![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Beyond My Ken: What do you have against sub-headings? They make a long section that looks like a "wall of words" easier to read and navigate. Please explain. FairlyFlatFoot ( talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In 2019, Murray spent weeks urging New Statesman journalist George Eaton and editor Jason Cowley to share the original recording of an interview between Eaton and Sir Roger Scruton, with Murray branding the published interview, which attributed a number of controversial statements to Scruton, as "journalistic dishonesty". [1] Murray eventually managed to acquire the recording, which formed the basis of an article defending Scruton, arguing that his remarks had been misinterpreted. [2] The New Statesman subsequently apologised for Eaton's misrepresentation. [3] [4] [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Actually the most important thing is that the NS partially apologised only for its journalist selectively quoting Scruton in tweets, - not in the NS article, which it appeared to stand by. "After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview – including a truncated version of the quotation regarding China above. We acknowledge that the views of Professor Scruton were not accurately represented in the tweets to his disadvantage. We apologise for this, and regret any distress that this has caused Sir Roger".
Murray's article is mainly about "accusation & trial by tweet", rather than a criticism of Eaton, though he does think Eaton was less than wholly fair, (though ironically the "weeks of urging" by Murray, were done on twitter). The Gdn article relates all this but is also concerned with asking how Spectator obtained the interview recording.
I'm sorry, this all seems very 'dog bites man' stuff. One journal selectively quoted Scruton perhaps, DM described the interview as 'dishonest', (before he had actually heard it), he then obtained the recording by dubious means which partially vindicated Scruton and DM. So what? Pincrete ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Murray's views should be separated given the variety of subjects he has commentated on (Islam, immigration, Brexit and the New Statesman controversy) even if each section is kept brief. Other commentators and authors have separate sections for their beliefs (Roger Scruton's page being an example). I believe Islam and immigration should be combined under one section as the "Islam" section currently contains references to his views on immigration ie in his book and the Oxford Union debate, and Murray has intertwined both at times. The summary on The Strange Death of Europe seems biased as it relies on quotes from an unfavourable review which imply Murray is supportive or sympathetic to the English Defense Leage and PEGIDA. Murray has never supported PEGIDA or EDL in the book or otherwise, indeed he calls them and Tommy Robinson secondary problems in reaction to the primary problem of Islamism (which the Islam section did at one point highlight). The Islam section itself seems very simplistic or misleading compared to how it used to be and ignores other commentary he has made on the subject, such as his views on the Charlie Hebdo attack and Islam and freedom of speech (see "edit history" or "search" for additions I tried making). With all due respect, I've also found it frustrating that edits I've made to do with this are dismissed as "warring" as I explained the nature of the changes I'd made in the edit summary, I have only edited Murray's page twice at separate times and never to engage in a conflict. Warring was not the intention yet the edits were undone instantly seemingly without any consideration for what I had written in the summary. The edits I made were to simply to expand on his views and were done in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, the statement about the death threats is not in Murray's voice. It is stated as fact by The Times. The Foucault detail could be closer to the source in the form of a quote, but, as the source states, Foucault "comes up a lot" in Murray's book, so it is DUE to include something in the article about Murray's views on him. Please explain your removal. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:IMAGEPOL. |
EDITION REQUEST:
Information to be added or removed: Removing picture "Douglas Murray 2018.png" and adding "DouglasMurray2019.jpg" instead.
Explanation of issue: The referenced picture (DouglasMurray2019.jpg) is more recent and hence a more accurate depiction of the author's current image. Other than that, the author has already posted this image on different social media channels, including twitter, so it is already public. The picture was taken by photographer Andy Ngo by Mr. Murray's request and all rights belong to Mr. Murray, who has authorized the usage of the image for this site and for the public in general. By modifying the picture, the author does not have any sort of commercial intents, but simply that of updating it to a picture that is more recent and that he feels more comfortable with as a representation of his character.
References supporting change:
https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/photo
COI DISCLAIMER: For reference I do have a professional connection with Mr. Murray, however the aforementioned request does not benefit him or myself in monetary or commercial terms, but it is simply a manifestation of the author's will regarding the display of his image.
MariaDelgadoDKM ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 23:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
On publications:
"In 2006, he published a defence of neoconservatism — Neoconservatism: Why We Need It — and made a speaking tour promoting the book in the United States."
Since no reviews are referenced for the publication the following could be added:
The publication was subsequently reviewed in the Arab journal Asharq al-Awsat by the notorious Iranian author Amir Taheri: "Whether one agrees with him or not Murray has made a valuable contribution to the global battle of ideas."
Source:
https://eng-archive.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/interviews/neoconservatism-why-we-need-it
Taheri, Amir (Jan 20, 2006).
"Neoconservatism: Why We Need It". Asharq al-Awsat. Asharq al-Awsat. Retrieved Jan 20, 2006. Whether one agrees with him or not Murray has made a valuable contribution to the global battle of ideas
PSalva35 (
talk) 13:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a massive number of SPA accounts that all have in common that they are adding obscure self-sourced (or personal unsourced) content about Murray, and edit-warring this content in. It's hard not to deduce that these are COI accounts, with an affiliation to Murray. These accounts are obviously the same for example:
There is also unusually much activity by accounts that are adding updated pictures of Murray, which smell of COI. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
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
(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)
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)
“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)
"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)
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:
Transcription (starts at the 4 hour 28 minute mark)
Hank Stamper ( talk) 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
@ Noteduck:, I removed this edit[ [2]] 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)
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:
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)
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)
@ 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:
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)
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)
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)
@ 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) [12] 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 [13] 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)
@ 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 [14] Noteduck ( talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Beyond My Ken: What do you have against sub-headings? They make a long section that looks like a "wall of words" easier to read and navigate. Please explain. FairlyFlatFoot ( talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In 2019, Murray spent weeks urging New Statesman journalist George Eaton and editor Jason Cowley to share the original recording of an interview between Eaton and Sir Roger Scruton, with Murray branding the published interview, which attributed a number of controversial statements to Scruton, as "journalistic dishonesty". [1] Murray eventually managed to acquire the recording, which formed the basis of an article defending Scruton, arguing that his remarks had been misinterpreted. [2] The New Statesman subsequently apologised for Eaton's misrepresentation. [3] [4] [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Actually the most important thing is that the NS partially apologised only for its journalist selectively quoting Scruton in tweets, - not in the NS article, which it appeared to stand by. "After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview – including a truncated version of the quotation regarding China above. We acknowledge that the views of Professor Scruton were not accurately represented in the tweets to his disadvantage. We apologise for this, and regret any distress that this has caused Sir Roger".
Murray's article is mainly about "accusation & trial by tweet", rather than a criticism of Eaton, though he does think Eaton was less than wholly fair, (though ironically the "weeks of urging" by Murray, were done on twitter). The Gdn article relates all this but is also concerned with asking how Spectator obtained the interview recording.
I'm sorry, this all seems very 'dog bites man' stuff. One journal selectively quoted Scruton perhaps, DM described the interview as 'dishonest', (before he had actually heard it), he then obtained the recording by dubious means which partially vindicated Scruton and DM. So what? Pincrete ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Murray's views should be separated given the variety of subjects he has commentated on (Islam, immigration, Brexit and the New Statesman controversy) even if each section is kept brief. Other commentators and authors have separate sections for their beliefs (Roger Scruton's page being an example). I believe Islam and immigration should be combined under one section as the "Islam" section currently contains references to his views on immigration ie in his book and the Oxford Union debate, and Murray has intertwined both at times. The summary on The Strange Death of Europe seems biased as it relies on quotes from an unfavourable review which imply Murray is supportive or sympathetic to the English Defense Leage and PEGIDA. Murray has never supported PEGIDA or EDL in the book or otherwise, indeed he calls them and Tommy Robinson secondary problems in reaction to the primary problem of Islamism (which the Islam section did at one point highlight). The Islam section itself seems very simplistic or misleading compared to how it used to be and ignores other commentary he has made on the subject, such as his views on the Charlie Hebdo attack and Islam and freedom of speech (see "edit history" or "search" for additions I tried making). With all due respect, I've also found it frustrating that edits I've made to do with this are dismissed as "warring" as I explained the nature of the changes I'd made in the edit summary, I have only edited Murray's page twice at separate times and never to engage in a conflict. Warring was not the intention yet the edits were undone instantly seemingly without any consideration for what I had written in the summary. The edits I made were to simply to expand on his views and were done in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, the statement about the death threats is not in Murray's voice. It is stated as fact by The Times. The Foucault detail could be closer to the source in the form of a quote, but, as the source states, Foucault "comes up a lot" in Murray's book, so it is DUE to include something in the article about Murray's views on him. Please explain your removal. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:IMAGEPOL. |
EDITION REQUEST:
Information to be added or removed: Removing picture "Douglas Murray 2018.png" and adding "DouglasMurray2019.jpg" instead.
Explanation of issue: The referenced picture (DouglasMurray2019.jpg) is more recent and hence a more accurate depiction of the author's current image. Other than that, the author has already posted this image on different social media channels, including twitter, so it is already public. The picture was taken by photographer Andy Ngo by Mr. Murray's request and all rights belong to Mr. Murray, who has authorized the usage of the image for this site and for the public in general. By modifying the picture, the author does not have any sort of commercial intents, but simply that of updating it to a picture that is more recent and that he feels more comfortable with as a representation of his character.
References supporting change:
https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/photo
COI DISCLAIMER: For reference I do have a professional connection with Mr. Murray, however the aforementioned request does not benefit him or myself in monetary or commercial terms, but it is simply a manifestation of the author's will regarding the display of his image.
MariaDelgadoDKM ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 23:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
On publications:
"In 2006, he published a defence of neoconservatism — Neoconservatism: Why We Need It — and made a speaking tour promoting the book in the United States."
Since no reviews are referenced for the publication the following could be added:
The publication was subsequently reviewed in the Arab journal Asharq al-Awsat by the notorious Iranian author Amir Taheri: "Whether one agrees with him or not Murray has made a valuable contribution to the global battle of ideas."
Source:
https://eng-archive.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/interviews/neoconservatism-why-we-need-it
Taheri, Amir (Jan 20, 2006).
"Neoconservatism: Why We Need It". Asharq al-Awsat. Asharq al-Awsat. Retrieved Jan 20, 2006. Whether one agrees with him or not Murray has made a valuable contribution to the global battle of ideas
PSalva35 (
talk) 13:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a massive number of SPA accounts that all have in common that they are adding obscure self-sourced (or personal unsourced) content about Murray, and edit-warring this content in. It's hard not to deduce that these are COI accounts, with an affiliation to Murray. These accounts are obviously the same for example:
There is also unusually much activity by accounts that are adding updated pictures of Murray, which smell of COI. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
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
(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)
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)
“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)
"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)
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:
Transcription (starts at the 4 hour 28 minute mark)
Hank Stamper ( talk) 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
@ Noteduck:, I removed this edit[ [2]] 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)
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:
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)
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)
@ 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:
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)
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)
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)
@ 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) [12] 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 [13] 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)
@ 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 [14] Noteduck ( talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
References