Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

critics have associated his views with Islamophobia??

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've just checked both academic journals and neither of them describe him as Islamophobic. The first doesn't even mention him, and the second has only this quote "Ye’Or’s Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis (Citation2005) is the canonical work of the genre (Bangstad Citation2013; Larsson Citation2012), 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." not, as was quoted, "Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray"... I think it's time to ask how many of these references were vandalism by someone who was embittered by the subject. I think we also ought to ask if it is appropriate to place all of this he-said she-said in the lede? --ChessFiends (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Incorrect citation to Kundani (2012)

Newimpartial please see WP:BLPRESTORE: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

Please do not restore content deleted on good-faith BLP objections again without gaining consensus here.

As to the source in question, it can be found here: https://www.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/ICCT-Kundnani-Blind-Spot-June-2012.pdf, p. 16:

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 Co‐ordinator for Domestic Extremism, wrote in an email to Muslim groups that: ‘In terms of the position with EDL, the original stance stands, they are not extreme right wing as a group, indeed if you look at their published material on their web‐site, they are actively moving away from the right and violence with their mission statement etc.’ 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.’ Both these statements suggest that ‘counter‐jihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far‐Right narratives and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far‐Right violence.

This is now used as a citation for the following sentences:

• "he has been linked to far-right political ideologies"
• "In 2012, Arun Kundnani wrote in an article for Security and Human Rights that the "counterjihadist" ideology expressed by Murray and other conservative intellectuals was "through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse... able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence"

This source supports neither of these claims. As can be seen from the full paragraph, it is the EDL Kundani describes as "reworking far-right narratives..." etc, not Douglas Murray or Adrian Tudway. He offers these two as examples of the "many officials and advisors (who are reluctant) to recognise the group as a significant threat". Look out for "For example..." in the second sentence and "Similarly..." before Murray. That's how you know Tudway is an example of a reluctant official or advisor and Murray is also an example. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand the passage the source quotes from Murray, that would be how you’d want it, surely, as an example of "counter-jihadist ideology" being appropriated by "official discourse"? That's how I see it. If you'd like something in the article more nuanced than "linked to far-right political ideologies", I'd support that. However, it seems clear to me that the passage in question deals with the work done by the ideologies through the officials - the ideologies rework narratives and appropriariate discourse (though, e.g., Murray's comments) - it isn't the EDL that does so. I don't think you are reading the paragraph as intended. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's extremely clear Murray is one of the the "advisors" who doesn't recognise the EDL as a significant threat. That's why the author talks about his role influencing government policy, and highlights a statement where Murray says he doesn't consider the EDL very threatening. Exactly how he highlights Tudway, a government official, who also said he doesn't find the EDL threatening. I'm really quite confused how this could be misinterpreted. Endwise (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that a group represents the kind of backlash "you want" goes a good deal beyond saying Murray doesn't find it threatening. This is a counter-jihadist ideology appropriating official discourse, is it not? Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

LIKERESUME tag?

David Gerard can you clarify? A list of publications for which the subject writes seems to be common for articles about journalists, e.g. Owen Jones He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman, Tribune, and The National and was previously a columnist for The Independent or Deborah Ross Her work has appeared regularly in The Independent, the Daily Mail, and The Spectator. She is a columnist and feature writer for The Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

KronosAlight added the cite, thus citing an article in The Sun by Douglas Murray to support a statement that Douglas Murray had written for The Sun. David Gerard removed it mentioning deprecating and WP:NOTRESUME. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a confusing one. The citation of a Sun article isn’t dependent upon the veracity of Sun reportage, it just proves that he has written for The Sun (and has written a number of other articles if you click through to his author page). KronosAlight (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lists like this should be referenced to independent RSes to be present in the articles at all, they're very obviously a resume. If the entries are noteworthy, they will have been noted in RSes; if they have not been noted in RSes, but only in a deprecated source talking about itself, then they're not facts we should care about - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

David Gerard's edit summary's mention of WP:NOTRESUME was irrelevant since WP:NOTRESUME is actually about how Wikipedia editors should not use the site to tout themselves. I'd favour putting back the cite and removing the tag. But consensus is required. So who else is definitely for or against doing so? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This article does have a problem of too many of DM's opinions and stances being self-sourced, but generally speaking, a credit from a publication acknowledging the fact that someone is a regular contributor is considered reliable as to that fact. After all, whatever the Sun's reputation, it presumably is reliable for knowing who works for it! I therefore agree, the tag is not apt and the text should be reinstated. The link is actually to the around 11 pages of articles by DM that the Sun has online, so it verifies the "regular contributor" text.Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I support Peter Gulutzan's proposal. But can I ask we wait another 24 hours before acting to give David Gerard a chance to respond. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Just added a third-party RS for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I and Pincrete and FirstPrimeOfApophis agreed that the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed; I'm not sure about KronosAlight. If anyone changes their mind within a few days and decides David Gerard's later addition of a cite to deadline.com is as acceptable, or if someone else thinks so, please say so. Otherwise I'd say we have consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been attempting to reduce this article's over-use of primary sources for at least a year, if not more. If the best source you can find for something is a primary tabloid, it's a very good sign that it doesn't belong, yes even if it is ABOUTSELF. Including this kind of thing without context from a reliable source does very much make the article more like a resume. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, it's now a 3rd party source corroborating DM working for the Sun, not the greatest source, (Deadline article about a Bill Maher programme) but 3rd party. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On one hand that's true (and your edits in that direction were excellent), but on the other hand, if he's a columnist for The Sun, that feels relevant to mention in his biography regardless of secondary coverage. It's not exactly self-serving. In my opinion all the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria are met, and it's worth noting, given how it fits into the main thing he's known for (opinion & commentary). DFlhb (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This sort of information seems completely due. We have a commentator/columnist. Where their work has been regularly published seems absolutely due. The Sun had published a list of his columns it seems reasonable to use that as proof he has written for the Sun. This is not a contentious claim nor a writer's opinion or analogy about DM. It's a simple fact and completely relevant in a BLP. Given his career is basic boiler plate content. Springee (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sure you've had it pointed out to you previously that a few people can't just assert a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page as an end run around a broad general RFC. If you took it to the appropriate venue, WP:RSN, do you think your argument would convince? - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Mr Gerard, when possible I'll follow what PAGs say rather than what you say about them. As for WP:RSN I recall that you went to it in March with Reviews from unreliable sources which led to RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) where you were part of a minority. However, in this thread I interpret Grayfell's and Pincrete's latest remarks as support or acceptance of the deadline.com cite, so the consensus for reverting your edits is gone. That matters, so they stay for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my comment is wrong. Our goal isn't to drop factoids, it's to provide context. A passing mention in a source doesn't provide any context, nor does it in any way demonstrate that this factoid is important enough to be in the lead without being mentioned in the body. Summarize his career in the body and then summarize that in the lead proportionately. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion re: the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead should follow the body. Use reliable, independent sources to explain his career as a columnist in the body first (in Douglas Murray (author)#Media career, presumably), and then we can reevaluate how to summarize this in the lead. If necessary, passing mentions, primary sources, and dubious or outright unreliable sources could be considered to fill in basic details in the body, but only if necessary. If the only source for The Sun is the passing mention in Deadline, than this doesn't appear to be significant enough to mention in the lead even if it is mentioned in the body. This standard should be applied to every outlet. If a reliable source doesn't mention Unherd, for example, it doesn't belong at all either, but especially not in the lead. That would be one actionable step towards fixing the long-running resume problem. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We are told that The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person (MOS:BLPLEAD). It seems evident to me that in summarising the life and works of a journalist, someone who writes articles for publications, we should say what those publications are. WRT due weight, we are only talking about a single sentence. WRT RS, as Pincrete notes, the sources are reliable for the claim being made (that DM wrote articles for the publications in question).

Can somebody opposed to Peter Gulutzan's proposal point to the actual policy indicating that this information is inappropriate for the lead? If not, this would seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You, yourself already cited MOS:BLPLEAD. Due weight is decided by reliable sources, not individual editors. Proclaiming that this is "evident" is not persuasive in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In general terms I agree with Grayfell that this article has a long-term tendency to simply 'echo' DMs punditry, sourced to his own writings. HOWEVER, in this specific instance, as the man is a professional 'commentator/pundit' a short sentence listing the main publications to which he is a regular contributor, seems like basic biog info. As long as it is verifiable, and as long as it is kept brief as we are only listing the main publications, I don't see the problem. Isn't this normal on journalist's articles?Pincrete (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Which qualify as "main" and which don't? Passing mentions and primary sources are both bad for determining this. The Times and the Telegraph? Okay, sure. The Free Press, and Unherd? I'm dubious. He is prolific, so indiscriminately mentioning many outlets acts as a subtle form of promotion. We need context and that context should come from WP:IS, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Re actual policy that including is inappropriate. All I've seen is David Gerard's WP:NOTRESUME irrelevance, Grayfell's reference to "due" which presumably is about WP:DUE but it doesn't become undue just because Grayfell says so, and David Gerard's claim that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies but the RfC is not policy and anyway was concluding "generally unreliable" which obviously isn't the case here. There might have been allusions to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well but it's just an essay. I'd like to add on our side that WP:WHYCITE says "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." which applies for citing The Sun since users would indeed find additional information about the writing in The Sun, something which the vague listing-free mention in deadline.com does not provide. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, our goal should be to summarize in the body according to due weight and then briefly summarize that body for the lead. Right now, very few of the many outlets he has written for are mentioned in the body of the article, so their significance cannot be explained. Rhetorically speaking, how often does he write for these outlets? How many of these columns are unique to one outlet and how many are republished by multiple tabloids? To present this information without any context is inviting readers to ask questions that we have not bothered to answer, and it looks like name-dropping to make his output seem more prolific and more impressive, which is a violation of NPOV.

Citing reliable sources is to help readers understand the topic and to prevent these kinds of petty disputes over what is and is not due weight. As I said, due weight is decided by sources, not by editors. I didn't cite WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and dismissing it as an essay smells like wikilawering and ignores the point I was trying to make. If you really insist on a wikilink for this, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: ... As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Is any particular tabloid vitally important enough to be a "basic fact"? Clearly, we differ on this, but I do not accept that The Sun, Unherd, etc. are all equally important basic facts that do not require any additional context or explanation. The way to fix this problem would be to explain in the body, per reliable, independent sources, where he has written. After that, a source in the lead won't even be necessary per MOS:LEADCITE. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We differ and you don't accept so I count you as opposing. At this point I believe that opposers are David Gerard + Grayfell, supporters are FirstPrimeOfApophis + Peter Gulutzan + Pincrete + DFlhb + Springee + maybe KronosAlight. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add me to the list of supporters. The tag should be removed and the Sun cite restored. The article does not read like a resume. The subject's writings were evidently regularly published in the Sun. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I put back the cite and removed the tag. The proposal has about 3-to-1 support from editors in this thread, plus support from PAGs as mentioned. I think that further edits -- removing David Gerard's insertion of deadline.com, shifting the sentence to the body which seems to be compatible with Grayfell's remarks, undoing other recent changes -- should perhaps also happen, but this change is only what was proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is essential that this dubious statement is supported by a reference, or corrected if necessary.

"In the aftermath of the massacre of Israeli civilians, Murray has travelled to Israel and to Gaza multiple times."

I consider it most unlikely that Mr Murray has ever travelled to Gaza since 7 October 2023 since the Gaza Strip has been sealed off. Yet this sentence reads as though he has travelled there multiple times in the period. Hence I question the validity of this statement, especially since it is unreferenced. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it was redundant with a previous paragraph, I have removed the sentence. Murray has been to Gaza at least twice. Once was under the protection and guidance of Israel's Minister Of Foreign Affairs. This appears to have been a publicity stunt with American celebrity Debra Messing, likely sometime in December 2023.[1] Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Murray's regular partner

Is the mere fact that Murray had an (unnamed) regular partner for 10 years, until 2018 even remotely relevant to anything? Apart from the source seemingly being Murray himself, speaking after the break-up, do we normally record such trivia about a BLP? Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)