Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

I have put back the section I included on the Scruton Affair and the information on his last book, the War on the West (which had almost no info). I see that there are cite errors, and I will now go in and fix those. I am sorry about that; as Pincrete deleted ALL of my edits over disagreement regarding my removal of one unreliable source, I will now have to reconstruct all of my reliable source citations one by one.

I have also corrected the repeated claims that Murray is opposed to 'immigration' to say 'mass immigration' as his quotes show that he supports immigration to Great Britain and Europe but disagrees with it happening in the numbers of millions of immigrants each year. And I also changed where it said that in The Madness of Crowds, he wrote about gays, trans, women and racial minorities as 'victimhoods"; the book does not say that, nor do the cited reviews claim it does. It talks about four different identity groups.

This article reads like a hit job on a living subject for his conservative views, and it badly needs balance. I know this is a controversial thing to do for a conservative figure on Wikipedia, but it follows the stated objectives of the site. Wendisway (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Pincrete I hope you will discuss this before repeatedly reverting my edits again. I disagree strongly that the Scruton Affair does not deserve its own sub-section, as it was a very, very big news story in 2019 that involved members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and multiple publications. We can certainly argue over whether or not to call it the Scruton Affair (although that is the popular term for it), but please stop deleting it entirely.

:Likewise, please stop deleting the information on his last book, which was an international bestseller and deserves more information on it than a couple of lines.

:I am attempting to give a little balance to the article very fairly, and leaving in almost all criticism of the subject, although much of it smacks of a hit job over his political affiliation. I'm merely trying to add more than just the attacks on him, to make it more encyclopedic. I left discussion about it on your Talk page as well as here, but you didn't reply and simply reverted again. Please discuss, rather than automatically reverting repeatedly. Thank you. Wendisway (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have replied to many of your points on my talk page, where you first commented. The WP:ONUS is on you to justify changes, not me to justify opposing them, and on a controversial article like this, making big changes in one go isn't going to work IMO. I deliberately included the info about his book being a bestseller. If, as you claim, the description alters the terms used in the cited source,regarding 'victimhood' obviously it should be corrected, apologies, I have to go now. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I am justifying the changes and have been, but you keep reverting them without discussion anyway. Neither The Madness of Crowds or the cited review of it calls the four groups it covers 'victimhoods' - that is the biased wording of the Wikipedia editor who wrote that section. The review merely states that the groups 'prioritise victimhood'. I can add another source that is more specific about the chapter titles referring to the four groups (Gay, Women, Race, and Trans) if that helps, but the biased wording must be removed.

:::The Scruton Affair was a very major news story in 2019 involving multiple members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and a number of publications, and Murray's role in uncovering the New Statesman's dishonesty was at the very center of it. It should frankly have its own Wikipedia article, and undoubtedly only does not because it is about a conservative publication exposing dishonest claims made by a liberal one. But at the least, it should have its own sub-section on Murray's page.

:::By the way, just a few of the outlets and institutions which have referred to it in print as "The Scruton Affair" include (and please note that I have included both progressive and conservative sources as examples): The New Statesman [https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/05/the-scruton-affair], The Article [https://www.thearticle.com/the-scruton-affair-marks-a-watershed-in-the-way-that-we-conduct-public-debate] and The Institute of Race Relations [https://irrtmp.gn.apc.org/article/the-scruton-affair-picking-on-a-harmless-old-fogey/]. As I said, I am okay with changing that section title if there's something else that you think is better suited to it. Wendisway (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::{{TQ|I am justifying the changes and have been, but you keep reverting them without discussion anyway}}, you may THINK you are justifying them, but it is up to others to find your reasons valid or otherwise. When your edits are challenged, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify them on talk. You write as though the onus is on other editors to justify to you their objections, which isn't helping your case. I immediately admitted error (in the article and on my part) about 'victimhoods'. You also didn't help your case by starting off by making a nonsense claim about the MEE review(er), nor by removing (for no apparent reason) a (fairly neutral) long-term stable comment on the book from WSJ, while ordering others to not remove sourced content, apparently it's OK to remove stable (very honourably) sourced content if you don't like it .

::::I don't have strong feelings either way about whether the 'Scruton' matter is best represented in a seperate section. It doesn't seem to me to justify it, but you obviously see it as some kind of major 'Gotcha' moment. (it may well have been, but bickering between competing commentators hardly seems encyclopaedic).

::::The distinction you make/made between 'migration' and 'mass migration' is fairly meaningless, as is the term 'mass migration' itself. When exactly does 'migration' become 'mass migration'? Perhaps another form of words could be found, but clearly Murray thinks that current levels of migration into Europe are excessive/destructive/socially and culturally suicidal, especially from 'alien' societies, cultures and religions. Anyway, we go with sources and they don't generally make that distinction.Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It seems absurd to me to say that there is no difference between 'migration' and 'mass migration' - the first one says that he opposes even a single immigrant coming to the West, while the second says that he opposes the current levels of millions of immigrants per year, which is what he actually said. That difference seems fairly obvious.

:::::I don't think it's helpful for you to make assumptions about what I think; it's a fact that the misrepresentation of Scruton's words by the New Statesman was a huge news story and had major consequences; he was publicly denounced on the floor of Parliament and by the Prime Minister and fired from his government appointment. Murray's expose proved that the NS had manipulated his words to make them sound racist when they were not, and resulted in Scrtuon receiving apologies from Parliament and Downing Street and calls from major figures like Boris Johnson to reinstate him. The entire affair would have had its own Wikipedia article in 2019 if it had been a major left-wing figure who was publicly disgraced and fired when a conservative publication lied about them making racist statements and then refused to release the tapes.

:::::I find it strange that you keep suggesting that I didn't justify my changes on Talk; I kept trying, and I still am. I will make smaller edits in future, since that seems to be a problem, but this article is negatively biased and it seems unlikely that is going to change to any substantial degree, given the commitment of so many editors to weight articles on conservative subjects with much more negative criticism from left-wing critics than is seen in articles about left-wing subjects. Wendisway (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Someone who makes a habit of speculating about how WP would have covered the topic if it had been some other racial/political/whatever group as the target group isn't in a very strong position to say {{TQ|I don't think it's helpful for you to make assumptions about what I think}}. Physician heal thyself. Apart from being offensive, it wastes time and space.

::::::I sympathise to an extent about wording on migration being imprecise, but the problem isn't resolved by introducing the word 'mass'. We all oppose mass migration, just as we all oppose excessive noise, rudeness, interference and lots-of-other-things, but none of these mean very much. What does excessive or 'mass' mean and how does one address real-world crises (such as the Syrian wars). Saying one opposes mass-migration doesn't address the reality of skimpy boats bobbing up and down in the Mediterranean/English Channel, the magic wand that voluntarily stops them coming hasn't yet been found. In the UK, British workers prepared to do menial jobs at rates offered by British firms are thin on the ground. Certain sectors of the economy have been built around cheap migrant labour. Being more specific would be specifying what levels/kinds of migration he actually supports or opposes, or somesuch, though of course he doesn't says what would be acceptable levels (controlled instead of mass? 100s, or 1,000s instead of millions?), nor how we 'stop the boats'.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know who 'we all" are, but I can assure you that many people don't oppose mass migration at all. What you think of the word 'mass' seems far less important than that it is the word Douglas Murray has used when saying what he is opposed to, and which has been repeatedly omitted from his statements to suggest that he merely opposes "migration", which falsely suggests that he opposes all immigrants coming to the West. Your concerns about 'skimpy boats bobbing in the English Channel', the Syrian wars and 'cheap migrant labour' are certainly important poltiical issues, but with all due respect, they're irrelevant to this conversation. We aren't debating whether immigration is good or bad here; we are discussing accurately depicting the subject's beliefs in a biography of a living person.

:::::::I do wish you would stop speaking to me in such a condescending and rude way. It really isn't necessary. Wikipedia's liberal bias is well-known and has been heavily discussed for years (including by Wikipedia's own founder). It is very hard to make any article about conservative figures fair, as there are many editors who seek out left-wing sources in order to pack articles with criticism of them. This is helped by the fact that most conservative news sources are judged 'unreliable' while even gossipy tabloid left-wing sources are judged 'reliable'. It's a real issue. All I'm trying to do is get a little bit of balance into one article about a conservative subject. Wendisway (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In my experience, the balance of WP editors go to great pains to remain neutral, there are exceptions on both sides of most arguments. But an editor who spends half his time 'rattling on' about anti-conservative bias (in generalised terms) isn't exactly aiding his own case, nor being very constructive.

::::::::In my whole life, mainly in the UK, I've never heard anyone say "I'm in favour of mass migration", even those who defend levels current at any particular time as virtuous or necessary for some reason, would not say such a thing. "Mass" migration justs means "too much" without ever saying how much is enough, or how we stop which groups from coming, (or cope with the economic consequences of an over-reliance on 'cheap foreign labour').

::::::::But that issue is academic, since our article doesn't say that Murray is opposed to ALL immigration, it says in the lead that "Murray is a critic of immigration", which is shorthand for "he thinks there is too much and of the wrong kind", which is a fair summary of his position. We could possibly be more specific there, but we cover a more complete analysis of his views later, mainly in the sections about the relevant books. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that the addition of "current" in the lead was a helpful one, so thanks for that. For later on I think the use of "mass" is appropriate, but there might be better ways to nuance this. Murray isn't opposed to all immigration, but he does think that current policies lead to "too much" immigration and with too many immigrants of "the wrong kind". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I looked at "regular critic of Immigration" in the Ideology section. It was added on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=1115158270 10 October 2022] by a frequent contributor, Valkrie11, who was blocked later as a sock puppet. The immediately [https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/douglas-murray-on-immigration-islam-and-identity-a3530586.html cited source] indeed contains the phrase "mass migration". If I'd criticized high buildings and somebody claimed I'd criticized buildings, I'd criticize their omission of an important qualifier. I'm sympathetic with Wendisway's opinion about mass, but would be happiest if Valkrie11's edit was reverted -- I think WP:ONUS would not be on Pincrete's side in that case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The exact phrase in the cited source is " he is an overt critic of Islam and of mass migration into Europe". Given however that this is a summary, more pertinent is that he (to put it succinctly) {{tq|does think that current policies lead to "too much" immigration and with too many immigrants of "the wrong kind"}} arriving in Europe. Even the source used (Evening Standard) says "his thesis is that the unprecedented levels of migration into Europe coming at the same time as the continent has lost faith in its beliefs and identity will result in its downfall. The combination of guilt about our past, declining birth rates and the demise of traditional Christian values, together with the abject failure of multiculturalism, means Europe as we know it will cease to exist within the lifespans of most people alive today, is the central argument of 'Strange Death'. Believing that an entire continent and culture is committing collective suicide, by allowing this many 'alien people' into Europe is somewhat stronger than simply being a critic of 'mass migration', which is anyhow a fairly meaningless phrase (how many is 'mass', how few is 'controlled'?)

::::::::::Tidying the phrasing up to more fully and accurately reflect his beliefs, or correcting links is something I would actively support, but simply inserting 'mass' before 'migration' doesn't really achieve that IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=1278617950 partially reverted]. Let's see whether you have consensus to re-insert with the sock puppet's preferred word instead of the cited source's phrase.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sorry, are you calling me a "sock puppet"? If you think that's true, then you should report me to the administrators immediately and let them do an investigation. I have no other accounts and never have, and accusatory insults are neither necessary nor allowed in Wikipedia discussions.

:::::::::::::I strongly disagree with the negative bias on this article and others that are about conservative figures, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political commentary piece. All of this debate in here about immigration is completely irrelevant; it does not matter what WE think about immigration, or if WE disagree with his views. We are still to write unbiased, factual pieces that reflect what he has said and not what we think of it. Wendisway (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: I'm not calling you a sock puppet. See my post earlier in this thread dated 24 February 2025. I called Valkrie11 a sock puppet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention his position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Source: https://nypost.com/2025/02/20/opinion/putin-is-the-dictator-and-10-ukraine-russia-war-truths-we-ignore-at-our-peril/ 96.28.65.49 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:The general principle is that we record positions taken by Murray which are widely commented on by others, rather than ones WE think are important, as he is a professional commemtator and adopts positions weekly. So the short answer to your question is no, not at present.Pincrete (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:Of course we should. His column criticizing Trump's stance on Ukraine on the front page of the New York Post was very widely commented on by others, with many left-wing media organizations declaring it shocking that the Post had 'turned' on Trump. The only reason Pincrete is saying 'no' is that Murray's position on Ukraine, like his stances on a number of other issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, aligns with the left, and some editors are fighting hard to bias this article against Murray with the false claim that he's 'far right' because they disagree with his stance on immigration. Wendisway (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::The IP's post (and my reply) was written in February, long before any Trump-effect, or Post-response to Trump or Murray. Neither the IP, nor I, nor Murray could have foreseen actions or responses before they happened. So your impugning of my motives is pretty irrational in addition to being offensive and wasting time. I don't read the future though you seem to think you can read other's minds to know their motives. It's boring as well as being offensive. You have no idea what my view on the apt policies on immigration into the UK are, but they are a great deal more nuanced than you appear to think.

::My response to the IP remains pretty much the same as in February. If there has been fairly extensive coverage of Murray's stances on Ukraine, we can report them. If there haven't (and I haven't seen any 'this side of the pond'), it isn't up to us to decide they deserve inclusion (especially based simply on his own journalism or extrapolated somehow).

::Abortion and same-sex marriage are not political or party-political in the UK in the way they are in the US and they are normally voted on in 'free votes' (ie MPs vote according to their consciences and changes are proposed by individuals, NOT in the name of the Govt or of other parties). Abortion was first legalised in the 1960s through a 'Private Members Bill', introduced by a Liberal party member (by far the smallest national party) and with support and opposition from all parties. Gay rights issues have been introduced and liberalised during both Labour and Conservative administrations, throughout the last 60-ish years. There has never been a major 'illiberal' change to either sets of laws in my lifetime. So there's simply no 'left' or 'right' position in UK politics on these matters, though there are some religious groups and individuals opposing, or wanting to limit both in all major parties. Why would we want to record that he has approx the same position on these two subjects as most people in the UK right across the political spectrum (left, right and centre)? Views that have probably been the norm in the UK for at least a generation, (certainly on access to abortion, more recently probably on same-sex marriage). He also has one head, with one face and a body with two arms and the same number of legs!Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Murray has just won a libel case against the guardian for a wrong reporting that he promoted violence against migrants.

https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2025/03/douglas-murray-wins-libel-case-against-guardian-media-group/

By the way, if the Guardian has lost its case, some comments on this page could probably incur legal action too... so please be careful to what is put into the article (I'm refering to the far right or not debate) 2A01:E0A:12C:76F0:2553:8055:9C62:1F91 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:The libel case (covered by fairly few sources btw) is much better covered elsewhere than in this 'lawyer monthly' piece, (including that the paper voluntarily corrected the error almost immediately). Discussing whether/which/how many sources describe Murray as what kind of conservative/right-winger/far-right-er, is not libellous and I don't remember ever seeing anything here that would be considered so about him.Pincrete (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:LuffyDe added information about this on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=next&oldid=1279881960 11 March 2025]. Later edits have been done by Pincrete, Jonathan A Jones, BBQBoffin, Hemiauchenia. I'd happily go along with a reversion of the later editing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what you mean by 'later editing'. [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/douglas-murray-wins-defamation-case-against-observer/ Earlier versions were dependent on 'Steerpike'] who self-describes as "The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond.", so not the most neutral or complete source for an account of what the legal case was about. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::By "later editing" I refer to the previous sentence starting "Later edits ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Today's right wing views were yesterday's centrism. Today's progressivism was yesterday's marxist communism. If Wikipedia content is here to last it shouldn't be tied to passing prevailing views. Instead of labels, just state the facts: what the dude's position is on certain topics. 'No original research', true, but the fact that some nuts label the person 'right wing' today only helps further their agenda and reinforce their narrative at the expense of the Wikipedia's credibility as a whole--billions of volunteer man-hours of invaluable content that's dragged into the gutters of petty politics by fleeting partisanship. Let's rise above that. --152.37.138.239 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing wrong with summary. It's just "data reduction". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Come on, dude's gay and an atheist. "Summarizing" him as far-right isn't inclusive of what may be the most important components of his views. This the danger of labeling people. Labels aren't noteworthy. The person as a whole is. --152.37.138.239 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Interesting that we start with "{{tq|stop with the labeling}}" and abruptly jump to "{{tq|Come on, dude's gay and an atheist}}". Political norms do change over time, the name "progressivism" should give a hint as to how that works. Please leave it to WP:IS to decide what are the "{{tq|most important components of his views}}". Our goal is to summarize according to sources for a modern audience. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The key question is which sources label him as "far-right" and whether they can be considered "objective". I don't have time to look into this right now, but I've made a note to revisit it later. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 15:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::He's also pro-choice on abortion and has been highly critical of Trump and the right for their stance on Ukraine, with his criticsm of them published as a front-page story in the New York Post. In 2012, he wrote an article for the Spectator arguing "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" and his arguments were used by the Conservative government to make same-sex marriage legal in the UK. He is not remotely 'far right', and the labeling of him as such is clearly a slur meant to silence anyone who has even moderately conservative views. It's part of the Wikipedia bias against anyone who isn't far left. Wendisway (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::We have extensive sourcing in the lede that shows him promoting far-right conspiracy theories. Seems pretty appropriate to label him as such. Bit ridiculous to claim that it’s some attempt to “silence” him by Wikipedia’s part. GraziePrego (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It isn't. The sourcing is all from commentators on the far left who attack anyone whose views are not also far left. It is a real problem with Wikipedia editing: whenever a subject is not left-wing, editors go searching for any far left criticism of them to fill the article about them and label them 'far right'. It's bias, pure and simple. A guy who pushed for gay marriage, supports abortion rights and writes front-page attacks on Trump's stance on Ukraine and Putin is clearly not far right at all. Wendisway (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Wendisway The thing is, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of editors. What matters is that many reliable sources consider his positions "far right" while none (to my knowledge) dispute that characterization. The undisputed fact that certain Wikipedia editors hold a different view is strictly irrelevant to article content. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, the thing is, Wikipedia has long had a large number of editors who seek to discredit any subject with even moderately conservative views by hunting down every far-left pundit who hates them and making THEIR opinions the basis of the subject's biography. You all know it's true - come on, the founder of Wikipedia himself said this place has been ruined by far-left activist editors deliberately biasing articles.

:::::::::::You cannot tell me that a man who helped get same-sex marriage passed with his arguments, who defends women's right to choose, who is openly called "brother" by Muslim reformers and who posted a front-page story in America's oldest newspaper denouncing Trump's views on Putin and Ukraine is 'far right'. Because you know it's nonsense. All you can do is fall back on "but we found these far-left people who called him that" because there will always be people on the far left who call anyone who holds any conservative opinion at all 'far right'.

:::::::::::The same does NOT happen in articles about left-wing figures. It would be just as easy to hunt down all the far-right people who have called them communists or antisemites and put in the opening paragraph of their bios, but you'd all race to delete anyone who tried. Wendisway (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::WP:NOTFORUM, railing against some imaginary Wikipedia conspiracy is nothing to do with the subject of the article. GraziePrego (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Discussing the real problem of Wikipedia bias on an article that strongly suffers from it has everything to do with the subject of this article. Wendisway (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Wendisway I'm afraid you are not understanding the purpose of article talk pages, nor how they work. Instead of making a source-based argument that might convince other editors, you are accuse the mainstream RS cited in this article of being {{tq|far-left pundits}}, while you cite the conspiracy theorist former founder of Wikipedia as though their opinions were reliable. I have never seen any discussion carried out using such arguments shift consensus in the direction desired by those using the arguments in question. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Oy. Even the founder of Wikipedia is a 'conspiracy theorist' because he isn't far left? This is ridiculous. Murray has stuck his neck out by speaking out on his support of Israel and calling out antisemitism when it is the thing the left hates most, so it's not surprising he's getting the hit job treatment here, but it's irresponsible and not encyclopedic, and deserves to be pointed out. Wendisway (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::you need to provide high quality sourcing that refutes claims, or find ways to indicate the sourcing for the current label is undue. most due, reliable sourcing on Murray indicates he is a far-right islamaphobe. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::The only sourcing that indicates that is from the far left. The problem is that of course the same editors who deliberately bias articles also designate nearly every conservative media source as an unreliable source, while declaring tabloid garbage that supports a left-wing agenda to be reliable. This makes it all but impossible to use sources to make articles about conservative figures fair when people like you are determined to smear the subject because you personally disagree with some of his views on issues such as the Israeli war or immigration. Wendisway (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::@Wendisway To answer your question, Sanger is known to be a conspiracy theorist because he has spread [https://archive.is/EFcgH QAnon tropes] and [https://larrysanger.org/2021/08/the-astonishing-hubris-of-a-global-experimental-vaccine/ antivax propoganda]. This has nothing to do with your false "Wikipedia is based on woke sources" narrative. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I never used the word "woke" and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. There is absolutely no doubt that Wikipedia is based on left-wing sources, as right-wing sources are routinely deemed 'unreliable' while less reliable left-wing sources are labeled 'reliable'. It heavily biases the content here, and it's hard to believe that anyone really believes otherwise. Wendisway (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::@Wendisway My use of the term "woke" was, of course, a paraphrase. The reality is that you are classifying mainstream sources as {{tq|left-wing}} and as {{tq|less reliable}} while complaining that {{tq|right-wing sources are routinely deemed 'unreliable'.}} This allegation is (1) off-topic for this Talk page, as other editors have already pointed out to you and (2) not based in fact or evidence.

:::::::::::::::::::::If the "right-wing sources" you're talking about would refrain from publishing as fact things that are either complete falsifications or are fringe (even crackpot) opinions, Wikipedia would not classify them as "unreliable". I have never seen a discussion of reliability on enwiki (one that resulted in a news source being downgraded, I mean) that wasn't based either on credulous reporting of falsehoods or on platforming of fringe figures and conspiracy theorists as "experts". Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::This is just more partisan nonsense, insisting that anything the right wing publishes is false or fringe while anything the left publishes is fact. It's the entire problem. Wendisway (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::@Wendisway you keep making these unsubstantiated assertions about the way enwiki works. I suggest you stop. I was not generalizing about {{tq|anything the right-wing publishes}}; I think it is clear that my statement refers specifically to those right-wing sources that have been termed "unreliable" at the WP:RSN.

::::::::::::::::::::::::There most certainly are reliable right-wing sources and unreliable left-wing sources, and Wikipedia discussions are pretty good at identifying each. Problems often arise, however, because new editors with strong opinions arrive at Wikipedia discussions, and they are unused to the criteria used here to evaluate sources. They expect publications like The Daily Mail and Breitbart to be considered reliable - because these editors personally consider them reliable - and they are disappointed that this opinion is not shared by those who have actually looked into their reliability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wendisway the current label the article uses for Murray is "neoconservative", which seems fair enough. What changes to the article are you proposing? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::He actually no longer calls himself a neoconservative as he says it doesn't fit with his current views, but that isn't what I have a problem with. It's the labeling of him as 'far right' in the article lede, based on far-left criticism of his support for Israel and opposition to mass immigration. The label is routinely used as a smear, and that's how it's being used here. It absolutely does not belong in the article lede. Wendisway (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Nowhere does the article label him as 'far-right'. It says (near the end pf the lead) "{{tq|he has been described as promoting far-right ideas such as the …"}}. You yourself acknowledge that this is a fairly common PoV, but you dismiss anyone who thinks this as so 'far-left' as to be meritless, unworthy of being recorded, seemingly regardless of their academic or other standing! In the UK, such critics have included quite a few more 'mainstream' conservatives. These criticisms of Murray's views, and how he chooses to express them, have long, long, long preceded his recent support for Israel, so cannot possibly be based on that. Murray is a controversial figure but you are basically arguing that only those who support him are worthy of being mentioned, we mustn't mention what his critics say because they and their opinions are {{tq|tabloid garbage that supports a left-wing agenda}} and thus worthless. You are arguing this in defence of NPOV, when it is clearly a partisan position.

:::::::::How sources describe a subject dictate how we do, rather than their self-identification. "Neo-conservative" has fallen out of use recently and it may well be that sources are taking time in updating how they 'label' him. He so strongly identified with that term earlier in his career that it would be worthy of recording, even if it is in the past tense.Pincrete (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Pincrete, his vocal public support for Israel is not 'recent' - it goes back over 15 years, and none of that criticism of him "precedes" it at all. It would appear that you know little about the subject you are so intent on smearing. Perhaps you should watch some of his early televised debates on Israel and the Middle East on Youtube.

:::::::::::He may indeed be a controversial figure to some, but the "far right" smear does not belong in the lede. Every political commentator has views that are considered controversial by those on the other side of the aisle who disagree with them, but there's no reason to focus on the opinions of those on the left who disagree with him in the lede. I have NOT said their opinions can't be mentioned, so don't put words in my mouth. Their opinions should be in the body of the article, in reply to specific positions of his. Putting it in the lede is a deliberate attempt to label the subject 'far right' by editors who dislike his support for Israel and criticisms of mass immigration. It's biased, and not encyclopedic. Wendisway (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is pretty obvious that the extent to which he is known for his support for Israel has increased exponentially in the last 18-ish months. The lead itself records this with a range of sources. I neither said, nor thought, that he had never defended Israel before then but it is not what he was mainly known for (certainly in the UK), which were mainly issues related directly or indirectly to immigration and Islam.

::::::::::::I take great exception to the idea that I here am {{tq|intent on smearing}} him, but as you feel this is pretty much true of all WP editors, I can console myself by being in honourable company. Every political commentator is not known for their controversial stands. Every political commentator does not write books about how an entire continent is effectively committing suicide by allowing too much immigration in general and of an 'alien' faith and culture in particular. Some of his other views about Muslims and Islam are even more incendiary (literally). You clearly and expressly are saying that the fact that there is 'pushback' to some of these controversial views should not be recorded in the single, almost final sentence of the lead. A summarised view of the nature of the 'pushback' from critics is entirely neutral and necessary coverage of someone who adopts such controversial stances.

::::::::::::We aren't going to agree and you don't propose any specific changes which you wish to see implemented, so this conversation is over AFAI am concerned. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Again, you make it clear that you personally disagree with his views, and therefore they are hateful and he deserves to be smeared as 'far right'. This is the entire problem here: your opinions on mass immigration and Israel have no business biasing this article against the subject.

::::::::::::::I will happily propose changes, but as we have seen, any changes that don't veer toward smearing him will be deleted by you and a few others, no matter how well sourced. You'll just say any praise of him isn't important enough to be included or is just opinion and so doesn't count (even though the included attacks on him are also just opinion), or all the times he has sided with the left aren't necessary to the article, etc. But sure, I'll try anyway. Wendisway (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::He isn't {{TQ| smeared as 'far right'}} by WP, he is described as neo-conservative. You have no idea which of his positions I (wholly or partly) agree with or (wholly or partly) disagree with. My private opinions are a great deal more nuanced than "left/right is good, right/left is bad", but they are irrelevant and private. Both praise of him and criticism is presented as opinion, broadly but succinctly characterising the source of the criticism.

:::::::::::::::I'm not sure what "sided with the left" means. You may be referring to gay rights/marriage. In the UK at least this issue isn't a left-right matter. Respecting/enabling gay marriage enjoys pretty much cross-party support and his support has never been especially 'central' to any coverage of him, which is what we represent here, not our own versions of what we think should be said. Pincrete (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's pretty clear that there's no consensus for any change here, the discussion is now Wendisway repeating off-topic general criticisms of Wikipedia. Suggesting closing this discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Does Murray consider himself British or English? More English than British? More British than English? Both equally? Perhaps his work shows this, but I am not familiar with it. The article does not really present anything to help the reader decide. I'm not sure it's correct to replace "British" with "English" simply because "{{tq|British is a vague nonsensical umbrella term for the countries of England, Wales and Scotland of which any person described by this term, must hail.}}" If his nationality as English really is something "{{tq|... which many consider an important aspect of his personality}}", shouldn't the article present this, with sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:You are presumably referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=1282293962 this recent edit]. I always take the attitude that any British citizen is referred to as 'British' unless the overwhelming majority of sources say something else. Sources take into account, and usually respect, self-identification, but in itself self-identification is not defining. It is of course possible/normal to be see oneself as both and no stranger than being both Texan and American, in which case American/British usually trumps the more 'local' identification on WP. Being born in Hammersmith (of Scottish parents … as Murray was) is fairly irrelevant, just as Tony Blair isn't usually considered Scots despite being born in Edinburgh to Glaswegian parents. There are examples where Eng/Sc/We/Ir take precedence over citizenship (Sean Connery and Seamus Heaney were always referred to by their 'national identification' rather than 'passport citizenship'). To the best of my knowledge, Murray is normally referred to as British. The onus is on the editor proposing the change to show that Murray is normally identified as 'English'.Pincrete (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)