Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

message: and : you're making substantive edits but using edit summaries that suggest otherwise.  If you don't intend the substantive edits, then great -- please undo them. If you do intend them, then please undo and discuss.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read your version before you published it? It has obvious duplication problems that mean that it really couldn't remain in mainspace.  Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summaries couldn't be any longer or explain more of what I did. The edits may seem substantial, but when half a dozen or more identical citations are re-used, the diff looks that way. I didn't remove a single word from the body of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The recent changes should probably be rolled back until there is a consensus regarding the changes.  Certainly the current lead which uses a contentious label in the opening sentence would require clear talk page consensus. Springee (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it really shouldn't. Overwhelming consensus among high-quality academic sources is that he's described as far-right. And by the way, since when is "far right" considered a contentious label? It's a descriptor of political beliefs, no more, no less. Stop acting as if someone described him as a neo-Nazi. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears disputed and per LABEL and BLP concerns this is a change that needs consensus.  The question I have is which version of the lead is the stable version we should revert back to. Springee (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the editors that have provided reasons for describing Murray as "far-right" (those reasons being, that's how he's described in high-quality sources), the stable version is one that describes him as far-right. I have not seen any reasons offered by any editors that wish to remove this descriptor from the lead, so I don't see an issue with the current version. In any case, the current version is very close to the last stable version before the whitewashing attempts started, so I think it's fine as is. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The version with "far right" in the opening sentence is not the long-term stable version and has been repeatedly been contested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you have rolled back to Fred Zeplin's first edit, rather than to the stable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_%28author%29&diff=1212495690&oldid=1212360412. Was this intentional? 2A02:C7C:A85E:8500:4D6:6C49:6084:A1D (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice the other changes to the lead, but I don't think they really are different in substance from the stable version. Anyone else is free to revert deeper if they wish. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  I suggest reverting back to this edit [] by . Is there a good reason to keep any of the changes past this point? Unless I have misunderstood, you do not support them, nor does , nor do I. So I can't see who  could have got consensus from. It would also fix the uncalled-for rebundling of citations. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll have to do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a rationale for rolling back changes. So far, the editors in favor of the current wording have cited the fact that reliable secondary sources (dozens of them!) describe the subject as "far-right" in his politics. The editors who don't like the wording have cited... nothing. No policy-based reasons at all. This isn't a "count the votes for and against" system. It's a system where reliable secondary sources count the most. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not edit war.  This is a disputed change and there is not a clear consensus for the changes you have made.  Technically IDONTLIKEIT is a bad reason for AFD, not to revert a disputed change.  In this case the NOCON is the correct policy to cite. Springee (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry. I should have you read Wikipedia:I just don't like it, then. Because that's the sum total of the arguments of editors that don't like "far-right" in the lead, despite the voluminous sourcing. Right now I see , , , and myself pointing out that "far-right" is supported by dozens of sources. I see other editors saying "so what, we don't like far-right in the lead and so you have to take it out." That's not at all how this works. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And other editors have pointed out issues with your sourcing as well as BLP concerns related to this edit.  The simple fact is you don't have consensus for this change and NOCON is policy. Springee (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Fred Zepelin made a large edit of the article before posting the above statement. I believe the sources now in the first sentence do not sufficiently support far-right. Just looking at the quote parts of the cites ... Cite #8 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Viktor Orbán is on the right and liked Mr Murray's book. Cite #7 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Prager University is far-right and published Mr Murray's video. Cite #6 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is white nationalist right. Cite #5 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is among EDL activists. Cite #4 does say Mr Murray's ideas are "entangled" with the far-right, but what that means is an exercise for the reader. Cite #3 has no quote but is probably this which after quoting Adrian Tudway and Douglas Murray says "Both these statements suggest that counter jihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence." -- as if evading categorisation as far far-right proves you are far-right, eh? Cite #2 says Mr Murray's book "remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has long history in far-right thought", which if true would only suggest that the book discusses the theory. Cite #1 has no quote but it's easy to look up the Economic Times article, I didn't find what statement in it is relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  If even some of the sources are describing him as far-right, and the rest of them say he promotes Islamophobia, The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory, the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory (all basic tenets of today's far-right), and still others say he promotes the work of and admires other far-right figures, it's an open-and-shut case to me. Feel free to start an RfC on the BLP Noitceboard about it. I suspect you'll see 90% of established editors agreeing that "far-right" is the most accurate descriptor. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to bundle that massive list of citations, but yeah, high-quality academic coverage overwhelmingly calls him far-right (and often uses him as a primary example of the modern far-right when discussing it.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   is there a handy help article/tutorial on how to bundle citations? I was about to tackle it, thinking the same thing as you, but I cannot find out how to do it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  Never mind, just found it here, thanks to Scopecreep posting that template at the top. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what all the recent edit warring is about. Murray  described in the lead as "linked to far-right political ideologies". What am I missing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved that to the first sentence and a couple editors didn't like that change. Incidentally, I don't really have a hard position on the cites, just bundled them after Aquillion suggested it. They're technically not needed in the lead anyway, as long as they're in the body. I'm fine with your preference, after the RfC below gets worked out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a fair summary of the change. The previous lead said "linked to far-right political ideologies" later in the lead.  Your lead put "far-right" in wiki-voice in the opening sentence.  That's quite a big change. Springee (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's be more careful 

message: Whats happening with the lede? I left a tag so folk could take notice. Is there somekind of faceoff that led to about a dozen refs in one spot. Its excessive.  scope_creepTalk 22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually trying to figure out how to merge those right now, found the link in the template you posted, but I haven't attempted this before. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

text: scope_creep: Read the previous thread = let's be more careful. This appears to be just a continuation of the same topic, if you agree then please change your heading to show that this is a sub-topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finished consolidating 9 of those refs, so I think we're all set on this topic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation bundling: IMO the bundling of citations, as currently presented in the article, is sub-optimal. It leads to a bloat of the "References" section with large swaths of bibliographic material and quotations duplicated because they are also used elsewhere. I suggest to either return to the unbundled state and accept a list of citations in the article, or, more complicated, use the / mechanism  and bundle those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You preferred the bloat of numbers 2 thru 12 in the lead itself? The text of the article being bloated, in my opinion, is far worse than the References section being bloated. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On balance, I prefer each citation marked as such on its own. The previous bundled state produced many duplicated references, which is confusing and not conforming with normal citing practice on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I bundled using harvnb. I'm hoping this satisfies everyone. Planning to do the same in the body if there's no objection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Someone may want to look into merging the two bundles together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: Douglas Murray does not belong to the far right, he’s a centrist modern thinker. 2A01:4B00:9E32:2300:38E2:4E92:FAFF:9E8A (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable secondary source to support this opinion? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024 

message: * Comment to better align with the stable lead I noted that far-right was part of the long term lead.  Springee (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of Murray's connection with far right ideas has indeed long been part of the lead, but the inclusion of describing him as "far right" in the opening sentence has not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: , I don't agree with closing this as withdrawn.  A number of editors have replied so it should be left open.  Please self revert.  Springee (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  A number of editors replied to an RfC that I didn't start. You changing the wording of the actual question is a crystal-clear violation of WP:RFC. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: By "a number" do you mean 2?  Editors who weren't familiar with the topic might assume no part of the lead mentioned "right wing".  I wanted to make sure it was clear that was already in the lead but not in the first sentence as you were proposing.  I didn't change either of your sentences.  That said I think this should be reopened so we can get a clear response to the question so we don't have to go through this again.  Springee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Of course this RfC should not have been closed by Fred Zepelin. , you were the only person besides FZ to respond before Springee changed the question. Could you please review this change and let us know if you'd have responded differently to the prior version? FZ, the conditions for an RFC ending are at WP:RFCEND. As the poster, you can withdraw RfCs, but the timing isn't right unless "consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be". And, withdrawing the RfC just means removing the RfC tag, not closing the discussion. Can you please re-open it?  Springee, I've adjusted an RfC question or two in my time, and I always ping the poster. Something to consider for the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I will.  To be clear, when I made the adjustment I noted the edit right under the RfC question  where the change and associated comment would be very apparent.  This is a practice I have seen other editors do.  At some point the comment was moved down into the discussion section.  Springee (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to FFF's ping: No. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I voted B and I would have welcomed formal refutation of what Fred Zepelin had told me on March 7 (). Alas, I do not see what part of WP:RFC allows Springee's change, it only allows "... add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the  tag)." Also I don't see what part of WP:TALKO required Hemiauchenia to move Springee's additional comment that was initially below the RfC question. It seems to me that Fred Zepelin technically had a right to close early. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just trying to clean up the RfC question because I thought it was cluttered, and I wasn't sure if having two signatures might interfere with transclusion by the RfC bot. I think regardless of whether the RfC was closed properly or not, there's very clearly not a consensus to  describe Murray as "far right" in the opening sentence, which is what ultimately matters, and I don't think letting the RfC continue would result in a different outcome. If FZ continued to argue for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence based on his argument about the RfC being invalid I think that would be disruptive editing, but so far FZ isn't doing that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You both violated WP:TALKO and WP:RFC and that's why I closed the RfC that I began, and you modified, in violation of policy, and in an attempt to affect the discussion and the votes of other editors. This is a black-and-white case, and it is closed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I posted at WP:AN#Talk:Douglas Murray (author)#Request for Comment to hopefully get some input on what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:AN discussion's now archived without action. If the RfC had been re-opened I'd have struck my !vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think based on the state of the RfC when closed we can conclude there is no consensus for and perhaps a consensus against putting "far right" in the opening sentence.  I don't think we should take this as an endorsement of the status quo with the term later in the lead since "remove it" wasn't a clear choice yet may reflect editor preference. Note the recent tag added (and removed) to the lead to this end. Springee (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a shock - you think that the RfC you didn't write, but edited to try and arrive at your preferred outcome, arrived at your preferred outcome? Amazing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was 12:4 against your proposed change at the time you closed it early.  That certainly looks strong enough to be a consensus against assuming sound arguments on both side.  It would have been good to discuss the proposed RfC prior to opening it so we could be agreed on the wording and intent. Springee (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you're once again ignoring the fact that you changed the wording of the RfC before the vast majority of those posts were made, rendering it useless. Let's not pretend that you had some altruistic motive. I looked through your edit history. In every single discussion you get involved in, you vote to remove information you perceive as "negative" from conservatives' articles. That's not an opinion, an attack, or a violation of AGF - it's just straight facts. Every. Single. One. I have no idea how you've gotten away with that for as long as you have. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please FOC, not editors. Springee (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding RfC close 

message: Please remove this sentence:
 He is an atheist, having been an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19] He has also described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist.[115][12]
and replace it with this one:
 He has described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist,[115][12] and he was an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19]
It's unnecessary to call him an atheist twice in consecutive sentences. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for that suggestion. Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024 

message: , please follow BLD.  You boldly moved a subjective claim from the second paragraph of the lead to the opening sentence .  That change was challenged.  Please either self revert or show consensus for the change.  Springee (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective "known for" claim  

message: User:Cambial Yellowing, my problem with this edit is that the impression is left that ONLY these two academic journals have associated Murray with Islamophobia, since we normally only attribute criticism in those circumstances. In fact it's an extremely common association, made by reviewers, commentators as well as academics. It's possibly the most common charge levelled against Murray, sometimes even by people who otherwise admire him/his intellect.
I'm not wedded to the 'critics have associated …' phrasing necessarily, but your edit moves the text from framing this association in an over 'broad' fashion to an exceedingly narrow one. Pincrete (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s a fair criticism. If the association is as widespread as you suggest (and I have seen similar charges elsewhere, as you say) then either a passive voice “his views are widely associated…..” or, if we must attribute . “academics and journalists associate”. The “critics” line, as well as not being sourced, has a similar effect to what you suggest is the issue - as you point out the charge is made by those who otherwise admire him - not merely “his critics”, actual or imagined. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that even a 'fan' becomes a 'critic' when they point out faults, but as I say, I'm not wedded to that phrasing. I personally don't object to the passive voice, but suspect that some editors will object to the implied 'universality' of the criticism and want to insert that its only his critics who voice such charges! Round and round we go!Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second problem with 'critics' - beyond that it's OR so we can't include - is that it suggests that rather than being scholars studying anti-Muslim sentiment and pointing out notable instances, the authors are interested in Douglas Murray, poor souls, and have become 'critics' of his work. We need a stable wording that is actually supported by sources. Few would deny that "academic literature" is an accurate characterisation of the journals cited (and other works) so I thought it sufficiently bland. Ideally, given the availability of multiple scholarly sources, we can simply state this in wikivoice. If you think a passive-voice will cause endless objections, what about "Academics in sociology [and x] associate..." ? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current phrasing, naming journals. I would also be happy with something like "Academics in sociology [and x]". But I thought "Academics" without further specification was too pointed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I've just checked both academic journals and the first says "Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Niall Ferguson, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Diana West, Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011), Paul Berman, Frank Gaffney, Nick Cohen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray" while the second says "they also ‘extended well beyond this niche’ to include mainstream ‘Islamophobes’ such as Douglas Murray and prominent New Atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes I see, thanks to User:Firefangledfeathers for sending me the right versions of the papers. This is ultimately very questionable scholarship, just amounts to smearing a list of names they disagree with, but they do indeed say it.  --ChessFiends (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  critics have associated his views with Islamophobia??