Talk:Douglas Murray (author)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The additional commetary added on 28.04.08

As far as I can see this addition to the biography of a living person breaks the rules on Neutral point of view and Verifiability and No original research. I intend to remove. Any complaints? Almost-instinct 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I've made a few changes, all explained in edit summaries, mainly to keep the tone completely neutral and avoid going into the controversies. If people want to know more they can read the book. I tagged as dubious the statement that he was the youngest biographer ever. 21 is young to publish a biog, true, but WP takes a world-wide view. Who's to say that there wasn't a younger biographer in 19th century Panama? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

excision

I removed this: "and more recently the British National Party has described Murray as the "brilliant young director" of the Centre for Social Cohesion" and it's ref - Tories Accused of ‘Secretly Admiring Islam’ by Leading Daily Telegraph Writer - on the grounds that the article says quite clearly that these words were made by the Daily Telegraph journalist it was discussing". almost-instinct 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS please see also here almost-instinct 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

European Freedom Fund

Since the only references I've been able to find so far to this institution[?] are in Murray's self-supplied biogs (eg page 7 of this) I don't think it's sufficiently notable to be included. Are there any non-web sources for this? almost-instinct 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed pending refs

The following I took off the page

In 2007 he co-authored 'Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World' with Gen. Dr. Klaus Naumann, Gen. John Shalikashvili, Field Marshal The Lord Inge, Adm. Jacques Lanxade, Gen. Henk van den Breemen and Benjamin Bilski, in which they considered the complexity of emerging global security challenges, and the capabilities of existing institutions to address them.

In 2008 he co-authored the Centre for Social Cohesion report, 'Victims of Intimidation: Freedom of Speech within Europe's Muslim Communities', with Johan Pieter Verwey. The report told the stories of nearly 30 Europeans of Muslim background - some believing Muslims and others not - who have been threatened by Muslim extremists. Based on interviews with many of these individuals, the report details the substantial threats and violence they have faced as a result of critical inquiry into aspects of their faith or lifestyle.

Please don't put back there without proper refs, thank you almost-instinct 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed some fluff

This article seems to have grown considerably over the last few months. He's obviously a notable figure, he works quite hard to be so - but I really don't think we need a rundown of his 18 months of writing articles for Standpoint or a list of his memberships of unnotable right-wing groups. He is to politics what Peaches Geldof is to music.--193.36.79.206 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from your final barb, I agree. Be bold, restructure & prune. If you want to see real fluff, btw, have a look at Jon Christos almost-instinct 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Same person as above - Okay more changes/deletions made: he wasn't given equal billings with those generals in the writing of the report, we have no evidence 'Nightfall' was ever performed. I think there's still more structural work to be done. That Scotsmen 'eligible bachelor' piece was a light nudge-nudge piece referring to his sexuality. Which is another interesting issue - Douglas is 'openly homosexual' but finding a text source on that is quite the challenge. I think this is part of the right-wing tightrope he walks. --Maloot (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Until there's a source that mentions this, that remains your opinion. Please remember all about WP:BLP. When doing previous research online for him I've never found anything relating to that. Personally I don't think its notable as, as far as I'm aware, he's never made any prounouncements on the area of sexuality &c. Structurally, yes its a mess; at least the content is just about within WP rules! almost-instinct 07:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not well enough sourced blog piece which casually alludes to his known homosexuality and makes the beginnings of a case for notability. I'm not suggesting that this blog piece is enough to start adding info to the page itself - but you are way off base suggesting he has never made pronouncements about sexuality. I've seen a video online where he talks about how he would be persecuted in Iran, maybe I can dig it up. Douglas Murray has also written for Attitude magazine - see here and states his particular interest in 'gay equality' in this video - Clip from Hardtalk interview. As I say, none of this is edit-ready as it stands but Douglas Murray is openly gay.--Maloot (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't write "you are way off base suggesting" when I wrote "as far as I'm aware". almost-instinct 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament comments?

Well, where is the discussion that was here a couple of days ago. Deletion tactics eh? Am I alone in thinking that this article, on Mr Murray, is either selfwritten or by a close aide of some description? Brendandh (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody had written on this page since 26th April so it's unclear what you are talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Debate GIS

Whoever is removing sourced information relating to the planned debate please justify your edits here before reverting again. Apart from your failure to capitalise Douglas Murray, you are removing information that is sourced and replacing it with incorrect information. The assertion that Murray did not turn up to the debate is incorrect- as the source states (as does this- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193869/Muslim-clashes-segregation-men-women-forces-cancellation-meeting.html). This also renders your assertion that he had planned not to attend false. In light of this, I am left wondering what the intent of your edit is.Ninahexan (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring sections

I've had a go a restructuring the sections, they appear to be more logical now. I also removed sections that seemed non-important or even trivial (e.g. about Irish jokes). Jprw (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few CPOV issues here - one I've amended is to describe anybody as "the Award Winning...". It's not suitable for Wiki - most people have won awards of some description. They should be described according to their profession, with any awards won being described factually. 86.23.4.245 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on being "Britain's only Neo-con" is rather silly and tabloid - it comes a few words after a description of him as a Neocon, and doesn't add anything. Marty jar (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There were many issues with the heading "Criticism of Islamic figures" - amongst them that Malcolm Grant is not muslim; the 2 muslim 'figures' cited weren't senior within the religion; and that it suggested Murray was against all muslims, while citing examples of him being against Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

"Critism of Islamic Extremism" is also not a great heading, but the three cases cited are rathe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Education

On Young Voters' Question Time Douglas Murray stated that he "went to state school, got a scholarship to Eton and then a Scholarship to Oxford" Viewable at 3:20 from here He mentioned this in retaliation to the host hinting at him for being overly privileged. For the neutrality of the article and to present a fair picture of the subject I believe this should be mentioned, as it currently states that he went to two fee paying schools then to Oxford. I cannot find a source detailing his claims other than the Youtube clip.

[1] Came across this re: Eton (now in article) but nothing has turned up re: a scholarship to Oxford. Jprw (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Murray

Murray's anti-Irish sentiments are well known and the Irish jokes incident is in indicator of how that man thinks. I've restored the section on his attempts to popularise and defend Irish jokes. Donoreavenue (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your evident antipathy towards Murray is clearly causing you to think irrationally about this issue. Not only is the accusation an extremely bad case of synthesis (Murray at no stage denigrated Irish people, the alleged offending remarks were made in readers' comments to his blog), but trivia such as this should not make up whole sections of biographies of living persons on WP. It is both misleading and irrelevant and needs to go. Jprw (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have form for outrageous allegations of "censorship". Jprw (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[Copied over from my [jprw] talk page] I'd actually say that your evident admiration for Murray is making you behave in a censorious manner. The section will be restored and if you continue to vandalise the article you will be reported. Donoreavenue (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand that these allegations are spurious and false. Allegedly insulting remarks were made in readers' comments to a blog entry Murray wrote. Aside from that, in the context of Murray's career this is an extremely minor episode that cannot warrant an entire section in his WP article. I hope that you understand now. Jprw (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me. What I do understand from your actions is that by constantly removing this section, one that doesn't show your hero in a favourable light, you wish to show Murray in as positive a way as you can. I don't buy the notion that Murray is a "brilliant" thinker or a major contributor to social cohesion. By encouraging racist jokes on a blog his other views on Islam can be seen in context. By removing these aspects of Murray's views from the article I put it to you that your motives were political rather than encouraging the writing of articles from a neutral point of view.

Having said that, I would agree that a section dedicated to that incident may not be necessary, however I would suggest it goes into a wider section covering both his views on Islam and on the Irish. By the way, thanks for taking the trouble to review my Wikipedia editing history. I see you too have form, in maintaining uncritical biographies of several right wing figures. Donoreavenue (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry that you are taking such an irrational / vaguely paranoid line. If you try to insert the material again I will remove it without further discussion (as trying to reason with you is evidently pointless) and treat it as an act of vandalism. Jprw (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a formal dispute to try and resolve this matter. Donoreavenue (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Donoreavenue, looking at the above I see you being told several times that the allegedly insulting remarks were made in readers' comments to a blog entry Murray wrote, but I don't see you responding to that. Do you agree, or do you claim that they aren't? If the claim is true (I haven't checked) then they have no place on Wikipedia.

BTW, could you all please read Wikipedia:Indentation? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Murray invited Irish jokes on the blog note the title "Anyone know any good Irish jokes?". If you read the blog entry he makes the point that getting financial compensation for hearing an anti-Irish joke was wrong from his point of view and then goes on to make straw man comparisons with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The point of the blog entry was to; 1: trivialise anti-Irish jokes, 2: encourage the posting of anti-Irish jokes onto the blog and 3: to complain about a councillor getting "more" compensation for being told an anti-Irish joke than serving soldiers. Murray's essential premise being that anti-Irish jokes are harmless fun. Donoreavenue (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! OK, now I have a question for Jprw. I just checked, and you reverted[2] the following, written by Donoreavenue:

"Encouraging Irish Jokes: Under the headline "Anyone know any Irishman jokes?" Murray wrote a column querying a council having "to pay thousands of pounds in compensation" to a union official who had been told an Irish joke by a Conservative councillor, writing "you can reflect on the ramifications for the taxpayer of a society that decides it needs officials to arbitrate on jokes". The result was that over 70 Irish jokes appeared on the blog. The Federation of Irish Societies (an organisation that represents Irish clubs and societies in Britain) lodged a formal complaint about the blog to the Press Complaints Commission."

Jprw, please explain why you wrote above "Murray at no stage denigrated Irish people, the alleged offending remarks were made in readers' comments to his blog" and "Please try to understand that these allegations are spurious and false. Allegedly insulting remarks were made in readers' comments to a blog entry Murray wrote." when the passage you deleted made it clear that Murray encouraged the jokes instead of making them. You led me to believe that Donoreavenue was attributing remarks made by readers to Murray (which of course would not be allowed) but now that I have checked I discovered that your statement was not an accurate depiction of what Donoreavenue actually wrote.

So, let's start fresh. Please explain what about the above passage makes it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Remember, I am an uninvolved editor who is looking at this because it appears that an outside opinion is needed, so I don't know the history of this dispute (Nor do I care. I want to focus on the deletion of the passage I just quoted -- on what grounds did you delete it?) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I read all the comments above by both parties, and I don't see a justification for the deletion, so I am restoring it while we discuss the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Regarding Guy's question, part a) "Jprw, please explain why you wrote above 'Murray at no stage denigrated Irish people, the alleged offending remarks were made in readers' comments to his blog'..."

Because he didn't. The "offensive" jokes appeared in the readers’ comments. Is this not obvious?

(Regarding Guy's question, part b) "...when the passage you deleted made it clear that Murray encouraged the jokes instead of making them."

That is a very bad case of synthesis indeed. The question (the title of the article) is obviously rhetorical. And the substance of the article is an observation about political correctness. Murray cannot be held responsible for any subsequent comments that appeared. Smacks of gross POV.

As a general comment, this is an extremely minor episode in the context of Murray’s career, and I am flabbergasted that as an “uninvolved editor” you have decided to accord it its own section. You should have seen immediately that it is spurious and trivial, and thrown it out. Jprw (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE read and follow Wikipedia:Indentation? Fixing your indentation again and again is becoming tedious and annoying.

If you think it should be in another section, please suggest one.

You seem to be not understanding my question. "Because he didn't" is not a proper response to the question "why did you previously say he didn't when nobody claimed that he did?" Please re-read the question slowly, think about your answer instead of just dashing it off, and address the specific questions asked.

Re: your assertion that this is an extremely minor episode in the context of Murray’s career, the fact that the Federation of Irish Societies lodged a formal complaint about the blog to the Press Complaints Commission appears to make it notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.

I do not appreciate your putting “uninvolved editor” is quotes as if somehow my neutrality is in question. If you imagine that I care or even know about some random British writer / commentator, you are mistaken. I was asked to come here and offer an outside opinion and that is what I am doing. You might have noticed that I started by questioning Donoreavenue about what appeared to be him violating Wikipedia policy. He calmly and rationally explained why he thought that my question was based upon a a mischaracterization of his position by you, and I agreed. You really need to slow down, carefully review your responses, and edit them so that they are [A] responsive to the question asked, [B] Calm, cool and rational, and [C] based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have not come to a conclusion about the underlying dispute, and I don't want to reach the wrong conclusion just because you aren't being calm and logical. More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting your lofty and patronising tone to one side, the issue boils down to three things. 1) The article is about political correctness, not encouraging Irish jokes; 2) The title of Murray’s article (the so-called invitation to denigrate Irish people, as interpreted by Donoreavenue) is rhetorical; 3) The objections raised by the press commission were based on readers’ comments to the article: you cannot use these as a stick to beat Murray, unless you have a POV against him.

And this is an extremely minor episode in his career that has been blown out of all proportion; it should not be included anywhere in the article, let alone given its own section. I was hoping that common sense would prevail, but no; editor Donoreavenue, who if you would bother to check is a SPA to uphold extreme positions related to Irish issues and who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of "censorship", is being allowed to malign Murray unchecked. Jprw (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that Donoreavenue is a SPA would hold more weight if you hadn't at the same time made a false POV accusation against me. Again, I don't know or care who Murray is, nor do I have any interest in UK politics. I barely care about California politics.

I am not going to respond to you any further until you indicate that you have read Wikipedia:Indentation and intend to follow it. Why, you may ask? Because I need to see that you are willing to follow at least one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are willing, talking about your assertions may be productive. If you aren't, then there is no point in discussion, and the only option left will be you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please show me that you are willing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by reading and following Wikipedia:Indentation. You might want to review WP:CIVIL while you are at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am of course familiar with Wikipedia:Indentation, but was unsure what the exact procedure was when quoting another editor (as I did you above). Are you seriously suggesting that I can get blocked for this? As for your general implication that I am disregarding or am unaware of basic WP criteria, that seems rather ironic given that this is a biography of a living person and all I have been doing is consistently trying to prevent Murray being misrepresented and besmirched through the insertion of misleading – perhaps potentially libelous – information by an editor who appears to be an SPA and who clearly has a POV against the subject. This surely must be the nub of the matter that you should be giving your full attention to. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not saying you would get blocked over indentation. I noticed that, after being asked twice, you failed to indent your response one level lower that the post you were responding to, which naturally raised the question of whether you were willing to follow any policies or guidelines. (Yes, we do see some folks who refuse to cooperate even on a minor matter such as indenting.) Now that I see that you are not one of those stubborn folk, I am now going to drop this sub-discussion and as, you suggested, get back to the "nub of the matter".

There are two issues here. First, there is your behavior. Second, there are your comments about what should and should not be in the article. I am going to address your behavior first, because your behavior is making it very difficult to give your comments about what should and should not be in the article a fair hearing -- and they do deserve a fair hearing.

You are in danger of being blocked with your "perhaps potentially libelous" comment. see WP:LEGAL. I strongly suggest that you continue his conversation without even a hint of making a legal threat.

You are also not being WP:CIVIL. The following comments are unacceptable:

"...clearly causing you to think irrationally about this issue"

"I am flabbergasted that as an “uninvolved editor” you have decided..."

"Putting your lofty and patronising tone to one side..."

"...you cannot use these as a stick to beat Murray, unless you have a POV against him."

"I was hoping that common sense would prevail, but no..."

"...is a SPA to uphold extreme positions"

"...misleading – perhaps potentially libelous – information by an editor who appears to be an SPA"

Knock it off. before you hit the save page button go back over your posts and delete anything that talks about other editors. Talk only about the article.

OK, that's enough about behavior. I suggest that this is a good time for both of us to start only talking about the article rather than focusing on past misbehavior. Onward to talking about what should be in the article.

I see you making three arguments about article content:

"The article is about political correctness, not encouraging Irish jokes"

"The title of Murray’s article is rhetorical"

"The objections raised by the press commission were based on readers’ comments to the article: you cannot use these [against] Murray."

It is not our place to make those judgements. We are supposed to report any notable criticism, not reporting it in Wikipedia's voice as if it was a known fact, but instead reporting who said it and when. It doesn't matter whether the criticism is valid. It doesn't matter if the criticism blamed Murray for something someone else wrote. If the criticism was made and was notable, we report it.

Likewise, if there are any notable claims that the criticism is invalid or wrong we report that as well. (If the response is by Murray himself or a representative of his it is automatically considered notable.)

The only basis for excluding the material you want excluded is it not being cited in a reliable source or it not being notable. You need to argue one of those points. The arguments you made above are not, according to Wikipedia policy, reasons for exclusion. Remember, the standard is Verifiability, not Truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have badly misrepresented my position in at least three ways. 1) Indentation. The first warning was to the user Donoreavenue see here; the second one was to me. So you are incorrect when you state that you warned me on two occasions. And you certainly did appear to imply that this could be used as grounds to block me. So you put me in the rather ridiculous position of being threatened with being blocked for failing to observe WP protocol on indentation, despite the fact that the charge was false! Well, that’s a first for me in five years of editing here:) 2) Your invoking of WP: LEGAL. I did not "threaten to employ litigation" as per this policy (I presume this is what you are referring to), I was merely quoting the last line of the first paragraph which appears at the top of this page (Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous). You again threatened a block; please retract. 3) Issues re: Civility. I notice you conspicuously ignore the problematic tone consistently adopted by User: Donoreavenue since this discussion began. You should at least take into account that my comments (some of which I accept could be construed as being in violation of WP:CIVIL) were made in response to the problematic position and insulting, extreme-bad-faith tone adopted by this user, and were also made with the ultimate aim of avoiding basic violations of WP: BLP (also, for someone who is so strict about civility issues, I am surprised that you use language such as “Knock it off”). As a general comment, you seem very keen to instruct me to calm down, “less heat please” etc. Could I also request that you are less gung-ho in issuing multiple threats to block me; I find such threats to be vaguely sinister. And at least if you are going to issue such threats, make sure that you have got your facts 100% correct.

Regarding inclusion of the material, you write, It doesn't matter if the criticism blamed Murray for something someone else wrote. If the criticism was made and was notable, we report it. Can this really be true? I have grave doubts, and suggest that you reacquaint yourself with the basic tenets of WP: BLP, which, I believe, always "trump", as it were, issues such as WP: NOTABLE, RS, etc.. Regards, Jprw (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "You again threatened a block [because of WP:LEGAL]; please retract", If you say you had no intention of making a legal threat and that I misinterpreted you, I believe you (WP:AGF) and retract my statement. It would be nice if you believed me when I wrote that I had no intention of threatening a block over indentation and that you misinterpreted me. I will not respond to further accusations about that. See WP:IAD.

Re: Civility, no. "The other fellow was uncivil so I am allowed to be uncivil in return" is not an allowable excuse. You need to be civil no matter what others do. If you feel that others are being uncivil, politely ask them to stop and bring it to WP:WQA if they don't.

I asked you to please stop talking about other editors and to focus on the article. In your reply you devoted 75% to talking about other editors and 25% to talking about the article. Starting now I am going to simply ignore any comments you make about other editors.

Re: inclusion of the material. Please re-read what I wrote before starting with "I see you making three arguments about article content." everything that comes after that is in the context of those three arguments you made and why they are invalid.

Yes, it really is true that we report criticism that is sourced and notable without evaluating whether it is true. You say you have been editing Wikipedia for five years. Are you really unfamiliar with the basic concept of Verifiability, and not Truth? You keep invoking WP:BLP. Are you really unfamiliar with WP:BLPREMOVE?

All I am doing is telling you what WP:BLPREMOVE says about the acceptable grounds for removal of content. Is the material you want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced? No. It is not. Is it a conjectural interpretation of a source? No again. Is it a self-published source not written by the subject of the BLP? Not even close. Does it fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards? Nope. Thus you have no grounds for removal. Q.E.D. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I really do not want to get bogged down in pettiness and or to go around in vindictively motivated circles, but it would have been nice if you had acknowledged that the first charge re: Indentation was directed at another editor, and not me. That said, you did have the good grace to apologize for another incorrect allegation you made against me, which I appreciate – thank you. There seems to be another glaring inconsistency in the various statements you’ve made. On 9 May you wrote, Donoreavenue, looking at the above I see you being told several times that the allegedly insulting remarks were made in readers' comments to a blog entry Murray wrote, but I don't see you responding to that. Do you agree, or do you claim that they aren't? If the claim is true (I haven't checked) then they have no place on Wikipedia (bold mine). This statement seems to directly contradict something you then wrote on 11 May: It doesn't matter if the criticism blamed Murray for something someone else wrote. Why did you make the original statement on 9 May? Presumably it was in some way motivated by a concern related to a BLP violation? The idea that WP can see fit to hold Murray responsible for statements made by other individuals seems to me to be a shocking position to take, and you originally seemed to share this concern. So I would repeat that WP should not be touching material of this kind. Also to repeat, in the context of Murray’s career this really is a trivial episode, so if it is to be included, it should be as a footnote somewhere and not under an entire section with the ludicrously (almost comically) misleading and inaccurate heading “Encouraging Irish Jokes”. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the above that talks about the article instead of complaining about other editors, so I am going to ignore it and advise others to do likewise. If you wish to talk about the article, I will be glad to discuss the article with you. You might start with giving us a reason why we should ignore WP:BLPREMOVE and instead use some other criteria for removal. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, so your way of dealing with legitimate criticism and having holes exposed in your reasoning is to ignore it, fine (and in addition, the invitation for other editors to form a WP:CABAL with you strikes me as rather sinister). But you seem to have had yet another lapse: I do discuss the article and the material in question, and suggest (both above and in the edit summary) that, if it is to be included, it should be as a footnote somewhere (since the event is extremely trivial) and not accorded its own section. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Argument above not found in the list of reasons to remove material from biographies of living persons against consensus. See WP:BLPREMOVE. Try again with a valid argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that your tendency to score own goals continues unabated, viz. the first line of the WP:BLPREMOVE link which you provide above contains the following sentence: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Could you please explain how the headline "Encouraging Irish jokes" is not a case of "conjectural interpretation of a source"? Thanks. Jprw (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, now we are getting somewhere. You have identified the specific part of the article you are referring to ("Encouraging Irish jokes") and the specific policy that you believe allows you to remove it against consensus ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source") That is a specific claim that we can discuss. Also, I commend you for posting a comment that is only 10% talking about other editors and 90% talking about the article (the last one was only 25% about the article) Keep up the good work!

The cited sources say:

"I signed off in the spirit of ‘they can’t take us all’ by saying that readers should send in their own Irish jokes to defeat this compensation-culture menace. At which point I unwittingly walked straight on to the crime scene myself. I too had now committed a hate crime. Worse, I had incited others to do the same. I had unwittingly become a one-man walking crime-wave." (emphasis added.)

Clearly, "Encouraging Irish jokes" is in the source, as apposed to being a conjectural interpretation of the source. If you wish to change it to "Inciting Irish Jokes" (the exact wording used), that would be allowed, but "encouraging" is more neutral in tone and sounds less like an accusation.

We are not going to remove it, because it is not a conjectural interpretation of the source. The source directly says "I incited others [to post Irish jokes]" and "readers should send in their own Irish jokes." No conjecture or interpretation needed.

OK, let's discuss where you can go from here. If you have any other arguments for removing material against consensus, I will be glad to look at them, and if they are valid, to delete the infringing passage. If you think I am wrong about your latest argument being invalid, you can take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and get an outside opinion. Or you could try to get a consensus that agrees with you. To do that, start by trying to convince the other editors here (free clue: accusing and flaming is not a good persuasion technique), and if that does not work, you can seek other opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Having wandered over here from the DRN thread, I see some issues with the section headed "Encouraging Irish jokes". It assigns undue prominence to a relatively minor and insignificant portion of Douglas Murray's career by devoting an entire section to it, comprising a substantial portion of the article text. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should have less weight. I have no objection to making it smaller and moving it into another section. Jprw wants it deleted, which is against the consensus of the other editors who are working on this article (I am not one of them, having come here from the DRN thread as well, so my opinion should not be counted toward any consensus). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need a section but should be perhaps a subsection. Donoreavenue (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary incident

I have added the incident in which Murray was nearly ambushed by a mob before a debate in 2009. This is a noteworthy incident and more deserving of an appearance of Murray's Wikipedia page than some of the content here. Michael Heseltin (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Views on Islam

This section was previously titled 'Views on Islamic fundamentalism', but I changed it as it's clear his criticisms are not of a specific branch of Islam but of Islam in general. See e.g. this speech he gave[3], which identifies Muslims in general as the problem, and contains such quotes as 'All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop' and 'Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board'. Robofish (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories contradiction

Murray is listed as Hebridean, as well as English of Scottish descent. However, nowhere in the article is his place of birth listed. Thegreatelgrande (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

LGBT categories?

Currently, this article is in the categories 'LGBT journalists' and 'LGBT writers from Scotland'. However, there is nothing in the text of the article itself to indicate that Murray self-identifies as LGBT. Can anyone provide a source for that? If not, these categories should be removed as BLP violations. Robofish (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Murray is openly gay. According to GayTimes.co.uk "Then there are the homophobe apologists. Douglas Murray, the gay neocon author and director of the inaptly named Centre for Social Cohesion, routinely praises one of Britain’s most influential homophobes." http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Interact/Blogs-articleid-8370-sectionid-720.html Michael Heseltin (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Murray often references the fact that he is a gay man. On this Youtube video, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7CBFZJCBg (about 2 minutes in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantmitch1 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas Murray (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229002047/http://www.irishnetworkbritain.org:80/about-us.php to http://www.irishnetworkbritain.org/about-us.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Islamophilia: a very metropolitan malady

This book has disappeared, anyone know anything? Alan Simon Thomas (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Douglas Murray (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7188874/Councillor-ordered-to-pay-compensation-for-racist-joke.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415153705/http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3283526/the-lse-caves-in-to-terror.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3283526/the-lse-caves-in-to-terror.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Views on Islam section

This section does not give/quote most of the criticisms of Murray made on Conservative Home, but gives/quotes all of his defences, the effect is very unbalanced. Conservative Home is accusing Murray of substantial misrepresentation of its disagreement with him and of holding much stronger - and quite unworkable - views than those we quote (destroying mosques, repatriating the children or grandchildren of immigrants if they 'condone violence' against any 'Western' country or its troops anywhere in the world).

Our ref to the archived copy of the social affairs original 'Dutch' speech, is 'dead' (it contains no text, just the social affairs unit logo), other links, such as the one on Conservative Home, have the same problem, ie one cannot view the original speech, I found this, but the source is almost certainly not RS for use in the article. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The quote we currently give, which ends "If some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one" omits some of the most incendiary parts of that speech, the fuller version of which is "There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one". Unfortunately the source may not be RS, but this text is consistent with the ConservativeHome source (which we do use), which describes, rather than quotes Murray's proposals. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Zion

Murray is a staunch Zionist and examples of his views on the supremacy of Israel can be found in the Spectator. Maybe there ought to be a section on this, Right-wing Gay Zionism?--Wool Bridge (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Irish Jokes Section

I just noticed the section on Irish jokes here and the lengthy discussion about its validity on the talk page. I suggest this section be removed altogether, unless this page is planning to detail the many opinions that Murray expresses on a regular basis. The inclusion itself seems like a fairly primitive and biased attempt to paint Murray in a poor light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.201.234 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have undone this pure vandalism. Donoreavenue (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that people are looking to remove this section for political reasons. I have yet again restored it. Donoreavenue (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that people are seeking to retain this section for political reasons. Murray has made scores of comments that are as equally unworthy of note as this one. I don't want it removed to portray Murray positively, I want it removed to stop portraying him negatively. Michael Heseltin (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a travesty that this utterly minor episode has been accorded its own section; this issue needs to be looked at again as it (at least) in terms of weight and relevance is seriously imbalancing Murray's WP article. Motivated more towards antipathy towards Murray than any serious attempt to create a worthwhile WP entry. Jprw (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We've been down this road several times before Jprw. You tried to delete this section on several occasions and you no doubt remember that intervention from other Wikipedia editors was necessary before you stopped reverting the edits. Why indeed are you concerned about supposed "antipathy" towards Murray? I agreed last year that the section could be a subsection under a controversy section. Donoreavenue (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now combined the views on Islam and the Irish Jokes section into one section. These sections are in my opinion significant enough to warrant inclusion in a bio piece. Donoreavenue (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was left unresolved. Since that time however, other editors have queried the relevance of this section (with good reason); hence the issue needs revisiting. And your latest edit has made the article look even worse, as you are equating Murray's views re: Islamic Fundamentalism (which are certainly notable in his career) with an obscure career episode involving a blog post. Murray's views on Islamic Fundamentalism also do not belong under a lazy, sloppy "Controversies" section. I note from here that your WP editing behaviour is reserved almost exclusively to inserting the Irish Jokes section into this article, which seems to categorise you as an SPA (see here). And your comment on antipathy is bizarre—we should be editing neutrally, with a clear head, trying to improve articles and not waging personal vendettas. But at least you are honest. I now suggest we get an outside adjudication on this section, and I hope that common sense and a sense of balance will prevail. Jprw (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for outside adjudication to be involved again. Donoreavenue (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done some common-sense restructuring and shunted the Irish Jokes controversy into his journalism section which seemed the best solution to the problems cited above. This reference itself now needs to be shortened. Jprw (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers thanks for that, happy with your edits. Donoreavenue (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"The compensation sum was not disclosed, as claimed by Murray, and he omitted to say that the councillor had told the joke at a racial discrimination hearing, of which he was chair." Is there any reason an editor has twice called Murray a liar here? Why would it make Murray's claim less accurate to find out he was present at the event he was talking about, and why would Murray not have more information than the wikipedia editor about an event that happened at which he was officiating? 103.237.94.236 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Murray's "Reporting on Islamism" or "Views on Islam"

An IP editor, and user Jandrewc, have recently altered the article's language, so that rather than stating that Murray is a critic of Islam, it states that he is a critic of "Islamism". Jandrewc stated, "Language misrepresents as an opinion writer when Murray is a reporter on Islamism, not a critic of Islam". My response is simple: prove it. Provide evidence that your change is correct, and that Murray does criticize only "Islamism" and not Islam. I do not believe that you can prove any such thing, Jandrewc, so it appears to be you who is guilty of misrepresentation. Let me give three relevant quotes from the article. It states that Murray regards "Islamophobia" as a "nonsense term", as "there are a considerable number of reasons to be fearful of some—though certainly not all—aspects and versions of Islam". Again, it states "In February 2006, Murray expressed his views on Islam and Muslims in Europe, in his talk delivered to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in the Hague, Netherlands". Another quote: "In 2010, Murray argued against the motion in an Intelligence Squared US debate titled "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"." In all of those cases, Murray is obviously criticizing Islam, and not simply "Islamism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor, and user FreeKnowledgeCreator, has recently rejected a correction to the article regarding Douglas Murray, which has a lengthy section entitled "Views on Islam," which erroneously implies that Murray is an opinion author and not a journalist. I have recommended an update of "Views on Islam" to "Reporting on Islamism" to more accurately reflect both Murray's role in reporting the facts regarding Islamism rather than Islam writ large. If you read carefully, the quotes you refer to demonstrate quite the opposite of the position you have put forward. First, Murray's quote that "there are a considerable number of reasons to be fearful of *some*—***though certainly not all***—aspects and versions of Islam." Unless all Muslims are Islamists, it follows logically that Murray is not criticizing the religion as a whole, only "aspects and versions of Islam" for which there is reason to be fearful, such as political terrorists and their backers. He makes this point throughout his presentations and I can provide several additional citations if needed. Second, Murray has stated repeatedly that his statement to the Dutch Parliament were inarticulate and that he does not hold those views. The rest of that paragraph describes the lengths to which Murray has retracted and repudiated this remark.Post left unsigned by Jandrewc

That is not accurate. No IP editor rejected the "update" to the article, rather it was IP editors trying to push the inaccurate "update" into the article (with your assistance). The section title "Views on Islam" simply reflects the fact that the section concerns Douglas Murray's views on Islam. It has nothing to do with whether he is a journalist or not, as you falsely state. Journalists are as capable of criticizing Islam as anyone else is. If someone states that there are reasons to be fearful of aspects of Islam, then that certainly is criticism of Islam, and it is tendentious to suggest otherwise. There is no indication that "Islamism" is the only aspect of Islam that Murray suggests that we should be frightened of. Likewise, if someone argues against the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, that is also criticism of Islam, and it is simply preposterous to suggest otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

IF Murray intended to refer solely to Islamism, we can reasonably assume that he is articulate enough to know, and to have used, the term. It isn't madly relevant, but Murray does not meet the usual meaning of 'journalist', (ie reporter) except in the literal sense of someone who writes in journals. He's mainly known as a writer, much of whose stuff is printed in papers/journals. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Pincrete. Unfortunately an IP editor is continuing to try to force this inaccurate change into the article without explanation and without discussing the matter on the talk page, most recently here. I cannot revert immediately because of the three revert rule. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, semi-protection? I can't today as RL calls. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems like an over-reaction at this stage. Possibly it will become necessary if disruptive editing continues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

'Critical of Islamism' in lead

The lead says "He is often critical of Islamism and ..." the link is to "Criticism of Islam". There are a number of Q.s. Firstly is there anyone who is not critical of militant, violent Islamism? Secondly, while true, is that the best summary of why Murray is notable and controversial? Thirdly, is the link apt since it conflates Islamism and Islam? Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, lede should say "Often critical of Islam", since he is. Cat is good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See here, for instance. The criticism goes well beyond Islamists to Islam in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I was reluctant to make that change myself, partly because of the use of the word 'often'. I agree totally that it 'whitewashes' him to simply describe him as critical of Islamism (who isn't when it results in schoolgirls being blown to smithereens?). I wondered if a more nuanced summary was possible - without becoming anodyne. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I was an expert on Murray, but his criticism of the roots of Islam is pretty clear. Although he agrees that not all Muslims are hostile, warlike, or terroristic, and that there are forms of Islam which are peaceful, his broad take appears to be that the religion as a whole is not a peaceful one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Many people would agree with him there. What is problem stating it? Murray is openly anti Islam. Actually that is why I think he is interesting. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Security in the Netherlands

I have translated the article to Dutch, so I was very interested in this quote from the English article: "His comments about Islamic extremism in the Netherlands mean that he has to have a police guard when travelling there."

It would be relevant for my translation, but I could not find a confirmation of this fact. Neither in the reference provided, nor when I tried to search for it on line. (In Dutch and in English.) If there is a reliable source that can confirm it, I would be eager to copy this, since it has to do with Douglas Murray in the country of the wikipedia I am translating to. For now I leave it out of the translation, and I added a request to give a reference. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it probable that it simply isn't true, or was temporary. Unless someone finds a ref, it should be deleted IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I translated the sentence to the Dutch article now too. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The same source has Murray saying "In October (2006), he wrote in The Guardian on the Iraq war: "For a conservative realist, the presence of all those jihadists in one place, with thousands of our troops there too, presents an opportunity to cut the number of terrorists a bit", but there is no mention of his support for the Iraq invasion in the article. I wonder if he stands by that analysis of the advantages of the invasion. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Original Gdn piece. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What connection is there with my original question?? AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

None.Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate

I've noticed that while Douglas Murray's page has had his birth date listed previously, it's no longer present here. I assume it was removed from his page as there wasn't a source to back it up. I can't seem to find a reliable source for his birth date either, although Google tells me it is 16 July 1979. Is anyone able to confirm this? Joelson98 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If it is not widely sourced then best to leave it out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've put it back in with a reference to IMDB, but I suspect IMDB's date might have originated from Wikipedia. Another source would be nice if anyone can find a good one. cagliost (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Add archive please

This talk page needs an archive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Journalist"

This guy is not a journalist. He's a columnist. He writes opinion editorials, he doesn't report, so it would mislead most readers who tie "journalism" to reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The guy is better known as an 'opinion piece' writer (commentator) than for 'news reporting'. However the term 'journalist' is flexible - sometimes covering anyone employed by journals/papers, so if RS use it thus, I don't see why we should not.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Page locked

I have locked the page for two days to stop the edit warring over the lead, which has been going on for days now. Use these two days to actually come to the talk page (as you keep telling other people to do) and lay out your justification for your edits: sources supporting your version, and evidence that what you want to say is also stated and supported in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• The conflict is over whether Murray should be described as "a critic of Islam", as the status quo version of the lede has it, or as a critic only of Islamic extremism -- or words to that effect.

A simple reading of the sourced information in the "Views" section will show that will Murray does indeed criticize "Islamic fascism", his animus extends past that to Muslims in general. "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board," he wrote. Unless one contends that a very high proportion of European Muslims are fanatics, that means that all Muslims, including the majority who simply want to better their lives should be punished, according to Murray. Murray was ask to step away from these views and refused to, and as a result was chuecked out of the Conservative Party.

Clearly, Murray anti-Islam views are not limited for extremeists or findamentalists or terrorists, he lumps all of Islam together into one and wishes to stop them from immigrating into Europe and the UK. That supports the current version of the lede, and not the alternate version offered bythe IP, which is essentially a whitewashing of Murray's views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I broadly speaking endorse BMK. Saying that Murray criticises Islamic extremism/terrorism/Islamism - whilst true - is almost as pointless and anodyne as saying Murray has two feet. Nearly everybody who has ever written a single word about such extremism (in Western media at least), condemns blowing up schoolgirls/ mowing down pedestrians/ flying planes into skyscrapers. Indiscriminate mass murder doesn't have many defenders! Murray is not even especially notable for writing about these events or ideologies. Murray IS notable - though not unique - for believing that such violent manifestations are intrinsic to Islam, that Islam is backward and is incompatible with western liberalism and that westerners should assert the liberal/judaeo- christian basis of western values more - in order to win the ideological argument with Islam. We should also not allow believers into Europe in the numbers we have previously done and should monitor what such people do and believe, according to Murray. The book title says much, even allowing for a degree of polemicism, "an alien culture is killing Europe while we sleep" amounts to criticism.

The question as to what extent Murray's views are legitimate, rational beliefs - or whether Murray is simply guilty of "gentrified xenophobia" is central to who he is and why/how he became well known. To gloss over that controversy would be whitewashing of what sources for and against him actually say. The present text appears both neutral and fairly accurate, though his criticism appears almost equally of the failure of European culture to respond to "the threat", as it is of Islam itself. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. Murray is a critic of Islam. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Murray his opinion is that a large part of Islam is extremist. The moderate part of Islam is not the main stream part. So the whole contrast 'moderate' versus 'extremist', is useless. And frankly, yes I agree with that. So also as a supporter of this views I do not mind calling him anti Islam. --AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually text is "a critic of ..." , rather than "anti-" Islam. Which is even milder. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Serious COI problems on this page

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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

New York Times Book Review

As this article currently stands, its section on The Strange Death of Europe describes Murray as claiming that Pegida and the EDL "had a point" and that Viktor Orban is a better sentinel of "European values" than George Soros. These claims are derived from a book review in the New York Times by Pankaj Mishra, and do not accord with my own understanding of Murray's views which I gleaned from consulting the primary text in question (his book). Whether Mishra's original review counts as libellous is one matter - the quotes that Mishra provides in his review do not appear in the book itself. This notwithstanding, these claims by Mishra are at best the products of what really is an opinion piece, not a piece of news reportage by the New York Times.

As in WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Mishra's claim, should it be part of the article, should be integrated into Mishra's other views that the book is a "handy digest of far-right clichés". John Mendelsund (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Murray: "At no stage did the local police or local government, the national police or government, consider that the EDL had a point." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Murray: "Soros said that it was his foundation which was seeking to ‘uphold European values’, while he accused Orbán of trying to ‘undermine those values’. Soros went on to say of Orbán: ‘His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.’ 2 The dialogue ceased before anyone could ask Soros how long those European values might last once Europe could be walked into by people from all over the world." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Needs Major Improvements

Hi all, I am inviting editors to overhaul this article, so it looks more like other articles about similar personalities. I looked around and found the following articles that can be models for what this article should/can look like. I especially focused on the Views sections of these articles, because it seems to me that is the section most in need of immediate clean up, which I am going to begin now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Political_views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro#Views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton#Philosophical_and_political_views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis#Views_and_influence_on_contemporary_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Views

Thank you, FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of self-published materials

@Snooganssnoogans:In a section called "Views" it is reasonable to allow quotes or paraphrases from the author's own work to back up the claim of what has been said. Please see the following articles for examples of that:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Views; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton#Philosophical_and_political_views; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Political_views.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What other Wikipedia articles do is irrelevant. There is a lot content in Wikipedia articles that violate Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I also believe you are incorrectly calling Murray's article in The Spectator "self-sourced." Murray wrote an article in The Spectator, a journal he does not publish. Quoting him from there is not WP:DUE since this is really what he believes; not a minority opinion given too much prominence. Also, it makes no sense to say that we cant use it as a source because the author of his own opinion might be "lying" about his opinion.(i.e. a person may lie about / misrepresnt his views)) How, exactly, does a person mis-represent his OWN views? If I want to know what Einstein thinks about relativity, I think the best place to find out his from something Einstein wrote about relativity. I am not saying that should be the only source, but it is a reliable, valid source. FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:I spoke to someone at the Teahhouse [[4]] and I am implementing his/her suggestion. Please do not revert. Thanks, FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's totally wrong to use primary sources in this context (regardless of what that user says). Editing in politics becomes dysfunctional if editors are sifting through primary source content, picking and choosing what to highlight, and what to ignore. This is why we use secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I think I understand you now. But now that you called me out for "warring" I am afraid to edit the page at all. Are you saying that if I find third party sources that express Murray's views, that would be OK to put on the page? And why aren't other people getting involved in this discussion? What is the best way to get editors here to improve the page in an acceptable way? Thanks.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)