Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

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

Jamousa, this edit [1] fails WP:V because it is not independent from Murray himself. Perhaps a better way to put it is while we can know that Murray said X in an article by Murray, we need an independent source to establish weight for inclusion in this article. Otherwise as editors we have to engage in wp:OR to decide what particular passage is critical/not critical to include. Also, once a passage has been challenged/removed then ONUS says the editor(s) trying to include it need to establish consensus before it is restored. Springee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Springee: How is that consensus to be achieved? There are numerous references and quotes throughout the article on Murray from his own publications. I've deleted my previous reference to a Twitter comment on what Murray wrote but it appears to me that the deletion of my factual quote is an attempt to disassociate an author from what he has published on a salient subject on which he has taken a clear public position. Jamousa (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Step 1 is do not edit war disputed content back into the article. I would suggest reviewing the wp:RS page. Basically you need a 3rd party source that says, "Murray said X and here is why we think it's important". The problem with just inserting some content from one of Murray's articles is that it depends on you the editor deciding what is important in that article (I can't view it due to a pay wall). Is that quote something that needs context? What leads into that quote or prefaces it? Are lots of 3rd party sources saying that quote is a problem or represents something about Murray? As editors we might feel something the BLP subject says is important but if no 3rd party wp:RS say the comment/quote/idea is important then we can't establish weight for inclusion. As an extreme example, if Murray said, "Kill all the Dutch" in an article but no 3rd party sources mentioned it then we would have to assume it wasn't a significant comment of his. It may seem like an odd thing but that is how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Twitter comments on Murray's statement have included ones by both Shashank Joshi, the defence editor of The Economist (which I previously cited) and Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College, London, as well as others. It is clearly regarded as significant as an extraordinary expression of support for ethnic cleansing in a mainstream publication. It is for this reason that I believe it merits inclusion. Jamousa (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Those people may be notable opinions on Murray's comments but per WP:RS they need to come from published articles, not social media postings. Social media posts may be due in a wiki article but that is typically after RSs have published comments about the tweets. What we as editors are not allowed to do is find a social media post from a notable person and then add it to the article based on our personal view that the tweet, by a noted person, is important. Sadly that also often means we have a reverse situation where a BLP subject says something that in context may be very reasonable. For example, "Hudson Hawk was the best movie you will see this summer. That assumes you will see no other movies this summer". A source that thinks Hudson Hawk was a great movie, something that makes the source unreliable by definition, can selectively quote the first sentence. Now the BLP article slanders the subject by claiming they thought Hudson Hawk was good yet we don't have a second RS to say, "that's not what BLP meant". On Wikipedia this might also happen with politically contentious topics as well... Springee (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The underlying problem here is that a large number of the views expressed by Murray are solely sourced to his own writings. Incidentally, not only has he written the content that Jamousa and another editor wanted to insert, he's also said any UK defenders of Hamas should have their UK residence/citizenship taken away/be deported/ be imprisoned for supporting terrorism. I sympathise with both parties, the WP norm is third party sourcing but it really isn't applied very consistently here at present. Pincrete (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• I do think we have a larger problem about too much content being cited to non-independent, primary sources. The addition of this new source to the body slightly worsens that problem, but I don't have the energy to fix the overall problem myself and don't care to fight this new worsening. On the other hand, inclusion in the lead it enough of an undue problem that I view it as a BLP vio. Given how many such views/sources are present in the body, cherry-picking this one recent view for prominent placement in the lead is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not generally a fan of Twitter references but could in instances, where something has sparked a Twitter controversy about a notable individual or publication, this be cited?

Firefangledfeathers - I accepted the edit removing the mention in the lead, even though given the unprecedented nature of the statement appearing in a prominent British periodical it is a moot point whether it might merit prominence. Jamousa (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

How can we say this has risen to the level of a Twitter controversy? Often when something becomes a social media controversy we have a 3rd party reporting on it. Sadly, and often, those reporting parties are not impartial to the controversy so they may be reporting on it in order to magnify some aspect. However, it's that kind of independent sourcing to reliable sources that we need in order to establish inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Agree that what and when something can be deemed a controversy, and not just controversial, is, more often than not, down to subjective 3rd party reporting in another medium, usually broadcast or print media but increasingly also standalone online media platforms. Which is why the credibility and public profile of the individuals concerned, such as those I cited previously, the defence editor of The Economist and a leading UK public policy and economics academic, matters. Jamousa (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Those opinions matter but they, as individuals, don't represent a Wikipedia wp:RS. If The Economist writes an article about what Murray says then we may have weight for inclusion but the fact that someone who works for them voices the opinion on social media doesn't reach the needed bar for a RS. The same is true for academics. That last one can be frustrating. Consider a case where academic A publishes a claim in a university press book. A second academic, well respected in the same field, says the claim is wrong for XYZ reasons. They publish this on their university lab webpage. Per Wikipedia rules the university press book is reliable even though it's quite possible the specific claim isn't well supported in the book or the reviewers of the book are generally supportive of the author thus didn't carefully scrutinize the specific claim. The academic who opposes the claim provides specific reasons and data why the claim is wrong. However, per our RS rules the book is likely to be a "reliable" source and the arguments put forth by the professor on his website are viewed as not reliable, not because he isn't a subject matter expert, but because they aren't "published". Why aren't they publishes? It's possible they aren't published because most reviewers would disagree but it's also possible they aren't published because academics basically need to publish and it's easier to get a novel, new idea published vs publishing something noting problem with some other claim that most people haven't noted anyway. Outside of Wikipedia this RS/non-RS distinction often makes no difference. Springee (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"doesn't reach the needed bar for a RS": agreed. WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS are explicit about this. Self-published sources (including social media) authored by subject-matter experts are sometimes reliable, but they are not usable for claims about living people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tag atop the page - can we delete it?

I think the tag atop the page is not appropriate. There are oodles of non-primary sources. However, when I explained my view and deleted it, an editor immediately restored it. Thoughts? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:617F:95CE:45F8:1A42 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

IP, the issue is not (as is often the case with BLPs) - that the main facts of Murray's life are not verified. The issue is that so many of Murray's opinions, stances, views are only sourced to his own writings and are controversial. This inevitably leads to a certain amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, not least because individual editors are assessing which opinions/stances are significant and which are not. Not a small number of the views added in the past are also actually fairly trite - the sort of thing that almost anyone would agree with, such as UK being traditionally culturally Christian. Technically we should we removing all statements sourced to his own writings, but have 'tagged' rather than removed. If the consensus is that this problem has largely been solved, I will not oppose it, but I personally don't think that this threshold has yet been met. Pincrete (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said above at #Use of primary sources to support Murray's views in June, I think more work is needed. I trimmed a few more opinions just now, but the problem is still clear. Nobody on the planet doubts that Murray has many opinions. Our goal isn't to blandly catalog all of them, it's to provide context, and the way to do that is via independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• There's still entire paragraphs cited entirely to primary sources. And as the section above notes, in some cases this might even be a WP:BLP issue, because the views we're ascribing to Murray via primary sources are highly controversial (ie. it's inappropriate WP:OR to go through someone's works and pull out all the most shocking quotes ourselves; when a quote or viewpoint is shocking enough to potentially harm the reputation of the subject, we should only include it if secondary sources focus on it.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Grammar of the theories

I tried to be a little more clear in the lead as to the thing about conspiracy theories; it's a little hard to phrase this succinctly.

Basically, the way I see it is that it'sgrammatically incorrect to say, e.g. that someone "is a conspiracy theorist and supports the lizard emperor". Like, "the lizard emperor" is the name of the conspiracy theory, but everyone who believes it thinks that the lizard emperor is bad!

Anyway, @Pincrete:, I think you have done a better job than me at putting it together in a way that makes sense. jp×g🗯️ 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:Balance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References