British fascist Tommy Robinson (Murray, 2018) and describesIslam as an “opportunistic infection” (Hasan, 2013) linked to the “strange death of Europe”(Murray, 2017a). Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class orotherwise), but with wider social connections.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

SK2242, Conan The Librarian's removal[[68]] is heavy handed but to be honest, this is disputed text and there has never been a consensus for inclusion. As such it really should be left out until we can come up with a consensus text (WP:NOCON). I tend to think some of the sources are good but others are not and the way it is being used in the article is not acceptable. It would be best if the content was pulled then sorted out. Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Whatever sources you think are bad you can pull the sentences citing them now and we can work from there (or remove the whole section for now if policy says so). I’m neutral on this anyway. SK2242 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think we can anticipate that any wholesale removal will (rightly) be reverted. We are more likely to make progress if there is discussion intended to achieve limited changes. I will happily participate in that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Even though policy says removal in the case of no consensus, I agree it's likely the end would be something between total removal and include as is. It's probably best to figure out that middle ground. I may put some time into that later today. Springee (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee, you know that consensus is not unanimity. You've been on Wiki forever and you know you can't just say "remove because there's no consensus". You're welcome to make a RfC or take some other route of dispute resolution. There is nothing on the page that doesn't reflect the mainstream academic view of Murray. As I've indicated above, the standard of evidence that we've used on this page is much higher than that on, for example, Tommy Robinson's page. If there are academic sources saying "Murray is a misunderstood centrist", they should be included too. Noteduck (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noteduck, please stop adding this material again until consensus is reached. We need to be cautious around labeling someone, per BLP etc. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rather than have people edit war over this content, I've started a RfC. Hopefully this will let us find some middle ground. The current far-right section in the body has undue weight and IIRC from the earlier discussions, contains some questionable sources (the overall article definitely does) or at least sources used in a questionably way. The proper way to do this would be fix the body part of the article which is too long winded and conspiratorial as well as containing subjective statements like "A number of academic and journalistic sources have..." and "Murray is often perceived as...". Springee (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

// Hippo43 and Conan The Librarian, you haven't made a serious attempt to challenge the inclusion of this material on policy grounds, which is why I've restored it for now. If "labeling" is the problem Hippo, why have you kept the more flattering descriptions of Murray as a conservative, neo-con and critic of Islam which are based on far fewer and less reliable sources? Springee and Hippo, despite the claims of "weak sources" you haven't made a concrete challenge to any of the sources included. If you want to challenge material, come up with strong, policy-based rebuttals. I implore you to read both MOS:LEADCITE and WP:ROWN, and consider how your own opinions are commensurate with these policies. Conan, you've made repeated use of loaded and emotional language here, calling edits "odious" and "disgusting" and complaining about Wiki's left-wing bias. You also made crass, gendered attacks on me for questioning your block reversions on your talk page - you told me to "sack up for shut up"[69] which you deleted but did not strike through per my requests. If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page Noteduck (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quite a few editors have deleted material from the lead related to controversies involving Murray, in particular the mainstream academic view of Murray that his views are linked to the far-right, Islamophobia, conspiracy theories and so on. A few pointers from the MOS:LEAD policy:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more.

Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.

At present, there is a single (long) sentence referring to controversies around Murray's controversial views based on more than a dozen academic sources - hardly undue or overkill. Nobody who has reverted the material from the lead has cited MOS:LEAD or challenged any of these sources. I call upon the editors who have made repeated, wholesale reverts of material from the header to be more mindful of Wiki policy when editing this page Noteduck (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Should the article lead contain the following characterization of Murray with the associated sources in the lead:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories and for being Islamophobic.

Quality of references as well as how this proposed content is integrated into the article should be considered. Springee (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Same sentence, but with references:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic[1] and journalistic[2] sources and he has been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories[3][4][5] and for being Islamophobic.[6]

Quality of references as well as how this proposed content is integrated into the article should be considered. Springee (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

RfC References

References

  1. ^ *Stewart, Blake (2020). "The Rise of Far-Right Civilizationism" (EPUB). Critical Sociology. 46 (7–8): 1207–1220. doi:10.1177/0896920519894051. Retrieved 2 January 2021. Acclaim for Murray's thought has been widespread, and ranges from liberal French public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy, who claimed him to be 'one of the most important public intellectuals today', to authoritarian anti-immigrant hardliners such as Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who went so far as to promote The Strange Death of Europe on his Facebook page in Spring 2018... Murray's book [The Madness of Crowds] remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has long history in far-right thought.
    • Kundnani, Arun (2012). "Blind spot? Security narratives and far-right violence". Security and Human Rights. 23 (2): 129–146. doi:10.1163/18750230-99900008. Retrieved 2 January 2021. in January 2011, Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy, stated that, in relation to the EDL: 'If you were ever going to have a grassroots response from non-Muslims to Islamism, that would be how you'd want it, surely.' … these statements suggest that 'counterjihadist' ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence.
    • Lux, Julia; David Jordan, John (2019). "Alt-Right 'cultural purity' ideology and mainstream social policy discourse - Towards a political anthropology of 'mainstremeist' ideology". In Elke, Heins; James, Rees (eds.). Social Policy Review 31: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 2019. Policy Press. ISBN 978-1-4473-4400-1. Retrieved 2 January 2021. Media pundit, journalist, and conspiracy entrepreneur Douglas Murray is a prime example of illustrating the influence of an 'organic intellectual'. Murray has written passionately in support of British fascist Tommy Robinson (Murray, 2018) and describes Islam as an "opportunistic infection" (Hasan, 2013) linked to the "strange death of Europe" (Murray, 2017a). Murray's ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections.
    • Busher, Joel (2013). "Grassroots activism in the English Defence League: Discourse and public (dis) order". In Taylor, Max; Holbrook, Donald (eds.). Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism. A&C Black. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-4411-4087-6. Retrieved 2 January 2021. Popular commentators and public figures among the [EDL] activists that I have met include Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Melanie Philips, Andrew Gilligan, Douglas Murray, Pat Condell, and some of the commentators who contribute to forums like Alan Lake's Four Freedoms website.
    • Bloomfield, Jon (2020). "Progressive Politics in a Changing World: Challenging the Fallacies of Blue Labour". The Political Quarterly. 91 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12770. Retrieved 2 January 2021. In the post‐Enoch Powell era, the UK has evolved a broad, cross‐party consensus that maintains that British citizenship and identity is not defined ethnically. The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that.
  2. ^
  3. ^ Murray and the Eurabia conspiracy theory:
    • Pertwee, Ed (2020). "Donald Trump, the anti-Muslim far right and the new conservative revolution". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 43 (16): 211–230. doi:10.1080/01419870.2020.1749688. Retrieved 2 January 2021. Ye'Or's Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis (2005) is the canonical work of the genre (Bangstad 2013; Larsson 2012), but extemporizations on her basic theme can be found in the work of many conservative writers during the late 2000s and 2010s, such as Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray and, more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam. The conclusive differentiator between counter-jihadist and more mainstream conservative laments about Western decline is the former's decidedly conspiratorial framing...
    • Yörükoğlu, Ilgın (2 July 2020). "We Have Never Been Coherent: Integration, Sexual Tolerance, Security". Acts of Belonging in Modern Societies (E-Book). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 27–51. ISBN 978-3-030-45172-1. Retrieved 6 January 2021. It is not only far-right political parties and "alt-right" blogs that are fueling the fire of xenophobia. In our century, be it the Financial Times columnist Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on a Revolution in Europe (2009) that recapitulates the idea of a slow-moving Muslim barbarian invasion, along with the Muslim "disorder, penury and crime", or the works by Douglas Murray and Thilo Sarrazin (which I mention below), a number of European and American best sellers have supplied the emotional force to the Eurabia conspiracy in particular and the alt-right in general.
  4. ^ Murray and the Great Replacement conspiracy theory:
    • Ramakrishna, Kumar (2020). "The White Supremacist Terrorist Threat to Asia". Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses. 12 (4). doi:10.2307/26918075. Retrieved 7 January 2021. This Great Replacement motif articulated by Murray, Camus and other prominent conservative intellectuals has been weaponised as a rallying cry for white supremacists around the world, including Robert Bowers, who killed 11 worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue in October 2018 and Tarrant, the Christchurch attacker, whose own manifesto posted online is called "The Great Replacement".
  5. ^ Murray and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory:
    • Stewart, Blake (2020). "The Rise of Far-Right Civilizationism" (EPUB). Critical Sociology. 46 (7–8): 1207–1220. doi:10.1177/0896920519894051. Retrieved 2 January 2021. Acclaim for Murray's thought has been widespread, and ranges from liberal French public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy, who claimed him to be 'one of the most important public intellectuals today', to authoritarian anti-immigrant hardliners such as Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who went so far as to promote The Strange Death of Europe on his Facebook page in Spring 2018... Murray's book [The Madness of Crowds] remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has long history in far-right thought.
  6. ^ Murray described as Islamophobic: Murray described as 'Islamophobic':

Survey proximate to far-right

  • No - The quotes in 1-5 do not directly verify whatever the hell proximate is supposed to mean or promotion of far-right. 6 directly verifies the Islamophobia part though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • No: NO reference to far-right is needed in the lede; it is extremely difficult if not an anomaly to be a proponent of social cohesion and into the far-right at the same time. Paragraph 2 in the lede should be dropped. None of that scopes the fulness of this article as per the MOS given above for a lead. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Mmmmm ??? loosely Yes Accused of being Islamaphobic is fairly undeniable. I am not completely happy with 'proximate' nor 'promoting'. The first is an obscure term, which in itself means that it is not clear what we are saying. I'm not sure that the sources endorse him 'promoting' far-right theories, as opposed to 'echoing' similar ideas - though I am unsure of what the apt wording would be for this. Just to point out that neither 'centrist' nor a 'proponent of social cohesion' (terms which seem self-evident to some editors here) are actually terms used by even pro-Murray partisan sources to describe him. The elements of his beliefs which are most often referred to as echoing 'far-right' theories relate mainly to race and immigration. A connection to far-right ideas should be noted, but I am not entirely happy with present wording nor sure how to improve it. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. Probably the wording could be further tightened ("close" would be better than "proximate", although still a little vague; "expressing" would be better than "promoting"; and "for being" should be "of being") but the substantive meaning is well justified by the sources, which appear to be reliable (we could discuss them one by one if necessary), and there are enough sources for it to be due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. These are very well sourced claims, I would second users who believe better wording is possible, but the substance of the claim should remain in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes per BobFromBrockley - Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • No Poorly sourced from what appear to be activist or politically biased references at times ("academic"/"journalist" or no), and not obvious from some of them what is actually being said wrt Murray being "far right", other than he's mentioned vaguely in articles that mention the phrase somewhere. Presumably that's what the weaselly "proximate to" is referring to. Certainly not appropriate for a lead biographical section. A huge amount of time has been put into discussing this subject after this serious accusation has been made and published, with still no consensus. Conan The Librarian (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion proximate to far-right

Comment I would encourage editors to review the section Douglas_Murray_(author)#Ideological_links_to_the_far_right in the article body. I think some of the issue with the sentence in the lead comes from this section which was added after the fact to support the claims in the lead. This addition is poorly crafted, contains unsupported claims such as "Murray is often perceived as..." (how do we define "often"). Additionally, many of the sources in this section are the same as used in the lead resulting in more than one reference to the same source. I think a discussion of the above content should include a discussion of this section of the body. I'm sure some of this content should stay but currently it puts undue weight on this part of the biography. Springee (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree with Springee -- the sources for that sentence should be evaluated. Every one of them easily meets WP:RS; most are from peer-reviewed academic sources. These sources are not going anywhere; we can discuss the wording used to reflect what the sources say, but the sources will have to stay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • This is disputed text and there is now a RfC to see if there is consensus to include. You should not have restored the text while the RfC is in progress. I believe a number of the sources we open access journals or otherwise low quality sources or Murray was mentioned in a way that makes DUE for the lead to be questionable. Either way, please self revert while the consensus finding process is running. Springee (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • See, this is the sort of comment that isn't going to get us anywhere. "Open access" does not mean low quality; it really depends on the specific journal. If you have any concerns about specific journals I'll be happy to help; I am familiar with journals in the social sciences and know how to judge which ones are suspect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Open access is never a good sign. Here is the problem. We are making a vague yet negative claim about a BLP. Since we are trying to claim something negative we really need to make sure the sourcing is robust. That means we don't use passive mentions or mentions that don't explain why Murray is X. We also ask if this is a quality journal or a crap journal that publishes anything they can get. Some of the sources Noteduck added in the last month where in that category but I don't recall if these were in that low quality bucket. Regardless, please self revert until consensus is established for this disputed material. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, you really don't know what you're talking about. Is this a dodgy journal?? There's no need for uninformed generalizations. Again, I'll help. If you have concerns about a specific journal (i.e., a reason for concern), feel free to raise them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I really do. Since I haven't claimed a particular journal is suspect a "gotcha" isn't going to work here. You are right, there is not need for uninformed generalizations but that isn't what we are talking about. That said, it would be helpful if the original edits weren't so poorly done. It really would be best to TNT the material from the lead and the body then start over with some talk page back and forth first. It's clear many editors are concerned with how this section is presented. Springee (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Do you have any actual concerns about a specific journal that is currently being used on this article? A glance at the ones being used for the sentence at stake in this RfC doesn't suggest to me that any of them is an "open access journal", let alone a dodgy one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Can I just remind people that NO ONE is or ever has suggested that these criticisms are put into WP:VOICE. Murray is a very controversial figure and the issue is how to phrase, attribute and properly WEIGH the criticisms which undoubedly exist (UK Guardian described the "Death of Europe" as "gentrified xenophobia", even the UK Conservative party distanced itself from him because of his refusal to moderate/clarify some of his wilder pronouncements). Obviously proper phrasing and weight is called for, but it is hardly a BLP issue. These criticisms have been made by mainstream figures. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if Springee is confusing "open access" for "not peer-reviewed". All that "open access" means is that the publishers of a journal has decided to make the contents of a journal freely accessible. Although Springee has been on Wikipedia for a very long time and is very capable of weaponizing Wiki policies where it suits them, they frequently misunderstand Wiki policy. Furthermore Springee, as can be seen in your talk page history (since you tend to delete unflattering material from your talk page) you have a history of NPOV and partisanship problems, and it's hard to see this desire to remove the material on Murray's extremely well-documented ideological links to the far-right as anything other than partisan whitewashing. The subsection "ideological links to the far right" is based on a wealth of academic and journalistic sources and gives a whole paragraph to Murray's views. I don't see why any of it should be removed Noteduck (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, I simply haven't gone through the whole list of sources you dumped in the lead. At least one of your additions to an article recently included many poor quality sources (perhaps I'm thinking of your PragerU additions). Springee (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Springee, the only consistent factor in sources you call into question or rate as poor is that they could be perceived as unflattering to conservative subjects. Please keep NPOV in mind and work with other editors to improve this encyclopedia Noteduck (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I have offered a number of times to help evaluate specific sources. I did this because Springee, the OP for this RfC, raised concerns about the "quality of sources", about use of "open access journals or otherwise low quality sources", about "crap journal that publishes anything they can get. Some of the sources Noteduck added in the last month where in that category", and about "additions to an article recently [that] included many poor quality sources". The failure to identify concerns about specific sources, giving reasons, tells us what is really going on here, I think: at least in regard to "quality of sources", it's only handwaving, a thin pretext for the notion that "BLP concerns about low-quality sourcing" compel us to delete the passages. In other words, textbook WP:CRYBLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that's why I struggle to see these block reversions as sincere attempts to improve this page. There have been plenty of opportunities to name specific problems with the material or sources, but nobody has done so, instead just raising impossibly vague complaints attached to block reversions:"note BLP", "biased", "journals might be crappy" etc. There are definite ways this page could be improved - for example, Murray's ideological self-definition would very much be good to have in the header, especially given the wide variety of labels that have been attached to him - but instead the only consistent factor in these repeated reversions is the purging of any material that could be perceived as unflattering to Murray Noteduck (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A lead usually is fairly reference-light as it should summarise the body, where everything should be referenced. It would ordinarily be fine, therefore, to include this sentence without refs as a decent summary of the referenced "Ideological links to the far right" section. (WP:LEAD: "Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.") However, sometimes when this sort of material is contested, the lead will also include references: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." As for open access journals, it is very ill-informed to say that open access is automatically low quality; many of the most important scientific research funders now require their funded research to be published open access (including UK social science research councils). If there is a problem with specific sources, we can evaluate one by one, and if necessary seek advice from the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

How about "Murray's views and ideology have been linked to the far right" rather than "proximate to the far right"? Means just about the same thing really, but sounds a little less verbose. Thoughts/comments? Noteduck (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In what way is Murray "linked to" the far-right? Is he linked in that he is inspired by or accepts support from the far right or is he linked in that his ideas are embraced by the far right because they happen to align with views the far right likes? As a hypothetical analogy, let's assume a government is spending a lot on education programs for minorities in their cities and let's assume the results of these programs have produced no measurable positive results. So public figure Mr X says these programs are a waste of money and need to be cut. A group of racist embrace and repeat this message because they don't want money going to the minority group. Is Mr X linked to the racists? Certainly they are aligned on this objective but that doesn't mean there is any communication or that Mr X is even happy about the association. Proximate is a poor term but "linked to" suggests a connection that doesn't appear to be supported by the sources. Do note that this article still needs some serious cleanup but I've been delaying making changes so long as the AE dispute is open. Springee (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
What kind of "cleanup" did you have in mind? Every academic source that I've seen that discusses Murray (and I've seen around a dozen) sees his ideological positions as being similar to those of the far right. Do you have any any academic sources that disagree with this viewpoint? The general thrust of the arguments I've seen is that Murray puts a socially acceptable face on fringe far-right ideologies, dressing them up in politically acceptable language while still repeating their main talking points Noteduck (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Views section

Pretty hard to digest all of the above, but having edited Murray's article merely to improve the grammar and formatting aspects, I was thanked by Noteduck, and ended up seeing this Talk page. I like Murray, but there's no denying he is controversial (for some). On balance, I felt that "Ideological links to the far-right" as a sub-heading below "Views" gives undue weight to this label for Murray. I don't think there's much harm in having genuine criticisms of him included in the article, but I've changed that sub-heading to "Criticism", as I feel it's more appropriate when seen in the context of the article overview not to give undue prominence to those voices who have labelled him "far right". I don't mind such criticisms staying in the article (for those who appreciate Murray, it might even be helpful to be aware of these), but I think using it as a section heading may be showing bias. --TrottieTrue (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is almost NO criticism that I am aware of that doesn't relate to his anti-immigration, anti-Muslim or similar views, so changing the heading seems weasel-ly and euphemistic to me. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply