Jump to content

Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Improve Article

[edit]

Given this is C-Class, going to see what I can do to improve it. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under no circumstances are over-the-top promotional claims like "Murray has devoted his career to seeking and spreading the truth and because of this, opinions on him are polarised." going to be appropriate to this or any other article. Focus on reliable, independent sources. Do not add WP:SYNTH and do not use flimsy sources to insert trivia, loaded wording, or editorializing. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hagiography, PR, or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that @Grayfell . But couldn't you have just deleted that line instead of everything else? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell so can i try again? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, this is regarding this block of edit, which I have reverted.
To your first question: I used that one line to highlight one of the issues, but it was not the only issue, nor even the only over-the-top line you added. Your additions included far too much editorializing and vague language based on flimsy and opinionated sources which were presented as bland facts. You also moved content which had consensus built over time in the lead, such as Murray's endorsement of far-right conspiracy theories, the body. This all adds up to look like whitewashing the article, but Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Your edits had made the article less neutral, not more. I'm sorry, but explaining every single issue here is simple not feasible right now.
I don't know what you mean by "try again". You do not have consensus for these changes, and would need to address a lot of different issues to gain consensus. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell Ok. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-right" and "Alt-right" labels

[edit]

In the Ideology section, the first line currently states:

Academic and journalistic sources have variously described Murray's ideology and political views as ... far-right, alt-right

Six sources are given for the "far-right" label and two are given for the "alt-right" label. However, only one of the six sources actually describes Murray himself as far-right, and neither of the sources describes Murray himself as alt-right:

  • Stewart 2020 (or at least, the part of it that is quoted; I cannot access the full paper as it is behind a paywall) characterises one of Murray's books as a remodelling of an idea that has a history of being used by the far-right, but stops short of describing Murray himself as far-right.
  • Lux & David Jordan 2019 states Murray's ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections. Thus, they are characterising his ideas as not being far-right, or at least not to the exclusion of other political descriptors
  • Busher, Joel (2013). "Grassroots activism in the English Defence League: Discourse and public (dis) order". In Taylor, Max; Holbrook, Donald (eds.). Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism. A&C Black. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-4411-4087-6. Retrieved 2 January 2021. says that the author has met EDL activists who admire Douglas Murray, which does not mean that Douglas Murray himself is far-right.
  • Kotch 2018 only says that Prager U is far-right, not Douglas Murray.
  • Hussain 2018 again never characterises Murray as far-right, and says that the far-right is obsessed with his book only in the WP:HEADLINE.

This leaves a single opinion piece from Middle East Eye which also accuses Murray of "shilling for Israel" -- in my opinion including the descriptor of "far-right" for Murray's own ideology based on this single article would not be WP:NPOV.

It would be useful to have information in the article about Murray's relationship to and/or views on the far-right and the alt-right, but we should not mischaracterise the sources as saying that Murray's own ideology is far-right or alt-right when they are making a more nuanced point.

Any thoughts about how this part of the article could be reworded to more accurately reflect the sources, or good sources actually describing Murray as far-right or alt-right, would be appreciated. TWM03 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ellipsis misrepresents the wording in the article:
Academic and journalistic sources have variously described Murray's ideology and political views as conservative,[60] neoconservative,[19][61][62] far-right,[63] alt-right[64][16] and Islamophobic.[12][13]
The article is not saying that Academic and journalistic sources have variously described Murray's ideology and political views as far-right and alt-right, it is including those ideologies as two of five examples, with sources.
The article also does not say that Murray is far-right as a person. Articles will, sometimes, say that, but this one doesn't. He is a pundit by trade, and ideas are his product. Sources have noted that he promotes far-right ideas. At no point is anyone stating or even implying that all of his ideas are far-right, nor that his ideas are exclusively far-right etc.. With this in mind, the sources seem sufficient for this purpose. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell My use of the ellipsis was not intended to be misrepresentative. You are right that these are only two out of five descriptors used, but I don't think that this changes the argument I was making.
I take your point about the distinction between having far-right ideas and being far-right as a person. Which of the eight sources do you think back up the current wording? All of them, or only some? TWM03 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play that game, but I will give one example, for convenience. Regarding the 2018 Hussain article, the author characterizes Murray's book as far-right multiple times, both directly and indirectly (emphasis added):
  • Like far-right American publications that maintain running lists of crimes specifically committed by black people and Latino immigrants, Murray collapses all these cases together to give the impression of one gigantic, rolling crisis.
  • ...But Murray's narrative of lawlessness is blinkered to the point of being propaganda. While European Union-wide statistics are not readily available, it’s worth noting that Germany, the country that took the most refugees during the peak of the crisis, reported its lowest national crime rate this year since 1992. Similar decreases have been recorded in Italy, one of the front-line states for those arriving from across the Mediterranean. Across the continent, the wave of refugees has already crested, without the breakdown of law and order claimed by far-right polemicists.
  • In retrospect, it’s not so surprising that Orbán decided to promote Murray’s book on his Facebook page this spring. Not only does the book reinforce the Hungarian demagogue’s own ethnonationalist worldview, but Murray also actually writes about Orbán favorably while criticizing his nemesis, the liberal financier and supporter of migrants, George Soros.
A few weeks ago, a Soros-linked university was driven out of Hungary, despite protests by thousands of liberal Hungarians against its closure. As the far right rears its head on the continent once again, leaders like Orbán are once again gaining strength, buttressed by the writings of ideologues like Murray. As the storm clouds gather, the rest of us can only fight to ensure that such people don’t succeed in dragging Europe down the same road of regret that it traveled just a few short generations ago.
A fair summary of this source would acknowledge that Hussain is characterizing Murray's book as a far-right work.
If you have an actionable suggestion, make it. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So nowhere in the cited source does Hussain explicitly describe Murray, his ideology or his book(s) as far-right. The above attempt to show that Hussain "indirectly" describes Murray's book as far-right looks like textbook WP:SYNTH: (combining) different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source (my emphasis). And it looks like a similar misuse of sources has occurred with Stewart (2020), Lux & David Jordan (2019), Busher (2013) and Kotch (2018). That leaves Ahmed (2015). I share TWM03's misgivings regarding the quality of this source, but it is probably good enough for the claim the article makes. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might work better to remove those two labels from the list, but to add another sentence, something like "He has been described as promoting far-right ideas and as providing emotional support to the alt-right." The connection to the right-wing fringe is clearly an important part of what makes Murray notable, but the ontological claim that he is far-right or alt-right is not the way the best sources describe this connection. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "Murray has been accused of promoting far right ideas" is probably the most neutral and fair wording. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. It does a better job of reflecting what is in the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. Does this just apply to the "Ideology" section or should we use this wording in the lead as well? We currently say he has been linked to far-right political ideologies and the promotion of far-right ideas; this seems unnecessarily vague. Either Newimpartial's or Hemiauchenia's proposed wording would be more accurate and informative. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with has been accused of, in either the lead or the section - "described as" is more faithful to the sources and more neutral, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

[edit]

@Hemiauchenia Regarding not believing that his profile has risen considerably since October 7, what is your data for this?? Because from May 1 2022 to October 1 2023, this article has 826,813 views and from 2 October 2023 to today it's had around 1.88 million views. Also if we look at the screenshot of google trends for a search of his name, we can see that there is far more consistent interest in him since October 7

Google search trends for douglas murray, last 5 years

MaskedSinger (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that Murray was already pretty well known prior to Oct 7 and had been so for over a decade at that point. It did raise his profile to a not inconsiderable degree, but the previous phrasing makes it seem like he was previously obscure when he really wasn't. Mentioning the rise in his profile after October 7 is due for the body but I don't really think it adds much to the lead. If it is to be included, it should be part of a paragraph that gives a summary of his career, and the mentions the rise in profile after October 7 at the end. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia ok great. would you like to take care of this? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia Thanks for that but why did you put Centre for Social Cohesion in the lede. Didn't think it had to be there. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
This is strictly a subjective impression, but Murray's profile may have broadened since October 7. Certainly in Europe, his views and style were already fairly well known among those who follow such matters. But where are the sources characterising his profile as having risen? Including that info based on Google search trends sounds like almost dictionary definition of WP:OR. The claim may well be true, but (again subjectively) there have been earlier spikes in his profile. Being a controversial pundit inevitably means that his prominence correlates with when his views are thrown into the spotlight by events. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's this @Pincrete
https://nationalpost.com/news/fierce-zionism-propels-douglas-murray-to-intellectual-superstardom MaskedSinger (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this @Pincrete
https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/how-douglas-murray-became-the-most-persuasive-pro-israel-voice-on-the-planet/2024/10/02/ MaskedSinger (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second is endorsing that he has become better known by a Jewish audience, the first is more general, but regardless, our text should be supported by refs and should reflect what they are saying. Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Ill add the reference. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was non-neutral in multiple ways, and the source is flimsy, to put it mildly. Yet again I would remind editors that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Places such as …

[edit]

The journalism section is largely dedicated to Murray's war reporting: "Murray has traveled around the world reporting on major conflicts from the front lines in places such as Iraq, North Korea, Northern Nigeria, Ukraine, and Israel. In November 2022, Murray spent a month in Ukraine. All of these, with the exception of Israel are sourced to Murray himself. Again, with the exception of Israel-Gaza, where his reporting itself has got more coverage from sources, he isn't known as a war correspondent AFAIK. Also, on a purely language perspective, what exactly are places like this motley list? Only Israel-Gaza and Ukraine would probably qualify as 'major conflicts' anyway. I would suggest his journalism may be broader, but also less dramatic than the present text suggests. Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

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

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

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

@Pincrete I hope you will discuss this before repeatedly reverting my edits again. I disagree strongly that the Scruton Affair does not deserve its own sub-section, as it was a very, very big news story in 2019 that involved members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and multiple publications. We can certainly argue over whether or not to call it the Scruton Affair (although that is the popular term for it), but please stop deleting it entirely.
Likewise, please stop deleting the information on his last book, which was an international bestseller and deserves more information on it than a couple of lines.
I am attempting to give a little balance to the article very fairly, and leaving in almost all criticism of the subject, although much of it smacks of a hit job over his political affiliation. I'm merely trying to add more than just the attacks on him, to make it more encyclopedic. I left discussion about it on your Talk page as well as here, but you didn't reply and simply reverted again. Please discuss, rather than automatically reverting repeatedly. Thank you. Wendisway (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to many of your points on my talk page, where you first commented. The WP:ONUS is on you to justify changes, not me to justify opposing them, and on a controversial article like this, making big changes in one go isn't going to work IMO. I deliberately included the info about his book being a bestseller. If, as you claim, the description alters the terms used in the cited source,regarding 'victimhood' obviously it should be corrected, apologies, I have to go now. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am justifying the changes and have been, but you keep reverting them without discussion anyway. Neither The Madness of Crowds or the cited review of it calls the four groups it covers 'victimhoods' - that is the biased wording of the Wikipedia editor who wrote that section. The review merely states that the groups 'prioritise victimhood'. I can add another source that is more specific about the chapter titles referring to the four groups (Gay, Women, Race, and Trans) if that helps, but the biased wording must be removed.
The Scruton Affair was a very major news story in 2019 involving multiple members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and a number of publications, and Murray's role in uncovering the New Statesman's dishonesty was at the very center of it. It should frankly have its own Wikipedia article, and undoubtedly only does not because it is about a conservative publication exposing dishonest claims made by a liberal one. But at the least, it should have its own sub-section on Murray's page.
By the way, just a few of the outlets and institutions which have referred to it in print as "The Scruton Affair" include (and please note that I have included both progressive and conservative sources as examples): The New Statesman [1], The Article [2] and The Institute of Race Relations [3]. As I said, I am okay with changing that section title if there's something else that you think is better suited to it. Wendisway (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am justifying the changes and have been, but you keep reverting them without discussion anyway, you may THINK you are justifying them, but it is up to others to find your reasons valid or otherwise. When your edits are challenged, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify them on talk. You write as though the onus is on other editors to justify to you their objections, which isn't helping your case. I immediately admitted error (in the article and on my part) about 'victimhoods'. You also didn't help your case by starting off by making a nonsense claim about the MEE review(er), nor by removing (for no apparent reason) a (fairly neutral) long-term stable comment on the book from WSJ, while ordering others to not remove sourced content, apparently it's OK to remove stable (very honourably) sourced content if you don't like it .
I don't have strong feelings either way about whether the 'Scruton' matter is best represented in a seperate section. It doesn't seem to me to justify it, but you obviously see it as some kind of major 'Gotcha' moment. (it may well have been, but bickering between competing commentators hardly seems encyclopaedic).
The distinction you make/made between 'migration' and 'mass migration' is fairly meaningless, as is the term 'mass migration' itself. When exactly does 'migration' become 'mass migration'? Perhaps another form of words could be found, but clearly Murray thinks that current levels of migration into Europe are excessive/destructive/socially and culturally suicidal, especially from 'alien' societies, cultures and religions. Anyway, we go with sources and they don't generally make that distinction.Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems absurd to me to say that there is no difference between 'migration' and 'mass migration' - the first one says that he opposes even a single immigrant coming to the West, while the second says that he opposes the current levels of millions of immigrants per year, which is what he actually said. That difference seems fairly obvious.
I don't think it's helpful for you to make assumptions about what I think; it's a fact that the misrepresentation of Scruton's words by the New Statesman was a huge news story and had major consequences; he was publicly denounced on the floor of Parliament and by the Prime Minister and fired from his government appointment. Murray's expose proved that the NS had manipulated his words to make them sound racist when they were not, and resulted in Scrtuon receiving apologies from Parliament and Downing Street and calls from major figures like Boris Johnson to reinstate him. The entire affair would have had its own Wikipedia article in 2019 if it had been a major left-wing figure who was publicly disgraced and fired when a conservative publication lied about them making racist statements and then refused to release the tapes.
I find it strange that you keep suggesting that I didn't justify my changes on Talk; I kept trying, and I still am. I will make smaller edits in future, since that seems to be a problem, but this article is negatively biased and it seems unlikely that is going to change to any substantial degree, given the commitment of so many editors to weight articles on conservative subjects with much more negative criticism from left-wing critics than is seen in articles about left-wing subjects. Wendisway (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who makes a habit of speculating about how WP would have covered the topic if it had been some other racial/political/whatever group as the target group isn't in a very strong position to say I don't think it's helpful for you to make assumptions about what I think. Physician heal thyself. Apart from being offensive, it wastes time and space.
I sympathise to an extent about wording on migration being imprecise, but the problem isn't resolved by introducing the word 'mass'. We all oppose mass migration, just as we all oppose excessive noise, rudeness, interference and lots-of-other-things, but none of these mean very much. What does excessive or 'mass' mean and how does one address real-world crises (such as the Syrian wars). Saying one opposes mass-migration doesn't address the reality of skimpy boats bobbing up and down in the Mediterranean/English Channel, the magic wand that voluntarily stops them coming hasn't yet been found. In the UK, British workers prepared to do menial jobs at rates offered by British firms are thin on the ground. Certain sectors of the economy have been built around cheap migrant labour. Being more specific would be specifying what levels/kinds of migration he actually supports or opposes, or somesuch, though of course he doesn't says what would be acceptable levels (controlled instead of mass? 100s, or 1,000s instead of millions?), nor how we 'stop the boats'.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who 'we all" are, but I can assure you that many people don't oppose mass migration at all. What you think of the word 'mass' seems far less important than that it is the word Douglas Murray has used when saying what he is opposed to, and which has been repeatedly omitted from his statements to suggest that he merely opposes "migration", which falsely suggests that he opposes all immigrants coming to the West. Your concerns about 'skimpy boats bobbing in the English Channel', the Syrian wars and 'cheap migrant labour' are certainly important poltiical issues, but with all due respect, they're irrelevant to this conversation. We aren't debating whether immigration is good or bad here; we are discussing accurately depicting the subject's beliefs in a biography of a living person.
I do wish you would stop speaking to me in such a condescending and rude way. It really isn't necessary. Wikipedia's liberal bias is well-known and has been heavily discussed for years (including by Wikipedia's own founder). It is very hard to make any article about conservative figures fair, as there are many editors who seek out left-wing sources in order to pack articles with criticism of them. This is helped by the fact that most conservative news sources are judged 'unreliable' while even gossipy tabloid left-wing sources are judged 'reliable'. It's a real issue. All I'm trying to do is get a little bit of balance into one article about a conservative subject. Wendisway (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the balance of WP editors go to great pains to remain neutral, there are exceptions on both sides of most arguments. But an editor who spends half his time 'rattling on' about anti-conservative bias (in generalised terms) isn't exactly aiding his own case, nor being very constructive.
In my whole life, mainly in the UK, I've never heard anyone say "I'm in favour of mass migration", even those who defend levels current at any particular time as virtuous or necessary for some reason, would not say such a thing. "Mass" migration justs means "too much" without ever saying how much is enough, or how we stop which groups from coming, (or cope with the economic consequences of an over-reliance on 'cheap foreign labour').
But that issue is academic, since our article doesn't say that Murray is opposed to ALL immigration, it says in the lead that "Murray is a critic of immigration", which is shorthand for "he thinks there is too much and of the wrong kind", which is a fair summary of his position. We could possibly be more specific there, but we cover a more complete analysis of his views later, mainly in the sections about the relevant books. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the addition of "current" in the lead was a helpful one, so thanks for that. For later on I think the use of "mass" is appropriate, but there might be better ways to nuance this. Murray isn't opposed to all immigration, but he does think that current policies lead to "too much" immigration and with too many immigrants of "the wrong kind". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

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

The general principle is that we record positions taken by Murray which are widely commented on by others, rather than ones WE think are important, as he is a professional commemtator and adopts positions weekly. So the short answer to your question is no, not at present.Pincrete (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1277019242"